Document Type
Article
Abstract
Public law has long maintained a norm against nakedly partisan justifications: while officials may sometimes pursue partisan ends in office, they must justify their actions in court with reasons that do not roughly equal “this benefits my political party” or “this hurts the opposition.” This norm has operated across doctrinal fields, including public employment, administrative law, and election law. In the 2025-26 term, in Louisiana v. Callais, the U.S. Supreme Court abandoned the norm entirely in the redistricting context, treating a state’s pursuit of partisan advantage as a legitimate interest that can defeat a claim under the Voting Rights Act. This Essay argues that this move was not compelled by precedent but reflects the Court’s preference for how to limit the Voting Rights Act. It further argues that Callais is unlikely to bleed into other doctrinal areas, where the norm does not interfere with the Court’s broader agenda.
Recommended Citation
Jason Marisam, The Norm Against Nakedly Partisan Justifications and the Callais Exception, 18 ConLawNOW