It was a wild Wednesday at the Supreme Court (at least for reporters). Keep reading to understand why.
Note: After we sent yesterday’s newsletter, the Supreme Court moved U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops v. O’Connell off the conference list for May 1. It will be considered by the justices on a later date.
At the Court
On Wednesday, the court released its opinions in Louisiana v. Callais and First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Davenport. In Callais, a 6-3 court held that Louisiana’s map creating a second majority-black district was “an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.” In First Choice, a unanimous court held that a religious nonprofit organization could challenge a subpoena demanding the identities of its financial supporters in federal court.
Later on Wednesday, the “non-African American” voters who challenged Louisiana’s map asked the court on its interim docket to send the Callais decision to the lower court immediately, rather than waiting 32 days, as is typical. By sending it right away, the decision would become final sooner and leave open the possibility that Louisiana could adopt a new map before the 2026 elections. The responses to the voters’ request are due today by 4 p.m. EDT, suggesting that the court could act quickly.
Also on Wednesday, the justices heard argument in Mullin v. Doe, on the Trump administration’s effort to end Syrian and Haitian nationals’ participation in the Temporary Protected Status program, and Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc., a dispute between a manufacturer of medication and its generic substitute.
Tomorrow, the justices will meet in a private conference to discuss cases and vote on petitions for review. Orders from that conference are expected on Monday at 9:30 a.m. EDT.
Morning Reads
How the Supreme Court’s Voting Rights Ruling Could Affect the Midterms and Beyond
Nick Corasaniti, Emily Cochrane, and Tim Balk, The New York Times (paywalled)
The Supreme Court’s Wednesday ruling on the Voting Rights Act “could create a chaotic scramble among states that are considering drawing new congressional maps ahead of November,” according to The New York Times. “The court directly struck down Louisiana’s current map, but Gov. Jeff Landry, a Republican, gave no indication of any immediate actions in a statement. With a May 16 primary looming – and early voting set to begin this weekend – drawing new congressional boundaries would require a breakneck timetable and perhaps new election dates. Republicans in several other states pointed to the court’s ruling as a justification for redrawing maps – including in Florida, where state lawmakers approved a new map Wednesday creating up to four Republican-leaning seats.” Overall, according to the Times, the ruling “is likely to modestly improve Republicans’ fortunes ahead of the midterm elections, giving them a slight edge in the redistricting wars. ... And the ruling all but guarantees that the redistricting arms race will stretch into the 2028 election.”
Louisiana governor prepares to suspend House primaries after court ruling
Dan Merica and Patrick Marley, The Washington Post (paywalled)
Citing two anonymous sources, The Washington Post reported on Wednesday night that "Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry (R) told Republican House candidates Wednesday that he plans to suspend next month's primary elections so state lawmakers can pass a new congressional map first" in response to the Supreme Court's ruling. "Landry's announcement to suspend the May 16 primary could come as early as Friday -- one day before early voting is to begin, according to people familiar with his plans who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations."
As Supreme Court eyes temporary protected status, Congress pushes to extend Haiti deportation shield
Benjamin S. Weiss, Courthouse News Service
As the justices consider whether to allow the Trump administration to revoke temporary protected status from Haitian nationals, the Senate is weighing a measure that would extend the protections currently available to more than 350,000 Haitian migrants, according to Courthouse News Service. “Though the proposed TPS extension cleared the House with support from both parties, it’s unclear how the measure will fare in the Senate, where it will need 60 votes to advance.”
Six Conservative Justices Make King Charles Dinner Guest List
Seth Stern, Bloomberg Law
On Tuesday night, President Donald Trump hosted a state dinner for King Charles III, and the Supreme Court’s six Republican-appointed justices were on the guest list, along with their spouses. “None of the court’s three Democratic appointees were on the list,” according to Bloomberg Law. The article noted that the inclusion of all six of those justices was somewhat notable because “Trump has targeted some of the conservative justices in increasingly personal terms since the court struck down the bulk of his global tariffs.”
Next stop Supreme Court? Trump loses $83 million appeal in Carroll case
Aysha Bagchi, USA Today
On Wednesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit “refused Trump’s request to have all of its judges hear his appeal, after a panel of three of its judges heard the case and upheld the $83.3 million judgment” awarded to writer E. Jean Carroll in her defamation case against the president, according to USA Today. Carroll was also awarded $5 million in a separate case on her claim that “Trump sexually abused her in a 1990s incident in a department store,” and the Supreme Court will soon consider whether to hear argument on Trump’s appeal of that decision. The 2nd Circuit’s denial of en banc review “means Trump may now also take his appeal of the $83.3 million judgment to the Supreme Court.”
