Supreme Court Oral Exam

background cases in Louisiana v. Callais

Shelby County v. Holder (2013); Allen v. Milligan (2023); Rucho v. Common Cause (2019)

What Shelby County v. Holder did to the VRA

Constrained reach of the VRA by striking down section 4(b) - allowed states that used to be required to get clearance by the federal government to change voting laws without federal approval.

the enforcement mechanism Shelby County v. Holder eliminated

Section 4b’s coverage formula - eliminated preclearance, Roberts claimed it was not relevant anymore

who wrote Shelby County v. Holder decision

Roberts

What case is most closely related to Louisiana

Allen v. Mulligan (2023)

what the courts required Alabama to do (Allen v. Mulligan)

create a second majority-minority Black district

how Allen v. Mulligan is related to Louisiana

dealing with section 2 of the VRA; both governed by Gingles test; party and race correlation in Southern States; both are Southern states that have bad historical voting practices

Case that dealt with partisan gerrymandering

Rucho v. Common Cause (2019)

Courts position on partisan gerrymandering (rucho)

allows for partisan gerrymandering bc it is a political issue the court does not want to deal with - beyond Courts reach - Constitution does not provide enough of a legal standard

Why Rucho matters for Louisiana v. Common Cause

Louisiana has to determine if it is partisan gerrymandering (courts would not deal with it) or if it is racial gerrymandering (courts have to step in)

Central constitutional tension in Louisiana v. Callais - why it is difficult to resolve

14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause (prohibition of race-based discrimination) AND Section 2 of the VRA (requires making majority-minority districts to prevent racial vote dilution) — court needs to determine if LA was complying with VRA section 2 or if race was factoreid into district drawing, hence violating the 14th Amendment

Gingles Test

3 part legal standard to determine if redistricting plans or voting systems violate Section 2 of the VRA. Test insures that minority communities have equal opportunity to elect candidates

Part 1 of Gingles Test

Geographic Compactness and Size: a minority group is large and compact enough to constitute a majority in a single-member district

Part 2 of Gingles Test

Political Cohesion: the minority group must be politically cohesive, they tend to vote for the same candidates

Part 3 of Gingles Test

Majority Bloc Voting: the white majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to usually defear the minority preferred candidate - white votes are cancelling out the minorities

Louisiana Arguments

plaintiffs never present any evidence at trial showing they were personally harmed by District 6; federal courts in Robinson ordered them to draw a second majority-Black district or a judge would draw one for them; legislature has acted under judicial compulsion not racial motivation; incumbency protection was the predominant factor not race; politics drove the specific lines, and the legislature did not choose to sort by race

Trump Admin. Involvement in Louisiana v. Callais

Submitted a brief siding with Louisiana; not about supporting the VRA, but ensuring loyal republican candidates would be advantaged; direct political interest in preserving a congressional map that kept republican incumbents safe

Split for Louisiana v. Callais

6-3 conservatives and liberals - conservatives will want to ignore the racial aspect and focus on the partisan - liberals would be more concerned with the racial issues

who might write the opinion for Louisianan v. Callais

Roberts; he wrote all 3 opinions for the background cases

What triggers Strict Scrutiny

issues regarding rights, religion, national origin, or discreet and insular minorities

What does the government have to show - Strict Scrutiny

a law is narrowly tailored to manage a compelling state or government interest

How likely is a law to win under Strict Scrutiny

Unlikely - will probably fail - needs to be really good reason

What triggers Intermediate Scrutiny

laws regarding gender and content-neutral speech and commercial speech

How likely is a law to win under Intermediate Scrutiny

50/50 chance

What does the government have to show - Intermediate Scrutiny

the law is substantially related to an important state or government interest

why gender is intermediate

groups can rally together through political process and make change

Rational Basis

standard for review

What does the government have to show - Rational Basis

needs to be a decent reason to pass legislation - hands off stance by the Court on the economy and policy making

Why scrutiny matters for West Virginia v. BJP

questions about whether trans status could call for heightened scrutiny - difficult to agree on this because many do not agree on if this group is a recognized minority

what would change in analysis depending on what level of scrutiny is applied in West Virginia v. BJP

heightened scrutiny would probably strike down law, less scrutiny would likely uphold it.

