On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the Voting Rights Act, as applied by U.S. courts since the 1980s, can no longer justify racial gerrymanders of U.S. citizens.

The Court affirmed the prior ruling of a three-judge panel from a district court in Louisiana. That panel had found that Louisiana racially stereotyped voters, including Philip Callais and other GGG clients, by drawing a bizarrely shaped racial gerrymander within a congressional district map. It also held that the Voting Rights Act did not excuse the state’s conduct.

GGG tried the case with partner Eddie Greim twice giving oral arguments to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The SCOTUS decision received extensive media coverage including articles with The Guardian, Reuters, Law360 and more. Please note, a subscription may be required to read some articles.

“Voters today won a restoration of their right to be treated equally and with dignity as individual citizens,” Greim told Law360. “That was the promise of our new country, of our Constitution, and of the 14th and 15th amendments.”

SCOTUS took jurisdiction of the case in 2024 and in March 2025 heard oral argument from Greim in defense of his clients’ win at trial. Opposing Greim and supporting the racial gerrymander were a group of voters represented by the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, and the State of Louisiana.

The Court sharply questioned Louisiana and the NAACP.

Two months later on the last day of the term, in an extremely rare move, the Court ordered re-briefing and re-argument of the case to reach a major constitutional question that has divided courts for decades: whether the Voting Rights Act, originally meant to remedy racial voting injuries, can be used by states to justify racial gerrymanders. For GGG’s clients, Greim answered, “no.” Greim presented his second oral argument in October 2025, and the State of Louisiana switched positions to support Callais and his fellow voters.

Commentators widely suggested post-argument that GGG’s clients would prevail, but the extent of the victory only became apparent as the decision was read aloud by Justice Samuel Alito in the Supreme Court courtroom Wednesday morning. It is now the law of the land that the Voting Rights Act cannot justify race-based districts unless those districts are necessary to remedy recent intentional racial discrimination in districting, and unless those districts satisfy all of the state’s other non-racial and political districting goals. As a result, a constellation of districts improperly drawn based on racial stereotypes may now be unwound as violations of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.

The consolidated cases are Louisiana v. Callais et al., and Robinson et al. v. Callais et al. In addition to Greim, the trial and appellate team included redistricting litigator Paul Hurd of Monroe, Louisiana, and GGG partner Matt Mueller and associate Katie Mitra.

Greim maintains an influential and respected national practice in free speech and election law. His prior experience includes numerous constitutional challenges to election and campaign finance laws, representation of clients in state and federal ethics and campaign finance enforcement actions and investigations, initiative petition drafting and litigation, and advice on campaign and election law compliance.