Louisiana v. Callais · ¶36

In Cooper, 581 U. S., at 301, we continued our “long”standing assumption that “complying with the VRA is a compelling interest.” Again, we did not need to resolve this question because a constitutional reading and application of the Act did not require the district at issue. Id., at 306. And again, in Wisconsin Legislature, we once more “assumed that complying with the [Voting Rights Act] is a compelling interest.” 595 U. S., at 401. But because the Wisconsin Supreme Court had not properly analyzed whether the Act required the map at issue, we remanded for the court to “undertake a full strict-scrutiny analysis.” Id., at 406. This was the legal framework in place when the lawsuits involving Louisiana's congressional districts were fled and litigated in the lower courts.

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.