The Supreme Court fast-tracked the finalization of its opinion in *Louisiana v. Callais*, invalidating Louisiana's congressional map. This decision aims to allow Louisiana to redraw the map for the 2026 elections, despite expected Republican gains. Justice Jackson dissented, criticizing the court's action and suggesting it favored one side in the redistricting battle. Justice Alito, joined by two other justices, countered Jackson's criticism, calling her rhetoric "insulting" and "irresponsible." The Court normally waits 32 days before finalizing an opinion, but accelerated the process because the losing party didn't intend to seek reconsideration. Challengers requested the expedited process to give the state more time if it needed to revise the map. Louisiana subsequently postponed its congressional primary, scheduled for May 16, which sparked further debate and controversy. Governor Landry argued using the invalidated map was unconstitutional and justified the postponement. Jackson's dissent highlighted the political undertones of the redistricting process and questioned the court's impartiality. Alito's concurring opinion defended the court's actions, arguing adherence to normal procedures could also be seen as partisan. Finally, Louisiana plans to hear public comments on a new map, while lawsuits challenge the primary's postponement.