Louisiana and Alabama have histories of discriminating against Black voters in drawing their congressional districts. This is not my speculation or what I've read in history books. I know this firsthand from cases that my law firm has litigated and won.

In late 2021 and early 2022, my law firm successfully sued both states for failing to create a second district in which Black voters could elect their candidate of choice.

But there is another aspect of these cases that should be raising alarms. You have no doubt heard the term shadow docket — or "interim docket" as conservatives call it. This is the mechanism the Court is supposed to use to handle emergencies that it cannot avoid.

The shadow docket has grown in scope and importance in a range of areas of the law. But none has been as important or as overlooked as the area of redistricting.

My law firm had sued Alabama over its illegal map in November 2021. Within a few months, we had secured a victory for our clients and the Black voters of Alabama. Unsurprisingly, Alabama went to the Supreme Court to block our victory in the 2022 election.

On Feb. 7, 2022, the Court put our victory on hold. According to Justices Kavanaugh and Alito, the emergency stay was necessary because of the "chaos" a new map would create for the upcoming primary elections. Those elections were still four and a half months away.

In June 2022, we won a similar victory for our clients and Black voters in Louisiana. As in Alabama, the result was that the state would be forced to have two Black opportunity districts for the first time.

Unlike Alabama, the primary was not until November. At the time, Louisiana had an unusual primary system where congressional primaries were held on what is elsewhere general election day.

Just as in the earlier case, Louisiana went to the Supreme Court for an emergency stay — claiming that "the sand in [the] electoral hourglass is rapidly sifting" for an election that was still more than four months away.

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court agreed with the state and blocked our victory.

The practical reality was grim. Despite two court decisions in their favor, Black voters in Alabama and Louisiana were denied their federal voting rights in elections held that fall.

Eventually, we won both cases, and in 2024, both states had two minority opportunity districts, and Black voters elected their preferred candidates in each of them.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court used a follow-on case in Louisiana to gut Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act — the very provision we had relied upon to secure our earlier victories.

The ink on that decision was barely dry before both states moved to capitalize on it. Republicans in both states have moved swiftly to redraw their maps to eliminate majority-Black districts — despite elections being only days away.

In Louisiana, where mail-in voting has begun, Gov. Jeff Landry declared a state of emergency to suspend those elections. In Alabama, Gov. Kay Ivey has called a special session of the legislature to change its maps. Voting there begins in little more than two weeks.

This weekend, litigants in both states are awaiting Supreme Court rulings about whether its own precedents demand or permit this result. This is no small matter.

At stake is not just the fate of the maps for 2026 in these two states.

The Supreme Court is facing a crisis of legitimacy. Having used the shadow docket to halt maps favorable to minority voters because elections were approaching, it would be indefensible for the Court to refuse to apply the same standard now — when voting has already begun in Louisiana and is days away in Alabama.

But, perhaps, that is why — over the objection of conservatives — the term shadow docket has stuck. It allows the Court to act without the accountability that sunlight provides. It allows democracy and equal treatment under the law to be sacrificed without the public scrutiny such actions deserve.

For now, I will hope and insist the Court does the right thing — even after it did the wrong thing last week. That may seem naïve or unrealistic. But I refuse to allow cynicism and low expectations to excuse the abuse of the justice system at the expense of minority voters and voting rights.

If the conservative justices dispense with the same standard they previously used to deny minority voters lawful maps, I have no intention of letting them act in the shadows and having this pass. I will do whatever I can to insist that such action be broadcast in the bright light of day for all to see.