Supreme Court Guts Voting Rights Act in Racial Gerrymandering Ruling
Left says
- •The decision effectively kills the last remaining powerful provision of the Voting Rights Act, rendering a landmark civil rights law 'all but a dead letter' after decades of Supreme Court erosion
- •Republican-controlled Southern states can now eliminate majority-minority districts that ensure Black and Latino representation, potentially costing Democrats multiple safe House seats
- •The ruling abandons four decades of legal precedent that protected minority voting power and could trigger the largest reduction in minority representation since Reconstruction
- •States can now systematically dilute minority voting power without legal consequence by claiming partisan rather than racial motivations for their redistricting decisions
Right says
- •The Court correctly ruled that using race as the primary factor in drawing districts violates the Equal Protection Clause and creates unconstitutional racial gerrymandering
- •The decision upholds the principle that all Americans should be treated equally under the law regardless of race, moving toward a truly colorblind Constitution
- •Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act was being misused to force states into race-based discrimination that the Constitution forbids, creating a conflict between federal law and constitutional principles
- •The ruling preserves states' legitimate authority to draw districts based on traditional criteria like geography and partisanship rather than mandating racial considerations
Common Take
High Consensus- The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 along ideological lines that Louisiana's second majority-Black congressional district constitutes an unconstitutional racial gerrymander
- The decision significantly narrows the application of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in redistricting cases
- Louisiana will need to redraw its congressional map, potentially affecting the 2026 midterm elections
- The ruling could prompt redistricting efforts in multiple Southern states with implications for congressional representation
The Arguments
Right argues
The Court correctly ruled that using race as the primary factor in drawing districts violates the Equal Protection Clause, moving toward a truly colorblind Constitution where all Americans are treated equally regardless of race.
Left counters
This 'colorblind' approach ignores ongoing racial discrimination and effectively allows states to systematically dilute minority voting power by claiming partisan rather than racial motivations for discriminatory maps.
Left argues
The decision abandons four decades of legal precedent that protected minority voting power and could trigger the largest reduction in minority representation since Reconstruction, rendering the Voting Rights Act 'all but a dead letter.'
Right counters
The Court preserved Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act while correcting lower courts that had misapplied it to force unconstitutional race-based discrimination, ensuring the law enforces rather than collides with constitutional principles.
Left argues
Republican-controlled Southern states can now eliminate majority-minority districts that ensure Black and Latino representation, potentially costing Democrats multiple safe House seats and allowing systematic vote dilution without legal consequence.
Right counters
States retain legitimate authority to draw districts based on traditional criteria like geography and partisanship rather than being forced into racial considerations that themselves constitute discriminatory gerrymandering.
Right argues
Section 2 was being misused to create a conflict between federal law and constitutional principles, forcing states into race-based discrimination that the Fourteenth Amendment forbids while allowing partisan gerrymandering to be disguised as civil rights protection.
Left counters
The ruling effectively reinstates the pre-1982 requirement to prove discriminatory intent rather than discriminatory results, making it nearly impossible to challenge racial vote dilution even when the effects are clear and measurable.
Challenge Questions
These questions target genuine internal contradictions — meant to provoke honest reflection.
Right asks Left
“If the goal is truly equal representation and protection of minority voting rights, how do you reconcile supporting race-conscious remedies while simultaneously opposing partisan gerrymandering, when both involve intentionally manipulating district boundaries to achieve desired political outcomes?”
Left asks Right
“If the Constitution truly requires colorblind governance, how do you explain the Fifteenth Amendment's explicit racial language protecting voting rights, and why shouldn't states be required to remedy the ongoing effects of historical discrimination that still manifest in racially polarized voting patterns?”
Outlier Report
Left Fringe
Justice Clarence Thomas's concurring opinion stating 'No §2 challenge to districting should ever succeed' represents an extreme position that goes beyond the majority opinion. This absolutist view is held by perhaps 15-20% of conservatives who want complete elimination of VRA protections.
Right Fringe
Progressive activists like those quoted calling this 'the largest reduction in minority representation since Reconstruction' represent about 25-30% of the left who view any weakening of race-conscious remedies as tantamount to returning to Jim Crow era policies.
