SENATOR SLAMS SCOTUS: Compares Ruling to Terrorism!

A sitting United States senator compared a Supreme Court redistricting ruling to Reconstruction-era terrorism — and the court’s actual opinion says race can still be used in drawing maps.

Story Snapshot

The Supreme Court ruled in Callais v. Louisiana that the state’s newest congressional map was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.
Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) called it one of the worst decisions in Supreme Court history and compared it to post-Civil War racial terrorism against Black voters.
Justice Samuel Alito’s majority opinion explicitly preserved the right to consider race in redistricting — it raised the evidentiary bar for proving vote dilution, not a ban.
Republicans in Alabama moved quickly to redraw their congressional maps, citing the ruling as green-lighting maps that had previously been blocked.

What the Supreme Court Actually Decided in Callais v. Louisiana

The Supreme Court struck down Louisiana’s newest congressional map in Callais v. Louisiana, ruling it an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. ^[6] The majority opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito, did not eliminate race as a factor in redistricting. It tightened the evidentiary standard under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, requiring proof of intentional racial discrimination rather than merely a discriminatory effect. ^[2] That is a meaningful legal distinction that Booker’s public remarks glossed over entirely.

The ruling drew immediate and sharply divided reactions. Republicans framed it as a states’ rights victory and a correction to race-based map manipulation. Democrats warned it would dilute Black voting power and unravel decades of civil rights progress. ^[3] Both sides are working from the same text but reading entirely different documents — which tells you something about how politically loaded redistricting law has become.

Booker’s Reaction Was Theatrical, But Was It Accurate?

On NBC News’s Meet the Press, Booker said the ruling sent Black Americans “backwards in time, back to the 1870s and ’80s, where the South and Southern legislators, through terrorism, intimidation and worse were able to stop African Americans from having representation in Congress.” ^[2] He called it “one of the most wrongheaded decisions the Supreme Court has ever made” and said it “effectively undercut our democracy.” That is a remarkable claim for a ruling that still permits race-conscious mapmaking under the right circumstances.

The Los Angeles Times ran an opinion piece titled “Cory Booker Should Be Ashamed of Himself,” arguing his framing was historically reckless and politically motivated. ^[2] That verdict is hard to dispute on the merits. Comparing a judicial evidentiary standard to Reconstruction-era terrorism is not analysis — it is fundraising copy dressed up as constitutional scholarship. Booker is smart enough to know the difference, which makes the performance more troubling, not less.

The Structural Fight Behind the Headlines

This dispute is not new and it will not end here. Since majority-minority districts emerged as a redistricting tool in the 1980s and 1990s, courts have repeatedly wrestled with the tension between Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act — which prohibits minority vote dilution — and the equal protection clause, which forbids race from becoming the predominant basis for district design. ^[1] Those two legal commands can and do pull in opposite directions, and every time the Supreme Court adjusts the balance, both sides declare catastrophe or victory depending on which way the decision cuts.

Alabama Republicans moved swiftly after the ruling, pushing to pass a new congressional map in a special session and arguing the decision cleared the way for configurations that had previously been blocked by lower courts. ^[7] Whether that optimism is legally sound remains to be tested. But it illustrates exactly why redistricting fights are never really about maps — they are about which party controls which seats, and race is the legal lever both sides reach for when the math gets tight.

What the Emotional Reaction Reveals About Democratic Strategy

Booker’s near-tearful television appearance is worth examining not for its sincerity but for its strategy. Democrats have built a significant portion of their electoral coalition around the promise that they alone stand between Black voters and disenfranchisement. Every Supreme Court redistricting ruling that narrows race-based map drawing threatens that narrative, regardless of what the opinion actually says. ^[4] The emotional register is calibrated to mobilize, not to inform. Voters over 40 have seen this playbook enough times to recognize it on sight.

The honest read of Callais v. Louisiana is that it makes racial gerrymandering harder to justify in court — in either direction. Democrats who drew maps with race as the dominant factor lose a legal shield. So do Republicans who did the same thing. ^[6] A senator who genuinely opposed gerrymandering in all its forms would have acknowledged that. Booker’s exclusive focus on one side of that equation tells you where his priorities actually lie. ^[1]