How the Supreme Court’s Ruling on Gerrymandering Reveals Its Disregard for Racial Justice

Supreme Court’s Latest Ruling Highlights Its Hypocrisy on Race, Says Legal Scholar

Columbia University and UCLA law professor Kimberlé Crenshaw has accused the U.S. Supreme Court of deliberate deception in its approach to racial justice, pointing to the recent Louisiana v. Callais decision on gerrymandering as the latest example. Crenshaw argues that the court’s six conservative justices fully understand the disproportionate impact partisan gerrymandering has on Black Americans—but are choosing to ignore it.

In a critique of the ruling, Crenshaw stated that it reflects a broader conservative strategy to undermine affirmative action, diversity initiatives, equity programs, and inclusion efforts across the country. She emphasized that the decision is part of a systematic effort to dismiss or deny the existence of systemic racism in American institutions.

Crenshaw’s Critique of the Supreme Court’s Racial Blindness

Crenshaw, a pioneering scholar in critical race theory and intersectionality, asserts that the Court’s conservative majority is not merely indifferent to racial disparities but is actively working to dismantle policies designed to address them. She contends that the justices’ rulings reveal a pattern of disingenuous reasoning, where racial harm is acknowledged in principle but dismissed in practice.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Louisiana v. Callais is not an oversight—it is a calculated move to erase the racial consequences of partisan gerrymandering while pretending to uphold neutrality. The Court knows exactly who is being harmed, yet it chooses to look the other way.

Intersectionality and Critical Race Theory in Her New Memoir

Crenshaw also discussed her recently published memoir, “Backtalker.” In the book, she traces the intellectual and legal evolution of critical race theory and intersectionality—concepts she helped develop—to explain their enduring relevance in today’s political climate. The memoir highlights how past and present controversies underscore the necessity of these frameworks in addressing systemic inequality.

The memoir serves as both a personal reflection and a scholarly intervention, offering insights into Crenshaw’s groundbreaking work and its continued significance amid ongoing debates about race, law, and justice in America.

Why This Ruling Matters for Racial Justice

Crenshaw’s analysis underscores the broader implications of the Supreme Court’s recent decisions, which she argues are eroding decades of progress in civil rights and racial equity. By rejecting policies that explicitly acknowledge race, the Court risks exacerbating disparities in representation, voting rights, and access to opportunity for marginalized communities.

• Gerrymandering and Racial Disenfranchisement: The Louisiana v. Callais case centers on redistricting maps that dilute the voting power of Black communities, a practice with deep historical roots in suppressing minority political influence.
• Conservative Legal Strategy: Crenshaw identifies a coordinated effort among conservative legal scholars and justices to dismantle race-conscious policies under the guise of colorblindness.
• Intersectionality as a Framework: Crenshaw’s work on intersectionality—examining how race, gender, class, and other identities intersect—remains a critical tool for understanding and addressing systemic inequities.

Where to Watch and Read More

Crenshaw’s full critique is featured in the latest episode of Right Now With Perry Bacon, available to watch on YouTube and Substack. A full transcript of the episode is also accessible for readers.