On Wednesday, Graves Garrett Greim partner Eddie Greim again presented oral argument in the U.S. Supreme Court. The high court, in a rare order, asked all parties to present a second round of arguments to focus on a specific issue: whether states can continue to cite the Voting Rights Act as an excuse for racially gerrymandering majority-minority districts.

In answering, “No,” Greim was again defending his team’s trial win before a three-judge district court in Louisiana. That panel had found that Louisiana had racially stereotyped voters by drawing a bizarrely shaped racial gerrymander within a congressional district map, and that the Voting Rights Act did not excuse Louisiana’s conduct.

“If it was ever acceptable under our colorblind Constitution to (racially stereotype voters), it was never intended to continue indefinitely,” Greim told the court.

The latest proceedings have received extensive coverage in national media, with Greim quoted in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Law360 and more. Please note, a subscription may be required to access these articles.

Multiple analyses have hinted the decision could favor Greim’s positions. The Supreme Court has historically ordered reargument only when considering major rulings addressing fundamental constitutional principles or longstanding precedent.

Opposing Greim were a group of voters represented by the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, who argued that the Voting Rights Act did not necessarily compel racial gerrymanders and that Louisiana’s map should stand. The State of Louisiana, which had originally opposed Greim’s clients and fought to keep the racial gerrymander in place for the 2024 elections after Greim’s clients won in district court, switched sides after the Supreme Court ordered reargument. The United States, appearing before the Court as amicus curiae, argued that the Voting Rights Act could not be used to excuse racial gerrymanders, and that certain clarifications in the Court’s precedent were needed to stem abuses in lower courts.

The trial and appellate team included redistricting litigator Paul Hurd of Monroe, Louisiana, and Graves Garrett Greim associates Katie Mitra and Matthew Mueller. The consolidated cases are Louisiana v. Callais et al., and Robinson et al. v. Callais et al. Oral arguments can be found here.

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.