Background cases for West Virginia v. BJP

Bostock v. Clayton County (2020); US v. Skrmetti (2025)

Bostock County holding

discrimination of sex violated the law of title VII (7) - unlawful for an employer to refuse hire or discharge of an individual because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin

Ruling for Bostock v. Clayton County

written by GORSUCH - (6-3) ruling in favor of Bostock

What the Plaintiffs invoke (West Virginia)

Bostock's reasoning does not apply to their argument. They claim this is a Title IX focused case since it does not regard the workplace, but rather sports and the biological differences. essentially workplace vs. education.

Why Bostock is important to West Virginia v. BJP

distinctions drawn by titles 7 and 9 as arguments to defend the claims. Title IX claims that distinctions based on sex and sports are recognized, and women must be protected. Title VII concerns the workplace where sex differences are irrelevant.

U.S. v. Skrmetti opinon and ruling

written by ROBERTS (6-3) affirmed Tennessee law that prohibited medical treatments for trans minors; they are not subject to heightened scrutiny under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment - satisfies rational basis review

Courts decision in Skrmetti

If a law neither burdens a fundamental right nor targets a suspect class, we will uphold the legislative classification so long as it bears a rational relation to some legitimate end — it applies to both sexes, it is not based on sex classification - SB1 does not exclude any individual from medical treatments based on trans status but removes one set of diagnoses from the range of treatable conditions

Level of scrutiny applied in Skrmetti

Rational basis review — claimed it was classified in age and medical use, neither of which are not heightened review. Bostock also not applicable here because changing a minors sex or trans status does not alter the application of SB1 — it should be left to the people and the democratic practice.

What does Skrmetti signal for West Virginia v. BJP

Before Skrmetti, the Court had not held that trans individuals were not a suspect class; this case does not raise that question bc SB1 does not classify based on trans status — in this case they recognize gender difference but do not recognize transgender as a group that is a minority and would BJP will not be considered with a higher scrutiny — did not answer the question about where trans status stands — in WV they emphasize that its law implicates fierce scientific and policy debates’ that elected legislators are best able to resolve

Classification WV West Virginia is making

Classifying between sex, NOT gender identity

level of scrutiny applied by WV

arguing for rational basis review

Why the law would pass on rational basis scrutiny

1. trans status is not marked by the same characteristics as race or sex

2. not definitely ascertainable at the moment of birth

3. The category of trans individuals is large diverse and amorphous, lacks sufficient discreteness to qualify as a suspect class

4. trans population has not faced a long history of de jure discrimination that is severe and pervasive like existing suspect classes

5. no evidence trans individuals have been excluded from political process

strongest WV argument

law draws permissible sex distinctions and treats similarly situated students equally — in other words, in Title IX, to be subjected to discrimination means the distinction or differential treatment is to someone’s detriment - BJP was able to play on a sports team, just not of the preferred sex — Title IX also deals with differences between male and female, NOT gender identity or medical treatments — WV looks to situate BJP with her bio identity and state that no discrimination is occurring becuause she is gaining the same treatment as her male counterparts

strongest response to WV argument (BJP argument)

permissible sex discrimination response (justification of privacy and safety - BJP’s mental health and physical wellbeing affected)

Similarly situated studied equally response (classification based on biology, but BJP transitioned at such a young age, she did not experience male puberty; therefore she is not dominating or winning on the womens team)

Title IX and Equal Protection (WV Perspective)

1. Title IX not obstructed by the law, bio distinctions are allowed to ensure equality — biological sex is looked at not identity — no biological male will compete in women’s sports, not discriminating identity

2. Equal Protection - males differ from women physically and athletically, schools make teams based on sex to preserve fairness. they uphold equal protection by treating biological boys and girls in the same manner; they argue rational basis becuase trans individuals are not recognized as a minority group

Title IX and Equal Protection (BJP Perspective)

1. Title IX — her exclusion is in violation of a person on the basis of sex; claims that they are treating her differently because of sex - since no co-ed teams exist the decison treats BJP in a discriminatory way and has an impact on her social and mental well-being

2. Equal Protection is violated. BJP argues it should be up for heightened scrutiny bc it is based on sex and trans status and if enacted it would actually be excluding trans girls from sports. by excluding trans girls who have no advantageous physical geatures does not allow equal athletic opportunity. WV finds no goals for this exclusion