In a significant legal development, Black voters in Louisiana are urging the U.S. Supreme Court to review the recent decision by two Trump-appointed federal judges that blocked the state's new congressional map, which included two majority-Black districts. The appeal comes as a response to a lawsuit filed by "non-African American voters" challenging the newly enacted map.

The lawsuit stems from a long-standing battle for fair representation in Louisiana's congressional districts. Last year, the state was ordered to adopt a map with two majority-Black districts after it was found that the original map, which had only one such district, violated the Voting Rights Act. As a result, the state implemented a new map in January 2024, increasing the Black makeup of the 6th Congressional District from 23% to 54%.

However, non-African American voters quickly filed their own lawsuit, accusing the new map of being a racial gerrymander. They requested the court to block the use of the map for the upcoming 2024 elections, leading to a trial in early April. Yesterday, a federal three-judge panel, consisting of one Clinton and two Trump appointees, ruled 2-1 that the new districts were racially gerrymandered, striking down the state's congressional map.

The appeal to the Supreme Court argues that the federal panel failed to follow proper procedure by not seeking input from the Black voters who originally challenged the state's map. The NAACP Legal Defense Fund, alongside the Black voters, stresses the importance of considering their perspective in this case.

Former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder criticized the panel's decision, calling it "shameful" and stating that it jeopardizes the voting rights of Louisianians. Holder believes that this setback puts the right to vote in the state in a precarious position.

Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill, a Republican, has announced that the state will also seek the Supreme Court's review in order to address the pressing need for a fair congressional map. She argues that the current legal landscape has left no option but for federal judges to draw the maps, emphasizing the urgency to rectify the situation.

The potential review by the Supreme Court carries significant implications. Slate senior writer Mark Joseph Stern, who specializes in covering the courts and law, highlights the possibility of the judges arguing for the unconstitutionality of the Voting Rights Act. Stern views this as cynical and partisan gamesmanship that could potentially undermine the already weakened protection provided by the act.

Black voters in Louisiana have been fighting for equitable congressional representation for over two years. Despite voting in 2022 under an illegal map, their resilience has paved the way for progress. However, the recent decision to block the majority-Black districts has once again hindered their pursuit of fair representation. The outcome of the appeal to the Supreme Court will be crucial in determining the future of Louisiana's congressional map and ensuring the voting rights of its citizens.