During oral arguments in the Supreme Court case Louisiana v. Callais, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson drew sharp attention by comparing black American voters to individuals with physical disabilities. The case centers on whether Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which mandates race-based remedies in redistricting, violates the Constitution’s 14th and 15th Amendments.
Justice Jackson invoked the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to argue that remedial policies don’t require discriminatory intent to be valid. “Congress passed the ADA against the backdrop of a world that was generally not accessible to people with disabilities,” she said. “That’s a way in which these processes are not equally open… they’re disabled.”
Her remarks appeared to frame black Americans as functionally “disabled” within the political process, sparking criticism for equating race with physical impairment. Jackson asserted that even if a state’s intent wasn’t discriminatory, race-based remedies should still apply if current systems result in unequal access to the ballot.
Attorney Edward Greim, representing the plaintiffs challenging Louisiana’s congressional map, pushed back strongly. He emphasized that remedies under the ADA don’t rely on racial stereotypes. “It’s not whether it relates to race,” Greim said. “It’s whether the remedy that relates to race involves stereotyping voters… and that’s the problem.”
The case stems from a challenge to Louisiana’s redrawn congressional map, which includes two majority-black districts. Plaintiffs argue the map is racially gerrymandered. Louisiana officials, including Governor Jeff Landry, maintain that federal courts are forcing states into racial quotas under the outdated 1986 Thornburg v. Gingles precedent.
Landry and Attorney General Liz Murrill have asked the Court to overturn that precedent, arguing that states are being placed in a legal bind—sued for both drawing and not drawing majority-minority districts. The case could redefine how race can be used in election maps and may signal a major shift in how Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is interpreted.
Justice Jackson’s comments added fuel to an already politically charged case, with many questioning the appropriateness of her analogy and what it suggests about how the left views racial identity in public policy.
