I want to return to one possible outcome in Callais—holding that compliance with Section 2 isn’t a compelling state interest—that I’ve previously flagged but hasn’t gotten much attention. Here are some points about this resolution that could be attractive to some Justices:

• It’s a clean way to affirm the ruling below that Louisiana’s Sixth District is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. Strict scrutiny applies if the district was drawn for a racially predominant reason. Assuming it was so drawn, compliance with Section 2 is the only potential justification for the district. If compliance with Section 2 isn’t a compelling state interest, then the district necessarily fails strict scrutiny and is unlawful.

• It’s a ruling that requires no modification or reversal of any precedent. Over the years, the Court has repeatedly assumed that compliance with Section 2 is a compelling state interest. But the Court has never made any holding to this effect. So stare decisis is no obstacle to this path.

• It’s an approach explicitly endorsed by both the appellees and Louisiana. Per the appellees, “Section 2 compliance alone is never a sufficiently compelling interest” to uphold a district drawn for a racially predominant reason. Per Louisiana, “compliance with Section 2 cannot be a compelling interest.”

• It follows from Justice Kavanaugh’s desire for a temporal limit. For a time, the argument would go, Section 2 compliance was a compelling rationale for racially predominant redistricting. But that time has now passed. In light of current conditions, Section 2 compliance is no longer a weighty enough consideration to greenlight what would otherwise be unlawful racial gerrymandering.

• It would simplify the Court’s racial gerrymandering jurisprudence. In those cases, the operative question would become solely whether a challenged district was drawn for a racially predominant reason. If so, the district would be invalid. There would be no need for a subsequent strict scrutiny analysis (except in the unlikely event that a jurisdiction managed to identify some other compelling interest allegedly advanced by its districting choice).

• It would also simplify the Court’s Section 2 jurisprudence. It would now be clear that Section 2 can never require remedial districts whose design reflects racial predominance. It’s already apparent that, under the first Gingles precondition, plaintiffs may submit race-conscious but not racially-predominant maps. This rule would now extend to remedies as well, permitting them only if they avoid racial predominance.

• It would resolve the case without triggering legal or political earthquakes. Rewriting the Gingles framework for Section 2 claims—let alone striking down Section 2—would have massive implications for the Voting Rights Act, for constitutional law, and for racial and partisan representation across America. Holding that Section 2 compliance is no longer a compelling interest would certainly be a big deal, but it wouldn’t be so seismic a shift.