2026年5月4日 / 美国东部时间晚上10:36 / 哥伦比亚广播公司新闻
作者：乔·沃尔什
美国最高法院周一允许上周推翻路易斯安那州国会选区地图的标志性裁决即刻生效，与此同时共和党州官员正赶在今年选举前匆忙重新绘制选区地图——这引发了两名大法官之间的激烈交锋。
法院以6票赞成、3票反对的结果在“路易斯安那州诉卡莱”案中裁定，该州当前的美国众议院选区地图——目前包含两个由民主党人掌控的非裔占多数选区——违反宪法。路易斯安那州官员随即迅速暂停了本月的众议院初选，并着手制定新的选区地图。
最初挑战路易斯安那州选区地图的选民上周曾请求大法官缩短裁决宣布到最高法院书记员正式将裁决移交下级法院之间通常为32天的期限。他们写道，随着今年选举临近，“时间……至关重要”，并表示需要将案件交回地区法院，以便该法院能够“有序推进”修正路易斯安那州选区地图的工作。
周一，最高法院批准了这一请求，并称法院通常的32天等待期可由大法官“酌情调整”。
法院三名自由派大法官之一的凯坦吉·布朗·杰克逊抨击了周一的裁决，称其“毫无依据且不明智”，并暗示法院实际上批准了路易斯安那州取消初选并强行通过新选区地图的企图。她指出，关于暂停初选的法律纠纷仍在进行中，这是“卡莱案裁决引发的混乱”的一部分。
杰克逊表示，法院应当“置身事外”以“避免出现偏袒的表象”，并援引了法院在选举前传统上不愿做出变动的惯例。
“就这样，这些原则让位于权力，”她写道。
撰写卡莱案多数意见的塞缪尔·阿利托大法官在一份由保守派同事克拉伦斯·托马斯和尼尔·戈萨奇联署的协同意见中进行了强烈反驳。
阿利托称杰克逊对偏袒表象的担忧“毫无根据且极具侮辱性”，并辩称，如果法院任由“拖延战术”生效而保留路易斯安那州旧地图，反而可能造成偏袒的表象。他还表示，她所谓法院背弃原则的说法“毫无依据且极度不负责任”。
“法院违反了什么原则？”他写道。“是《第45.3条规则》的32天默认期限即使有充分理由也绝不应缩短这一原则？还是我们绝不应采取任何可能被无端批评为党派偏见的行动这一原则？”
阿利托辩称，杰克逊本质上是在呼吁路易斯安那州继续使用最高法院认定为违宪的国会选区地图。杰克逊否认了这一指控，并在脚注中回应称，她“更希望法院置身事外，而做到这一点的最佳方式就是坚持我们的默认程序”。
两名大法官之间的激烈交锋凸显了卡莱案裁决的高风险，其影响可能远超路易斯安那州。另外两个州——田纳西州和阿拉巴马州——也在最后时刻启动了选区重划工作，这可能导致民主党席位减少。
该裁决缩小了1965年《选举权法案》第2条的适用范围，该条款长期以来一直被用于指控国会选区地图存在种族歧视。
过去，南部各州经常需要绘制少数族裔占多数的选区，以遵守《选举权法案》，并摆脱其国会选区地图非法稀释少数族裔选票的指控。但在法院的多数意见中，阿利托写道，只有当存在“有力证据表明州故意划定选区以因种族因素削弱少数族裔选民的投票机会”时，选区地图才会违反《选举权法案》。
阿利托辩称，这一新标准符合《第2条》的文本，并反映了过去几十年的“重要进展”，包括非裔选民投票率大幅提升以及种族歧视性投票法律的废除。
在异议意见中，埃琳娜·卡根大法官写道，卡莱案裁决“摧毁”了《第2条》，使其“几乎沦为一纸空文”，并辩称，在州的选区绘制过程中证明存在故意的种族歧视“几乎不可能”。
“我持异议，因为法院的裁决将倒退国会为选举机会中的种族平等所确立的基本权利，”卡根写道，她的意见得到了杰克逊和索尼娅·索托马约尔大法官的联署。
https://www.cbsnews.com/video/supreme-court-strikes-down-louisianas-congressional-map-weakening-voting-rights-act/
Supreme Court lets Louisiana redistricting ruling take effect immediately, sparking angry words between Alito and Jackson
May 4, 2026 / 10:36 PM EDT / CBS News
By Joe Walsh
The Supreme Court on Monday allowed last week’s landmark decision striking down Louisiana’s congressional map to take effect immediately, as GOP state officials scramble to redraw the map before this year’s elections — drawing a sharp back-and-forth between two justices.
The court ruled 6-3 in Louisiana v. Callais that the state’s U.S. House map — which currently includes two majority-Black districts held by Democrats — is unconstitutional. Louisiana officials reacted by quickly suspending this month’s House primaries and moving to draw a new map.
The voters who initially challenged Louisiana’s map asked the justices last week to speed up the usual 32-day period between when a ruling is announced and when the Supreme Court clerk formally passes the decision down to a lower court. They wrote that “time is … of the essence” with this year’s elections approaching quickly, and said the issue needs to be returned to the district court so it can “oversee an orderly process” to fix Louisiana’s maps.
On Monday, the high court granted that request, writing that the court’s typical 32-day wait period is “subject to adjustment” by the justices.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, one of the court’s three liberals, assailed Monday’s decision, calling it “unwarranted and unwise” and suggesting the court had effectively greenlit Louisiana’s attempts to call off its primaries and push through a new map. She pointed to still-ongoing legal battles over the suspended primaries, part of the “chaos” wrought by the Callais ruling.
Jackson said the court should “stay on the sidelines” to “avoid the appearance of partiality,” citing the court’s traditional reluctance to make changes right before an election.
“And just like that, those principles give way to power,” she wrote.
Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the majority opinion in the Callais case, pushed back strongly in a concurrence joined by fellow conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch.
Alito called Jackson’s concerns about an appearance of bias “baseless and insulting,” and argued that, if anything, it could create an appearance of partiality if the court lets Louisiana’s old maps stand by “running out the clock.” He also said her suggestion that the court was abandoning its principles was “groundless and utterly irresponsible.”
“What principle has the Court violated?” he wrote. “The principle that Rule 45.3’s 32-day default period should never be shortened even when there is good reason to do so? The principle that we should never take any action that might unjustifiably be criticized as partisan?”
Alito argued that Jackson is essentially calling for Louisiana to be forced to use a congressional map that the Supreme Court had deemed unconstitutional. Jackson denied that charge, responding in a footnote that her “preference is for the Court to stay out of all this, and the best way to do that is to stick with our default procedures.”
The anger between the two justices highlights the high stakes of the Callais decision, which could have seismic impacts well beyond Louisiana. Two other states — Tennessee and Alabama — launched last-minute redistricting efforts that could result in fewer Democratic seats.
The decision narrowed Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which has long been used to challenge congressional maps as racially discriminatory.
In the past, southern states have frequently needed to draw majority-minority districts in order to comply with the Voting Rights Act and overcome allegations that their congressional maps illegally diluted minority votes. But in the court’s majority opinion, Alito wrote that maps only violate the Voting Rights Act when there is a “strong inference that the State intentionally drew its districts to afford minority voters less opportunity because of their race.”
That new standard, Alito argued, aligns with the text of Section 2 and reflects “important developments” over the last few decades, including much higher turnout by Black voters and the abolition of racially discriminatory voting laws.
In a dissent, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that the Callais ruling “eviscerates” Section 2 and renders it “all but dead-letter,” arguing that proving intentional racial discrimination in a state’s map-drawing process is “well-nigh impossible.”
“I dissent because the Court’s decision will set back the foundational right Congress granted of racial equality in electoral opportunity,” Kagan wrote, joined by Jackson and Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
https://www.cbsnews.com/video/supreme-court-strikes-down-louisianas-congressional-map-weakening-voting-rights-act/