In 2024, the District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana held that Louisiana’s legislative maps diluted the voting strength of Black voters and therefore violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. On appeal, the State of Louisiana argues that the district court’s application of Section 2 to the legislative maps was unconstitutional because, in its view, Section 2 is no longer necessary to enforce the Fifteenth Amendment in Louisiana. CAC filed an amicus brief at the Fifth Circuit explaining that Louisiana’s arguments cannot be squared with the text and history of the Fifteenth Amendment and the Voting Rights Act.  Our brief made three main points.  

First, the Fifteenth Amendment gives Congress sweeping power to enforce the Amendment’s ban on racial discrimination in voting. The Fifteenth Amendment provides that “[t]he right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” To make the Fifteenth Amendment’s guarantee a reality, the Framers explicitly invested Congress with the “power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.” By adding this language to the Amendment, the Framers gave Congress sweeping authority to stamp out every conceivable attempt by states to deny or abridge the right to vote on account of race.  

Second, Congress constitutionally used its Fifteenth Amendment enforcement power to enact Section 2’s prohibition of vote dilution. After the enactment of the Fifteenth Amendment, gerrymanders were the paradigm of the dilution strategy in the South. In 1965, Congress passed the Voting Rights Act to rid the country of racial discrimination in voting. In 1982, Congress amended Section 2 of the VRA to clarify that electoral practices that produce discriminatory results—including diluting the voting strength of communities of color through redistricting—are prohibited, even in the absence of discriminatory intent. For decades, courts have applied Section 2 to districting maps using the framework the Supreme Court established in Thornburg v. Gingles. Section 2 and Gingles are well within Congress’s congressional authority to enforce the Fifteenth Amendment, as the Supreme Court reaffirmed in Allen v. Milligan.  

Finally, Section 2’s application to present circumstances does not exceed Congress’s Fifteenth Amendment power to prohibit redistricting maps that dilute Black voters’ electoral strength. Louisiana argues that Congress exceeded its Fifteenth Amendment enforcement power because Congress last amended Section 2 in 1982 and, in its view, Section 2 is no longer necessary today. This is wrong. Louisiana’s argument is irreconcilable with the text and history of the Fifteenth Amendment. The Fifteenth Amendment granted Congress, not courts, broad power to ban racial discrimination in voting, and courts cannot impose an expiration date on the legislation Congress decided was appropriate. Additionally, Louisiana’s insistence that Congress must continually justify the existence of statutes passed under the Fifteenth Amendment has no footing in Fifth Circuit or Supreme Court precedent.  

In August 2025, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that Louisiana’s legislative maps diluted the voting strength of Black voters. The court found “no clear error” in the district court’s Gingles analysis and, “[a]fter examining the totality of the circumstances,” determined that “Plaintiffs have carried their burden of showing a § 2 violation.” The court also rejected the State’s challenge to the constitutionality of § 2, citing “decades of binding precedent affirming Congress’s broad enforcement authority under the Fifteenth Amendment.”