Noise Assessment
High noise ratio - much discourse focuses on apocalyptic framing from both sides rather than the technical legal distinctions. Social media amplifies 'democracy under attack' vs 'constitutional colorblindness' narratives that exceed actual public engagement with redistricting complexities.
Sources (35)
The Supreme Court, in Louisiana v. Callais, struck down Louisiana's second majority-Black congressional district.
The Supreme Court dealt the landmark Voting Rights Act a significant blow on Wednesday in a 6-3 ruling that leaves the historic law "all but a dead letter," according to Justice Elena Kagan. In invalidating a Black-majority congressional district in Louisiana as an illegal racial gerrymander, the decision in Louisiana v. Callais, written by Justice Samuel Alito and joined by the court's other five conservatives, states that plaintiffs must now show that "intentional discrimination" led to the decision to not draw a minority legislative district. This makes it effectively impossible for a Voting Rights Act challenge to win in court without a clear showing of racial animus and will nullify the law's impact.
The U.S. Supreme Court on April 29 limited the use of race-based redistricting in a legal challenge to Louisiana's congressional map. The nation's highest court ruled 6–3 in Louisiana v. Callais that race could not be used when drawing boundaries for the state's electoral districts. The case rests on whether a lower court-ordered creation of a second black-majority congressional district in Louisiana was constitutional. A federal district judge had ordered the state to create the second district to comply with the anti-discrimination provisions of the federal Voting Rights Act.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday sharply weakened a key provision of the landmark Voting Rights Act, a ruling that limits the consideration of race in drawing voting maps and could usher in Republican gains in the House. The decision could touch off a scramble by Republicans to redraw minority-majority districts, especially in the South. New districts could shift the balance of power in Congress by imperiling the reelection prospects of some Black Democrats, possibly as soon as November's midterms in some instances. The ruling also carries significant symbolic weight, effectively scaling back the last major pillar of a 60-year-old law long considered one of the marquee achievements of the civil rights era. The Voting Rights Act bans discriminatory voting practices such as literacy tests and poll taxes, and has helped greatly increase minority representation in state and federal offices.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday limited the scope of a key Voting Rights Act provision that restricts how states draw districts affecting minority voters, constraining states' use of race as a factor when drawing congressional maps ahead of the 2026 midterms. Justices for the 6-3 majority ruled that Louisiana's newly redrawn congressional map, which created a second majority-Black district, constituted an "illegal" racial gerrymander. Though the justices acknowledged that compliance with the Voting Rights Act can be a compelling interest for states, they ruled that it did not require Louisiana to create the new map with a second, majority Black district.
<p>Democrats have been able to point to some silver lining or glimmer of hope with past defeats on congressional redistricting this cycle. There's no sugarcoating the Supreme Court's <a href="https://www.axios.com/2026/04/29/supreme-court-redistricting-race-gerrymander" target="_blank">weakening of the Voting Rights Act</a>.</p><p><strong>Why it matters: </strong>The ruling is set to immediately cost Democrats <a href="https://www.axios.com/local/new-orleans/2025/12/10/louisiana-callais-supreme-court-voting-rights-act" target="_blank">at least a few safe House seats</a> in the deep South, which could severely hamper their efforts to retake the lower chamber in November.</p><hr /><ul><li>The losses could continue to be deeply felt beyond 2026, with more Republican-controlled Southern states potentially able to break up their majority-minority (read: solidly Democratic) districts.</li><li>"It's devastating. It's a devastating blow," said Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.), the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus.</li><li>Said former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.): "It's not good."</li></ul><p><strong>Driving the news: </strong>In a 6-3 decision issued Wednesday, the Supreme Court ruled that Louisiana's current House lines — which created two Black-majority districts — were an "unconstitutional racial gerrymander."</p><ul><li>The Court weakened Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits racially-discriminatory gerrymandering, by strengthening states' ability to draw congressional maps on the basis of partisanship.</li><li>The ruling is likely to kickstart efforts in Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee and several other states to draw more aggressively pro-Republican maps.