Eleventh Circuit VACATES Leftist Judge’s Order Striking Down Georgia’s 2021 Maps — Sends Case Back Under Supreme Court’s New Callais Standard That Demands Proof of Intentional Discrimination

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals delivered a major setback Tuesday to the left-wing legal campaign targeting Georgia’s Republican-drawn election maps.

In an unpublished per curiam opinion, the three-judge panel vacated a federal district court judgment that permanently blocked Georgia from using its 2021 congressional, state Senate, and state House maps.

The case will now return to the lower court, where the challengers must attempt to prove their claims under the Supreme Court’s dramatically revised standard in Louisiana v. Callais.

The consolidated appeals are Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Inc. v. Secretary of State of Georgia, Pendergrass v. Secretary of State of Georgia, and Grant v. Secretary of State of Georgia.

The panel consisted of Judges Robin Rosenbaum, Barbara Lagoa, and Charles Wilson.

In October 2023, U.S. District Judge Steve Jones ruled that Georgia’s 2021 maps violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by allegedly diluting the voting power of black Georgians.

Jones ordered Georgia’s Republican-led legislature to create one additional majority-black congressional district, two additional majority-black state Senate districts, and five additional majority-black state House districts.

Georgia complied with the court’s order and enacted remedial maps in December 2023, but the state also appealed the underlying judgment.

Everything changed in April when the Supreme Court handed down its blockbuster 6-3 decision in Louisiana v. Callais.

As The Gateway Pundit previously reported, the Supreme Court struck down Louisiana’s newly created second majority-black congressional district as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.

The decision did not eliminate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Instead, the Court sharply limited the circumstances under which federal judges may force states to draw districts based on race.

The Eleventh Circuit said Callais significantly changed the legal landscape governing vote-dilution lawsuits.

“Perhaps most significantly,” the panel wrote, Callais held that Section 2 may compel race-based redistricting only “when the circumstances give rise to a strong inference that intentional discrimination occurred.”

This is a massive departure from the old system, under which liberal activist groups could demand new majority-minority districts based primarily on alleged discriminatory effects, even without proving intentional discrimination.

The court explained that plaintiffs must now rule out the possibility that ordinary political considerations, rather than race, explain how a district was drawn.

“If either politics or race could explain a district’s contours, the plaintiff has not cleared its bar,” the opinion stated.

That requirement could prove devastating to Democrat-aligned groups that have spent years portraying partisan redistricting decisions as racial discrimination.

Under the new Callais framework, partisan advantage is treated as a constitutionally permissible, race-neutral redistricting objective. Plaintiffs cannot simply point to election results, label them “racially polarized,” and demand that federal judges manufacture additional Democrat-friendly districts.

The Supreme Court’s revised test makes several critical changes:

• Plaintiffs cannot use race as a districting criterion when preparing their proposed alternative maps.
• Their proposed maps must respect all legitimate state redistricting objectives, including political goals and incumbent protection.
• Evidence concerning racially polarized voting must control for party affiliation.
• Courts must focus on evidence of present-day intentional racial discrimination—not decades-old allegations or generalized claims about “societal discrimination.”

The Eleventh Circuit determined that Judge Jones never had the opportunity to analyze Georgia’s maps under these stricter requirements because Callais was issued years after his original judgment.

The panel therefore rejected the plaintiffs’ request to preserve portions of the lower court’s ruling.

“By its nature, the Gingles analysis is fact-intensive, and those facts may take new shapes under the scrutiny of the new Gingles framework,” the judges wrote.

The court concluded:

“For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the judgment and remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with Callais.”

VACATED and REMANDED.

The decision represents another major domino falling after the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling.

In May, The Gateway Pundit reported that the Fifth Circuit unanimously vacated a lower-court order forcing Mississippi to redraw its state Supreme Court districts based on race. That case was also returned to the district court for reconsideration under Callais.

The Gateway Pundit also previously reported that Georgia Governor Brian Kemp called a special legislative session to consider new congressional and legislative maps after the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Georgia Republican leaders ultimately rejected Kemp’s proposal, pointing in part to ongoing litigation involving the state’s districts.

Tuesday’s ruling does not immediately establish new district lines or decide which maps will govern future Georgia elections. It also does not guarantee that Georgia will ultimately prevail when the case returns to Judge Jones.

But the lower court’s sweeping judgment against Georgia has now been wiped away, and the challengers must start again under a far more demanding test, one that no longer permits partisan politics to be casually repackaged as racial discrimination.

For Georgia Republicans, this is a significant legal victory.