Supreme Court lets Louisiana redistricting ruling take effect immediately, sparking angry words between Alito, Jackson

[mahatmakanejeeves]

Source: CBS News

Politics
Supreme Court lets Louisiana redistricting ruling take effect immediately, sparking angry words between Alito and Jackson

By Joe Walsh
May 4, 2026 / 10:36 PM EDT / CBS News

The Supreme Court on Monday allowed last week's landmark decision striking down Louisiana's congressional map to take effect immediately, as GOP state officials scramble to redraw the map before this year's elections -- drawing a sharp back-and-forth between two justices. ... The court ruled 6-3 in Louisiana v. Callais that the state's U.S. House map -- which currently includes two majority-Black districts held by Democrats -- is unconstitutional. Louisiana officials reacted by quickly suspending this month's House primaries and moving to draw a new map.

The voters who initially challenged Louisiana's map asked the justices last week to speed up the usual 32-day period between when a ruling is announced and when the Supreme Court clerk formally passes the decision down to a lower court. They wrote that "time is ... of the essence" with this year's elections approaching quickly, and said the issue needs to be returned to the district court so it can "oversee an orderly process" to fix Louisiana's maps. ... On Monday, the high court granted that request, writing that the court's typical 32-day wait period is "subject to adjustment" by the justices.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, one of the court's three liberals, assailed Monday's decision, calling it "unwarranted and unwise" and suggesting the court had effectively greenlit Louisiana's attempts to call off its primaries and push through a new map. She pointed to still-ongoing legal battles over the suspended primaries, part of the "chaos" wrought by the Callais ruling.

Jackson said the court should "stay on the sidelines" to "avoid the appearance of partiality," citing the court's traditional reluctance to make changes right before an election. ... "And just like that, those principles give way to power," she wrote. ... Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the majority opinion in the Callais case, pushed back strongly in a concurrence joined by fellow conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch.

{snip}

Read more: https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/supreme-court-louisiana-redistricting-ruling-take-effect-immediately-alito-jackson/

[mahatmakanejeeves]

1. Speaking of "merit," time for a pop quiz!

Reposted by Mini-War Hat
https://bsky.app/profile/kenwhite.bsky.social

Max Kennerly
‪@maxkennerly.bsky.social‬

Speaking of "merit," time for a pop quiz!

Who had the most experience arguing federal court appeals before becoming a federal appellate judge: Jackson, Kavanaugh, or Barrett?

(Answers: Jackson 12, Kavanaugh 4, Barrett 0.)

‪Bill‬
‪@bill-of-lefts.bsky.social‬
· 4h

They have created this entire mythology around Justice Jackson being stupid, where her stupidity is refusing to accept the ascendant conservative legal norms


10:27 PM · May 4, 2026

Speaking of "merit," time for a pop quiz!

Who had the most experience arguing federal court appeals before becoming a federal appellate judge: Jackson, Kavanaugh, or Barrett?

(Answers: Jackson 12, Kavanaugh 4, Barrett 0.)

— Max Kennerly (@maxkennerly.bsky.social) 2026-05-05T02:27:09.178Z

Bill
‪@bill-of-lefts.bsky.social‬

They have created this entire mythology around Justice Jackson being stupid, where her stupidity is refusing to accept the ascendant conservative legal norms


8:57 PM · May 4, 2026

They have created this entire mythology around Justice Jackson being stupid, where her stupidity is refusing to accept the ascendant conservative legal norms

— Bill (@bill-of-lefts.bsky.social) 2026-05-05T00:57:53.471Z

[wolfie001]

4. Scrolito and his wife are scum

[FBaggins]

5. That's an odd rebuttal

The rest of the court disagrees with her (including the two other liberal justices) and the comeback is that she argued more appelate cases as an attorney than two of them?

I think she only won one or two of those twelve… would that matter?

The issue here was straightforward. In the absence of a request for reconsideration (the reason SCOTUS rulings usually take a month to take effect) should the declared unconstitutional map stand for two more years anyway? That’s a tough legal argument to make.

