Far-left Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor was embarrassed by someone who actually understood the Constitution and the rule of law during oral arguments on a case with massive political ramifications.
The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on Wednesday regarding Louisiana v. Callais, which concerns a key provision of the Voting Rights Act (Section 2) that is used to force states to unconstitutionally draw districts favorable to minority voters.
Back in 2024, Louisiana was forced to draw a Black-majority district to satisfy the VRA’s Section 2. This followed multiple court losses, including at the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Unsurprisingly, the new district elected a Democrat.
The plaintiffs in Louisiana v. Callais,, which include the Trump Department of Justice, point out that a Black-majority congressional district in Louisiana was drawn unconstitutionally based on race and does not follow the traditional standards for drawing a district, including compactness.
Sotomayor, of course, sees this simple logic differently. During oral arguments, she whipped out the race card to justify the continued use of reverse racism in congressional redistricting.
She outrageously claimed to DOJ Principal Deputy Solicitor General Hashim Mooppan, one of the plaintiff’s lawyers, that white Republicans and Democrats won’t vote for blacks, thus they need districts of their own.
Mooppan completely nuked Sotomayor’s silly statement. He pointed out that Black Democrats getting districts of their own is the textbook definition of “race subordinating traditional principles.”
If the Democrats were white, we all know this would not be the case.
LISTEN:
Principal Deputy Solicitor General Hashim Mooppan just completely silenced Sotomayor’s argument for Louisiana’s second black majority district:
“If these were white Democrats, there’s no reason to think they would have a second district. What is happening here is their argument… pic.twitter.com/31euJJAj3N
— Greg Price (@greg_price11) October 15, 2025
MOOPPAN: You could control for partisan effect.
There was racially polarized voting even within the Democratic Party. That’s where Section 2 matters.
SOTOMAYOR: You have proof of that here too…
MOOPPAN: No, what you have here is that Republicans and Democrats are different.
SOTOMAYOR: Even white Republicans and white Democrats who won’t vote for Black candidates.
MOOPPAN: If these were white Democrats, there’s no reason to think they would have a second district. What is happening here is that their argument is because these Democrats happen to be black, they get a second district.
If they were all white, we all agree they wouldn’t. That is literally the definition of race subordinating traditional principles.
While Louisiana v. Callais concerns the Pelican State’s racially gerrymandered congressional map, a ruling for the plaintiffs would redound to the GOP’s benefit.
For example, over a dozen House VRA-protected seats in the South would suddenly become endangered. State Republicans from Louisiana to Georgia would use the ruling to draw conservative-friendly seats to ensure the House remains under GOP control.
It is unclear, however, whether the ruling would go into effect before the 2026 midterms.
Read the full article here