Divided Argument

The Court’s latest Voting Rights Act decision, Louisiana v. Callais, narrows Section 2 in a way that could reshape redistricting, weaken majority-minority districts, and intensify the fight over how race and partisanship interact in elections. We unpack what the Court said, what it quietly overruled, and why the reasoning matters far beyond Louisiana.
We walk through the statutory text, the long-running collision between the Voting Rights Act and the Court’s racial gerrymandering cases, and the practical consequences for future election-law litigation. Along the way, we debate whether this is best understood as a textual decision, a constitutional avoidance move, or a major shift in how the Court treats political power and racial representation.
The conversation also covers the Court’s emergency procedural move after judgment, Justice Kagan’s forceful dissent, and the broader question of whether the decision is likely to help one party more than the other in the short run. The result is a sharp, candid look at one of the term’s most consequential rulings
Key Topics
[00:00:20] - Introduction to the episode and SCOTUS Blog partnership update
[00:03:06] - Brief Supreme Court news: mifepristone litigation and shadow-docket timing
[00:05:20] - Louisiana v. Callais and why the case is a major Voting Rights Act decision
[00:11:35] - Voting Rights Act history: Section 2, Section 5, and Shelby County
[00:13:39] - The collision course between racial gerrymandering doctrine and Section 2
[00:16:17] - Allen v. Milligan and how the Court shifted course
[00:21:21] - Procedural background of the Louisiana map challenge
[00:23:02] - Is the decision constitutional, statutory, or both?
[00:24:28] - Section 2’s text and the 1982 amendments
[00:29:14] - The Court’s reading of “less opportunity” and the role of partisanship
[00:41:46] - How the majority treats Allen v. Milligan and prior precedent
[00:43:06] - Constitutional avoidance and the Section 5 enforcement-power question
[00:46:28] - The Court’s “updated” Gingles framework and why that matters
[00:52:29] - Likely effects on majority-minority districts and partisan gerrymandering
[00:54:25] - Justice Kagan’s dissent and the Court’s broader democracy critique
[00:56:04] - The post-judgment timing dispute and Justice Jackson’s separate dissent
[00:58:55] - Final assessment of the decision and its likely consequences
Relevant Links
Rick Pildes's post on the decision: https://democracyproject.org/posts/supreme-court%E2%80%99s-gutting-of-voting-provision-was-long-time-coming
Travis Crum Amicus Brief: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-109/373625/20250903201226237_2025.09.03%20Callais%20Crum%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf

A deep dive into the latest Supreme Court news, a couple of unusual shadow docket rulings, and a cross-ideological merits decision that raises classic questions about federal power, preemption, and how much weight lower courts should give to context.
We open with reporting on leaked internal Supreme Court memoranda related to the 2016 stay of the Clean Power Plan, including what the documents may reveal, why the leak itself is so unusual, and whether timing and incomplete records change the story. We also discuss Justice Sotomayor’s public apology after comments about Justice Kavanaugh, and what that moment says about judicial professionalism and public exchange.
From there, we turn to some shadow docket happenings: a one-line summary reversal in a Texas redistricting case and a Fourth Amendment summary reversal out of the D.C. courts. Finally, we move to the merits docket and consider Hencely v. Fluor Corporation (24-924), a case involving federal contractor preemption and a terrorist attack in Afghanistan, where the Court narrows a (possibly infamous) Scalia opinion.
Key Topics
[00:05:32] - NYT leak of Supreme Court memoranda on the Clean Power Plan stay
[00:10:13] - Whether document leaks are better than source-based leaks
[00:21:30] - Justice Sotomayor’s remarks about Justice Kavanaugh and her apology
[00:27:27] - Summary reversal in Abbott v. LULAC and Texas redistricting
[00:35:18] - D.C. Fourth Amendment summary reversal and reasonable suspicion
[00:47:04] - Hencely v. Fluor Corp.: military contractor liability and preemption
[00:52:48] - Little v. Barreme, general law, and the limits of contractor immunity

We recap and reflect on the oral arguments in Trump v. Barbara (the birthright citizenship case) and then analyze the Court's recent decision in Chiles v. Salazar, about the First Amendment limits on Colorado's conversion therapy ban. We also confront the taboo question: Are judicial opinions too long?

We're live at WashU Law's Admitted Students Day! After catching up on some shadow docket activity, we dig into Olivier v. City of Brandon, the Court's unanimous March 2026 decision by Justice Kagan. A Mississippi street preacher pleads no-contest to violating an amphitheater protest-zone ordinance, pays his $304 fine, then sues under §1983 to stop future enforcement — and the Fifth Circuit says the puzzling Heck v. Humphrey rule bars the whole thing. We work through why Heck is stranger than it first appears, what the Court got right in resolving the circuit split, and what the decision reveals about the ongoing mess at the intersection of §1983 and habeas.

We announce an exciting new partnership with SCOTUSblog and introduce the show to new listeners. We then return to the mysterious origins of the Chief Justice's "no, no, a thousand times no," debate the Court's new policy designed to maintain secrecy, and then take a close look at Galette v. New Jersey Transit Corporation, a sovereign immunity decision in which the Court may, or may not, have paid attention to Will's amicus brief.