Supreme Court rearguments are vanishingly rare—but when they happen, brace for impact. Legal scholars and court watchers know this pattern well: the Roberts Court doesn’t drop bombshells on the first pass. Instead, it takes a measured step back, then returns with a decision that reshapes American law.
This tactic—dubbed the “doctrine of one last chance” by Harvard law professor Richard M. Re—is now playing out in real time with Louisiana v. Callais, the high-stakes voting rights case reargued before the justices on October 15, 2025. The outcome could gut the last major pillar of the Voting Rights Act and flip congressional seats nationwide.
Why Supreme Court Rearguments Are a Red Flag for Legal Upheaval
Since Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. took the helm in 2005, the Court has used rearguments not as a procedural hiccup—but as a strategic pause before delivering landmark rulings.
“Rearguments are rare, and they can signal that the court is about to convert a routine case into a blockbuster,” notes a New York Times analysis of the current Louisiana redistricting dispute.
The playbook is consistent: the Court hears a case, senses the potential for sweeping change, then orders a second round of arguments—often with a new, broader legal question. That’s exactly what happened here.
The Citizens United Blueprint
The most famous modern example? Citizens United v. FEC in 2009.
Originally a narrow dispute about a documentary critical of Hillary Clinton, the case was reargued after the justices signaled they wanted to tackle a much bigger issue: whether corporations have the same free speech rights as individuals in campaign spending.
The result? A 5–4 decision that unleashed unlimited independent political spending—forever altering U.S. elections.
As Professor Re wrote in The Green Bag: “The Roberts Court initially ducked constitutional challenges to central pillars of major laws. But when those measures came before the Court a second time, they were struck down as unconstitutional—despite bipartisan support and decades of precedent.”
Recent Cases Where Reargument Led to Major Shifts
| Case | Initial Issue | After Reargument | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Citizens United (2009) | Documentary broadcast rules | Corporate campaign spending = free speech | Super PACs, dark money surge |
| Janus v. AFSCME (2018) | Public union fees | Struck down mandatory union dues | Devastated public-sector unions |
| Louisiana v. Callais (2025) | Racial gerrymandering claim | Is Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional? | Potential loss of majority-minority districts nationwide |
What’s Different This Time?
In Louisiana v. Callais, the shift is especially stark. During the first argument in March 2025, the case focused narrowly on whether Louisiana’s oddly shaped second majority-Black district violated the Equal Protection Clause.
But in August, the Court ordered reargument—and added a seismic new question: “Does the intentional creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violate the 14th or 15th Amendments?”
That reframing targets Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act itself—the very tool used for decades to ensure minority communities aren’t disenfranchised through gerrymandering.
Even more telling: Louisiana’s own officials, who once defended the map, have now switched sides—joining white plaintiffs and the Trump administration in calling Section 2 “unworkable and unconstitutional.”
Why This Matters Beyond Louisiana
If the Court rules against Section 2, the ripple effects would be immediate:
- At least 12 majority-minority districts across the South could be redrawn
- Black and Latino representation in Congress could plummet
- States could eliminate race as a factor in redistricting altogether
“Any decision that comes short of reaffirming precedent could shatter Americans’ faith in the judicial system,” warned former Attorney General Eric Holder.
Yet the Roberts Court has shown a pattern: test the waters, retreat, then strike decisively on the second pass.
The Countdown to June 2026
With reargument complete, all eyes turn to the Court’s final ruling—expected by June 2026. Legal historians say the signs are clear: when the Supreme Court orders a do-over, it’s not looking for a small fix. It’s preparing for a revolution.
