...
By Robert Alexander
Senior Crime & Court Reporter
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
When the Supreme Court hears Callais v. Landry, it will confront a question central to American democracy: how far states can go in using race to draw voting maps.
The Louisiana case, propelled by plaintiffs including one man who didn’t realize he was involved, could reshape the balance between the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution’s promise of equal protection.
Newsweek contacted the attorney who organized the suit, Paul Loy Hurd, for comment via email outside of normal office hours on Monday.
Read More on U.S.
Why It Matters
At the heart of Callais v. Landry lies more than a dispute over Louisiana’s congressional lines—it’s a test of how the United States balances race, representation, and constitutional principle.
The case, now before the Supreme Court, could redefine how far states may go in considering race when drawing political maps, a question that will shape voting power and congressional balance far beyond Louisiana.
Yet the lawsuit’s origins—including one plaintiff, Albert "Skip” Caissie Jr., who told reporters he hadn’t realized he was part of the case—highlight how these consequential legal battles often begin quietly, driven more by advocacy lawyers than by citizens who feel directly harmed.
...
What To Know
Caissie’s Story
When Albert "Skip” Caissie Jr. answered his phone at his home outside Baton Rouge, he did not realize he was speaking about a Supreme Court case that now bears his name.
"I wasn’t aware that I was involved in a Supreme Court case,” the 78-year-old said in an interview with The New York Times.
A retired grocery-sales worker and Coast Guard Reserve veteran, Caissie speculated that he might once have responded to "a direct mail piece” about challenging Louisiana’s congressional map.
Still, he said he supported the lawsuit’s purpose and hoped the long-debated need for majority-minority districts was "something in the past.”
"We’re supposed to respect everyone for who they are, no matter their color,” he added, pointing to President Donald Trump’s rising support among Black voters as evidence that "race did not determine political leanings.”
The Case Behind Caissie’s Name
Caissie is one of twelve Louisianans listed as plaintiffs in Callais v. Landry, the case now before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Their suit argues that the state legislature’s 2024 redistricting plan—Senate Bill 8, known as SB 8—constituted an unconstitutional racial gerrymander in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The twelve plaintiffs listed in the official complaint (Phillip Callais et al. v. Nancy Landry, Case No. 3:24-cv-00122, W.D. La.), besides Albert "Skip” Caissie Jr., are:
- Phillip "Bert” Callais—the lead plaintiff, a veteran and former local election supervisor near Baton Rouge.
- Lloyd Price—identified as a resident voter; limited additional public information.
- Bruce Odell—no biographical details provided.
- Elizabeth Ersoff—listed as a Louisiana resident; previously appeared in local political activities, per public records.
- Daniel (Danny) Weir Jr.—limited information available.
- Joyce LaCour—identified as a local resident voter, no testimony or media presence.
- Candy Carroll Peavy—known locally for political activism and participation in conservative groups.
- Tanya Whitney—a member of "Trumpettes USA,” mentioned in The New York Times report.
- Mike Johnson (not House Speaker)—identified in filings simply as a Louisiana voter.
- Grover Joseph Rees—a former U.S. ambassador and longtime conservative legal figure.
- Rolfe McCollister—a Baton Rouge businessman and publisher, formerly associated with Business Report magazine.
Their limited public presence and lack of courtroom participation emphasize how major constitutional test cases are often lawyer-driven rather than plaintiff-driven, a central theme highlighted by the court itself.
From Hays to the High Court
The case has already produced a detailed record in the lower courts.
In April 2024, a three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana concluded that "District 6 of SB 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause” and barred the state "from using SB 8 in any future elections.”
The panel found that legislators had "allowed race to predominate in the map’s creation,” echoing earlier federal decisions striking down similar "slash-shaped” districts in the 1993 Hays litigation.
That earlier line of cases—Hays v. Louisiana and its appeals—likewise struck down maps connecting Black-majority precincts from Shreveport to Baton Rouge.
The 2024 legislature revisited that approach when it enacted SB 8 in a special session convened to resolve a separate Voting Rights Act challenge brought by Black voters in Robinson v. Ardoin.
The new map created a second majority-Black district running roughly 250 miles along Interstate 49.
Within days of SB 8’s passage, Caissie and the other plaintiffs—described in filings as "non-African-American voters”—filed their suit.
Their attorney, Paul Loy Hurd of Monroe, Louisiana, has been involved in redistricting litigation for decades.
In testimony before state lawmakers on January 18, 2024, Hurd urged them to reject SB 8, calling it "a racial gerrymander” and telling legislators: "I have never represented anyone but voters. I believe in compact, contiguous districts for white, Black, [and] Asian voters that live together, work together, go to school together.”
None of the twelve plaintiffs testified during the three-day federal trial in April, according to the official transcript.
Court documents list their names but provide no personal details beyond the claim that each "suffered unlawful, intentional discrimination based on race.”
The limited public profile of the plaintiffs highlights how modern constitutional test cases are often organized by lawyers or advocacy groups seeking a particular ruling.
Similar strategies have guided landmark civil-rights and social-policy cases for decades, but the anonymity of the Callais plaintiffs stands out.
Phillip "Bert” Callais, the lead plaintiff, testified before Louisiana’s House and Governmental Affairs Committee during the 2024 redistricting session, acknowledging the state’s history of segregation but warned legislators that creating two majority-Black districts could amount to "another type of segregation based on race.”
The Supreme Court will now decide whether Louisiana’s effort to add a second majority-Black district—intended to comply with the Voting Rights Act—crossed the constitutional line by making race the dominant factor in drawing district boundaries.
The state and its Secretary of State, Nancy Landry, argue that the legislature acted lawfully in response to earlier federal orders requiring better representation for Black voters.
Back to Caissie
For Caissie, who said he had no idea he was part of the challenge until reporters contacted him, the principle remains simple. "We’re supposed to respect everyone for who they are,” he said.
Yet his unplanned role in a major case underscores a broader question about how ordinary citizens become symbolic litigants in disputes that may redefine the nation’s voting-rights landscape.
What People Are Saying
Cecillia Wang, national legal director at the ACLU, in the Supreme Court hearing March 24, 2025, said: "Today’s Supreme Court argument is about a fundamental building block of U.S. democracy: the guarantee that every citizen’s vote counts equally, regardless of race.”
Alanah Odoms, Executive Director of ACLU of Louisiana added: "The Supreme Court must affirm what we have long known in Louisiana: fairness is not a privilege; it is a right.”
What Happens Next
The Supreme Court will hear Callais v. Landry, a case that could redefine how race may be considered in drawing congressional maps. The justices will weigh whether Louisiana’s 2024 redistricting plan, which added a second majority-Black district, violates the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause or is justified under the Voting Rights Act.
Their decision—expected later this term—will determine if the state must redraw its map again and could set a national precedent on the limits of race-conscious redistricting, influencing voting power and representation far beyond Louisiana.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines