On a pivotal Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court engaged in oral arguments for a consequential voting rights case that has the potential to either fortify or erode the core tenets of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. This law, instrumental for protecting Black voters from racial discrimination in the electoral process for six decades, finds itself at a critical juncture.
Leading the charge for Black voters was Janai Nelson, a seasoned civil rights attorney, who argued on behalf of the remaining vestiges of the Voting Rights Act in the case of Louisiana v. Callais. This was not only a landmark moment for the case but also a significant milestone in Nelson’s legal career, being her debut argument before the Supreme Court.
Nelson, who serves as the current president and director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, vast experience in civil rights law was central to her defense of the proposed establishment of a second majority-Black district in Louisiana. This district, often referred to as an “opportunity district,” is framed under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
Opposing counsel represented a coalition of white voters, along with the U.S. government and the state of Louisiana, arguing that the congressional map in question discriminates against white plaintiffs and is inherently a political issue. However, Nelson rebutted these claims by referencing Section 2’s language, which prohibits the “denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.” She emphasized that the need for a second majority-Black district arises from a long-standing history and ongoing patterns of racial discrimination against Black voters in Louisiana.
“We know that there is such a significant chasm between how Black and white voters vote in Louisiana,” Nelson asserted, underlining that while race and party affiliation might correlate, race remains the predominant factor in electoral dynamics.
The implications of Nelson’s argument could reshape the landscape of voting rights across the United States, with potential long-lasting effects on the electoral process. Reflecting on the weight of her duty, she expressed, “I wish we didn’t have to make this argument. Frankly, we shouldn’t have to make the argument, but I was honored to be able to, you know, carry forward the mantle of so many of my predecessors who have done the same thing in challenging this court and forcing this country to be its best self.”
An educated lawyer and academic
Janai Nelson has carved a reputation as a distinguished scholar within the realms of voting rights and election law. With her educational background that includes a bachelor’s degree from New York University and a juris doctorate from UCLA School of Law, Nelson’s academic prowess is notable. Her research delves into cutting-edge topics concerning election law, race, and democratic theory.
One significant contribution is her article for the NYU Law Review, titled “Parsing Partisanship: An Approach to Partisan Gerrymandering and Race.” This work explores how the Supreme Court could navigate claims involving both racial and partisan gerrymandering.
Nelson’s prior role as Associate Dean for Faculty Scholarship and Associate Director at the Ronald H. Brown Center for Civil Rights and Economic Development at St. John’s University School of Law highlights her commitment to education. Her courses on election law, voting rights, and racial equity strategies have enriched the academic landscape, and her guest lectures at law schools nationwide underscore her impact.
Before stepping into academia, Nelson had a transformative experience as a Fulbright Scholar at the Legal Resources Center in Accra, Ghana, where she examined issues surrounding the political disenfranchisement of individuals with criminal convictions and advancements in democracy within the country. Additionally, her legal career includes clerkships under U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Theodore McMillian and U.S. District Judge David H. Coar.
Legal Defense Fund and civil rights law veteran
Navigating through the complex landscape of civil rights law, Janai Nelson has dedicated years of her career to the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund (LDF), an organization of immense historical significance founded by former Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall in 1940. Her journey with the LDF began in 1995 when she externed there while still a law student at UCLA. This initial experience blossomed into a full-fledged career; by 1998, she was awarded the prestigious Fried Frank-LDF Fellowship.
After her fellowship, she joined LDF as Assistant Counsel, where she took charge of the Political Participation Group, managing voting rights and redistricting cases, alongside tackling issues of felony disenfranchisement and voter suppression. Her involvement in notable cases, such as Hayden v. Pataki, where she challenged felon disenfranchisement in New York, highlights her capacity for impactful legal advocacy.
Moreover, Nelson was part of the legal team representing African and Haitian-American voters in NAACP v. Hood, a critical class-action lawsuit stemming from the contested Bush v. Gore presidential election. Although Louisiana v. Callais marks her first oral argument before the Supreme Court, it is not her first encounter with the Court; she has previously acted as counsel in capital cases such as Banks v. Dretke.
Her journey took a brief hiatus in academia, but Nelson returned to LDF in 2014 as Associate Director-Counsel, during which she led several high-profile cases. These include successfully challenging Texas’s discriminatory voter ID law in Veasey v. Abbott (2018) and advocating against President Trump’s executive order prohibiting diversity, equity, and inclusion training in National Urban League, et al. v. Trump (2020). Her advocacy extends to cultural figures, notably representing journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones in a suit against the University of North Carolina Board of Regents related to her delayed tenure.
On the frontlines defending voting rights
As the Supreme Court deliberates on the outcome of Louisiana v. Callais, expected in the summer of 2026, Janai Nelson remains resilient and hopeful about the direction of the Court’s decision regarding Black and minority voters nationwide. “I hope we get a 9-0 vote in our favor. I think that law compels that. But we only need five [of the justices], and we’ll take whatever we get to preserve the Voting Rights Act,” she shared during her recent interview with Joy Reid.
Reflecting on the VRA’s historic signing by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965, Nelson remarked on the law’s portrayal as “one of the greatest achievements in the history of American freedom.” She emphasized that its significance transcends race and political affiliation, focusing instead on its role in fortifying American democracy.
Yet, she expressed disappointment at the arguments presented by opposing counsel, stating, “Unfortunately, the state of Louisiana, the lawyer for the plaintiffs, and also…the Department of Justice…didn’t seem to share that belief.” Nelson critiqued their claims as “quite contradictory,” asserting that they are “irreconcilable with current law” while appearing to navigate through “many different directions.”
She concluded her remarks with a prayerful hope that the justices would grasp the gravity of the situation, urging them to remain faithful to both their own case law and the higher principles they are called to uphold.