[cloudythescribbler]

2. Justice Jackson is the best of the nine

not just on this issue, but on unions and other matters

in another universe, she would be in the middle of a really reasonable court, possibly as Chief Justice

the Court now is dominated by right wing hacks -- who shd always be called right wing and not "conservative"

[wolfie001]

3. The "Shit 6" carrying water for white christian nationalism

Putting their greasy hands on the scales of justice. christo-fascist pigs. All 6 of them.

[Shrek]

6. This decision was 8-1 n/t

[wolfie001]

7. Whoops! Details again

Of course I didn't delve into it. I'll need to look into it. Thanks. The "Shit 6" I will keep using though.

[Mysterian]

8. CBS News is a joke, describing three justices as "liberal"

The three justices are unbiased politically and the only honest judges on the Supreme Court.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

9. Deadline Legal Blog-Louisiana map order highlights splits within the court's GOP and Democratic wings

Justice Jackson was the lone dissenter, prompting a rebuke from Justices Alito, Thomas and Gorsuch in the voting rights litigation.

Link to tweet

https://www.ms.now/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/louisiana-map-order-supreme-court-jackson-alito

The Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling last week in Louisiana v. Callais provided a predictable snapshot of how the justices line up in some of the most crucial cases. The decision, which struck down the state’s congressional map for wrongly taking race into account, was a clean split between the GOP appointees — all of whom were in the majority, led by Justice Samuel Alito — and the Democratic appointees, led by Justice Elena Kagan. Her dissent doubled as an obituary for the Voting Rights Act, arguing that Callais marked the “latest chapter in the majority’s now-completed demolition” of that landmark law.

But a subsequent order in the case, entered on Monday night, spotlights a murkier divide. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson once again was the lone dissenter calling out the majority, prompting Alito to pen a pointed rebuke in turn.

While the Callais ruling itself is incredibly important for redistricting across the country going forward, the order that sparked their exchange is a procedural one whose practical significance remains to be seen. It sent the case back to the lower court it came from. Typically, that doesn’t happen until 32 days after the ruling. That standard lag time gives the losing party time to file a long-shot petition for rehearing. (It’s a long shot because granting such a petition would require the justices to consider reversing course on a ruling they just made.)...

In her dissent, Jackson accused her colleagues of having “spawned chaos in the State of Louisiana.”

She chided the majority for intervening rather than avoiding “the appearance of partiality” by applying the court’s normal rules. Noting that early primary voting was already underway, she recalled the court’s decision backing Texas’ map last year, in which the majority criticized a lower court for “improperly insert[ing] itself into an active primary campaign.” Jackson said the majority “unshackles itself” from “constraints today and dives into the fray. And just like that, those principles give way to power.” She called the court’s “abandon … unwarranted and unwise.”

That prompted a concurring opinion by Alito, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, that said the dissent “levels charges that cannot go unanswered.” He called it “groundless and utterly irresponsible” for Jackson to accuse the majority of exercising its power in an unprincipled way.

“What principle has the Court violated?” Alito wondered. “The principle that Rule 45.3’s 32-day default period should never be shortened even when there is good reason to do so? The principle that we should never take any action that might unjustifiably be criticized as partisan?” He concluded that Jackson’s claim that the court “unshackles itself” from “constraints” shows that it’s her “rhetoric that lacks restraint.”.....

Notably, they got yet another opportunity to weigh in. On Tuesday, the voters who opposed the fast-tracking returned to the justices, asking them to reverse the order they issued Monday. The voters noted that the court justified Monday’s order by saying they hadn’t “expressed any intent to ask this Court to reconsider its judgment.” But the voters pointed back to their opposition filing that said they wanted “the opportunity to consider seeking rehearing.” To eliminate any doubt, they said in their motion Tuesday that they wanted to request rehearing.

Again, the practical significance of Monday’s order was unclear to begin with in terms of its effect on the midterms in Louisiana, where separate litigation is playing out in response to the GOP governor’s attempt to suspend the primary after voting had already begun. ....

But Tuesday’s motion meant the justices weren’t free of the litigation just yet. Though they may be now, at least with this chapter of the litigation, because on Wednesday, they denied the voters’ request to reopen the matter – this time without comment from any of the justices.

Jackson's dissent was great and hurt Alito's feelings. Alito is a racist who bent the rules to allow Louisiana to change the electoral maps even after votes had been casted. Alito is a racist asshole