In a landmark case that could reshape American elections for decades, President Trump’s Department of Justice, through Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon and Solicitor General John Sauer, told the U.S. Supreme Court that race-based congressional districts must end once and for all.
The case, State of Louisiana v. Phillip Callais (and the related Press Robinson v. Phillip Callais), stems from Louisiana’s woke lawmakers caving to left-wing judges and creating a second “majority-minority” congressional district.
The brief was unambiguous: the Voting Rights Act (VRA) cannot be twisted into a tool for perpetual racial gerrymandering.
“Today at SCOTUS, the [DOJ Civil Rights Division] told the Justices that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act cannot constitutionally require race-predominant districting!” Dhillon wrote on X.
Today at SCOTUS, the @CivilRights told the Justices that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act cannot constitutionally require race-predominant districting! pic.twitter.com/6uWrzNs9Eq
— AAGHarmeetDhillon (@AAGDhillon) September 25, 2025
Straight from the pages of the DOJ’s filing: “Section 2 does not provide a compelling interest to draw districts where race predominates.”
The brief rips apart the outdated “Gingles framework” from the 1986 Thornburg v. Gingles case, which radical courts have twisted to force states into drawing these race-obsessed districts.
Sauer and company point out that lower courts have been “repeatedly” misinterpreting this to mandate racial gerrymanders, even when there’s ZERO evidence of actual discrimination.
“Lower courts have repeatedly interpreted this Court’s framework… to require States to draw district lines where race predominates over neutral districting principles as a remedy for perceived violations of Section 2’s “results” test,” the brief states.
And get this, they argue this turns the VRA into a tool that “decouple the statute from its function of smoking out voting practices and procedures that are likely intentionally discriminatory and would instead effectively compel racial gerrymanders. While that likely would have been unconstitutional even when the “results” test was enacted in 1982, its unconstitutionality is even clearer today. Current voting conditions cannot justify such excessive consideration of race.”
Democrats and activist judges have been using Section 2 of the VRA as a weapon to create “phantom statutory violations,” forcing states like Louisiana to violate the Constitution just to appease the race hustlers.
The DOJ calls for a major overhaul: Modify Gingles to align with the actual text of the law and avoid these “fatal constitutional problems.”
Here are the key takedowns:
- No More Race-First Districts Without Proof: Plaintiffs must prove their proposed majority-minority district is “superior” to the state’s map under race-neutral rules, including political goals. Otherwise, it’s just assuming racism where none exists.
- Decouple Race from Party: The brief slams how courts let Democrats hide behind “polarized voting” that’s really just partisan divides. “Plaintiffs must decouple party from race when determining whether majority and minority voters vote differently,” it states. No more using black voters’ loyalty to Democrats as an excuse for gerrymandering.
- Real Evidence of Discrimination Required: Echoing Shelby County v. Holder (which gutted outdated VRA provisions in 2013), the DOJ says current conditions don’t justify this nonsense. Voter turnout is sky-high, minorities are winning elections everywhere – including in Congress, where black representation is at record levels.
You can read the brief below: