The Biden appointed judge dissents citing chaos in The Bayou State.
Collins did vote for her to sit on the bench.
JUSTICE JACKSON, dissenting.
The Court’s decision in these cases has spawned chaos in
the State of Louisiana.
Alito is having none of it. Thomas and Gorsuch concur.
The dissent in this suit levels charges that cannot go un-
answered. The dissent would require that the 2026 con-
gressional elections in Louisiana be held under a map that
has been held to be unconstitutional.* The dissent does not
claim that it is now too late for the state legislature or the
District Court to adopt a new map that complies with the
——————
*That constitutional question was argued and conferenced nearly
seven months ago.
Constitution. Nor does the dissent assert that it is not fea-
sible for the elections to be held under such a map. Instead,
the dissent offers two reasons for its proposed course of ac-
tion. One is trivial at best, and the other is baseless and
insulting.
The first is compliance with the 32-day default rule set
out in this Court’s Rule 45.3, but as the Court’s order ex-
plains, there is good reason to depart from the default rule
here. The principal reason for the 32-day default rule is to
give a losing party time to prepare a petition for rehearing.
But here, the Robinson appellees have not expressed an in-
tent to file such a petition, much less set out any ground on
which a petition might be based. And the need for prompt
action by this Court is clear. The date scheduled for the
beginning of early voting in the primary election has al-
ready passed. The congressional districting map enacted
by the legislature has been held to be unconstitutional, and
the general election will be held in just six months.
The second reason offered by the dissent is that we should
allow the 32-day period to run out in order to “avoid the
appearance of partiality.” Post, at 3 (opinion of JACKSON,
J.). But the dissent does not explain why its insistence on
unthinking compliance with Rule 45.3’s default rule does
not create the appearance of partiality (by running out the
clock) on behalf of those who may find it politically advan-
tageous to have the election occur under the unconstitu-
tional map.
The dissent goes on to claim that our decision represents
an unprincipled use of power. See post, at 4 (“And just like
that, those principles give way to power”). That is a ground-
less and utterly irresponsible charge. What principle has
the Court violated? 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? Cite as: 608 U. S. ____ (2026)
The dissent accuses the Court of “unshackl[ing]” itself
from “constraints.” Post, at 4. It is the dissent’s rhetoric
that lacks restraint.
RecentWTF is wrong with the lef... by Somewhere in Mn
WTF happened to the WTF h... by Reacher
Recruiting by Custard
Total Members: 142