Appeals court rejects Trump’s no-bond immigration detentions, setting stage for Supreme Court review
Rebecca Boone, Associated Press
On Tuesday, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit held that “the Trump administration cannot jail immigrants without the chance to seek bond, citing ‘serious constitutional questions,’” according to the Associated Press. The decision “sets the stage for a possible U.S. Supreme Court appeal ... because panels on the 8th and 5th circuit courts have already upheld the policy put in place by President Donald Trump’s administration last July.” “Under the policy, the Department of Homeland Security has been denying bond hearings to immigrants arrested across the country, including those who have been in the U.S. for years without any criminal history. That’s a departure from the practice under previous administrations, when most noncitizens with no criminal record who were arrested away from the border were given the opportunity to request a bond hearing while their cases moved through immigration court.”
On Site
Opinion Analysis
In major Voting Rights Act case, Supreme Court strikes down redistricting map challenged as racially discriminatory
The Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down a Louisiana congressional map that a group of voters who describe themselves as “non-African American” had challenged as the product of unconstitutional racial gerrymandering. By a vote of 6-3, the justices left in place a ruling by a federal court that barred the state from using the map, which had created a second majority-Black district, in future elections.
Argument Analysis
Court considers whether Trump administration properly ended temporary protected status for Haitian and Syrian nationals
The Supreme Court on Wednesday was divided over the Trump administration’s efforts to strip citizens of Haiti and Syria of their protections under a federal program that allows foreign citizens to remain in the United States when the U.S. government believes that it is not safe for them to go home. After roughly one hour and 45 minutes of oral arguments, it was not clear whether a majority of the justices would allow the challengers’ claims to go forward, or whether the challengers would ultimately prevail if they did.
View from the Court
Racial considerations in voting rights and immigration policy on the last day of oral argument
In his View from the Court column, Mark Walsh described what it was like in the courtroom on Wednesday morning as the justices announced the highly anticipated decision in Louisiana v. Callais and then heard argument on whether the Trump administration acted properly in revoking temporary protected status for Haitian and Syrian nationals.
Relist Watch
Twinkies, tribunals, and tainted statements
In his Relist Watch column, John Elwood highlighted four newly relisted petitions for review, which address severely underfunded multiemployer pension plans, the free speech rights of immigration judges, and sequential confessions in a notorious cold case: the 1979 kidnapping and murder of 6-year-old Etan Patz.
Podcasts
Divided Argument
Even Eve-ier
Will Baude and Dan Epps 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.
Amarica's Constitution
Remember the Alamo Heights
Akhil Amar and Andy Lipka continue to trace the historical origins of the Constitution’s approach to religion in American government and American life, tying this history lesson to the current debate over Ten Commandments posters in classrooms. They then speak with Sarah Isgur about her new book, Last Branch Standing.
A Closer Look
Gutted, Limited, or Weakened?
As noted above, the court on Wednesday issued its ruling in one of the highest profile cases of the 2025-26 term: Louisiana v. Callais, on race-based discrimination and the Voting Rights Act. Amy’s opinion analysis highlighted the tension between what Justice Samuel Alito’s majority opinion said about Section 2 of the VRA, a key provision that prohibits discrimination in voting, and how Justice Elena Kagan described Section 2’s future in her dissent, which was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Specifically, the majority opinion did not strike down Section 2, but Kagan wrote that it had been rendered “all but a dead letter.”
That tension was also apparent in the range of headlines used for news stories about Wednesday’s ruling. Some outlets said that Section 2 had been “weakened” or “limited,” while others said it had been “gutted.” And some outlets, including SCOTUSblog, focused on what the decision means for Louisiana’s congressional map, not for Section 2. Here’s a representative sampling of headlines.
The Washington Post: Supreme Court limits key provision of the landmark Voting Rights Act
The New York Times: Supreme Court Strikes Down Louisiana Map, Another Blow to Voting Rights Act
Associated Press: Supreme Court weakens the Voting Rights Act and aids GOP efforts to control the House
Reuters: US Supreme Court guts key provision of Voting Rights Act
NBC News: Supreme Court sharply limits use of race in redistricting in a win for Republicans
Wall Street Journal: Supreme Court Curbs Protections for Minority Voters in Election Maps
The Washington Times: Supreme Court limits racial challenges under Voting Rights Act, hands GOP states new mapmaking power
USA Today: Supreme Court sides against Black voters in blow to landmark civil rights law
The Hill: Liberal Supreme Court justices say majority has ‘completed demolition’ of Voting Rights Act
Louisiana Illuminator: Supreme Court strikes down Louisiana congressional maps in case with national implications
Vox: The Voting Rights Act is all but dead. Prepare for maximum gerrymandering
Slate: The Supreme Court’s Conservatives Just Issued the Worst Ruling in a Century
SCOTUS Quote
“[B]ecause the Voting Rights Act did not require Louisiana to create an additional majority-minority district, no compelling interest justified the State’s use of race in creating SB8. That map is an unconstitutional gerrymander, and its use would violate the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.”
— Justice Samuel Alito in Louisiana v. Callais (2026)
“Only [Congress has] the right to say it is no longer needed—not the Members of this Court. I dissent, then, from this latest chapter in the majority’s now-completed demolition of the Voting Rights Act.”
— Justice Elena Kagan in Louisiana v. Callais (2026)