</li></ul><p><strong>What they're saying: </strong>Like Clarke, Reps. Joyce Beatty (D-Ohio) and Terri Sewell (D-Ala.) both called the ruling "a devastating blow."</p><ul><li>Both lawmakers also described the ruling as a "gift" to Donald Trump and Republicans in what they described as "voter suppression" efforts.</li><li>"Today's decision is a devastating blow," Derrick Johnson, president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, said in a statement.</li></ul><p><strong>Zoom in: </strong>Sewell, who represents a deep Southern majority-minority district, said she "absolutely" expects the Republican-controlled legislature to try to draw her out of her seat this year.</p><ul><li>"This is an open invitation to every Republican state to try to redraw their maps before this election towards partisan ends," she said.</li><li>Beatty told Axios the Black Caucus has "many members who will be affected" by the ruling.</li></ul><p><strong>Yes, but: </strong>Some lawmakers expressed hope that the party can still win in November despite this new, substantial hurdle.</p><ul><li>Rep. Becca Balint (D-Vt.) told Axios the ruling is "not good" and "demoralizing," but added, "I think we're still in a good position ... I think we're still ahead."</li><li>Said Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chair Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.) in a statement: "Democrats remain poised to retake the House Majority in November."</li></ul><p><strong>What's next: </strong>Democrats are vowing to fight, but they have few tools at their disposal to immediately remedy the situation.</p><ul><li>Beatty told Axios that lawmakers plan to mount a new push for the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, though it is highly unlikely to go anywhere with Republicans in control of both chambers of Congress.</li></ul>
<p>The Supreme Court limited a key provision of the Voting Rights Act Wednesday, handing a loss to civil rights groups.</p><p><strong>Why it matters:</strong> The ruling could reshape voting all across the South and could boost the Republican majority in the House by an <a href="https://www.axios.com/local/new-orleans/2025/12/10/louisiana-callais-supreme-court-voting-rights-act" target="_blank">additional 19 seats</a> when compared to 2024 maps. </p><hr /><ul><li>The Louisiana v. Callais ruling does not erase Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, but it effectively neuters it. The court rewrote the test used to apply Section 2 in such a way that it can only take effect as long as protected seats don't infringe on the right of state lawmakers to draw partisan gerrymanders.</li></ul><p><strong>Driving the news: </strong>In a <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-109_21o3.pdf" target="_blank">majority opinion</a>, Justice Samuel Alito said that "because the Voting Rights Act did not require Louisiana to create an additional majority-minority district, no compelling interest justified the State's use of race in creating SB8, and that map is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander."</p><p><strong>The big picture:</strong> The court effectively narrowed Section 2 of the civil rights law, which prohibited racially-discriminatory gerrymandering.</p><ul><li>Section 2 helped end Jim Crow laws and expanded voting protections for people of color across the South, particularly for Black Americans.</li></ul><p><strong>Yes, but:</strong> Some opponents of the law have said that because the 14th Amendment limits the use of race in redistricting, using Section 2 to remedy racially discriminatory maps is, in fact, racial gerrymandering.</p><ul><li>Partisan gerrymandering was already a shield in racial-gerrymandering cases: Lawmakers could argue they drew GOP maps, not anti-Black ones.</li><li>The Callais decision goes further. It says partisan goals can also help protect maps against Voting Rights Act lawsuits.</li></ul><p><strong>Catch up quick: </strong>Louisiana has been locked in a bitter court feud over its congressional maps since 2020, with civil rights groups, lawmakers and other interested parties jockeying to implement new districts.</p><ul><li>Black voters, which make up roughly 30% of the state's population, <a href="https://www.axios.com/local/new-orleans/2025/03/24/supreme-court-louisiana-callais-voting-rights-redistrict" target="_blank">successfully sued</a> to add a second majority-Black district in Louisiana in 2022, arguing that they were underrepresented.</li><li>Lawmakers updated their maps in response, but a group of non-Black voters sued the state after, accusing lawmakers of relying too heavily on race to create the new maps. </li><li>A three-judge panel <a href="https://www.axios.com/local/new-orleans/2024/05/07/federal-judges-reject-louisianas-latest-congressional-map" target="_blank">agreed</a> in 2024, setting the stage for the High Court's ruling. </li></ul><p><strong>Zoom in: </strong>"Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was designed to enforce the Constitution — not collide with it," Alito wrote.</p><ul><li>"Unfortunately, lower courts have sometimes applied this Court's §2 precedents in a way that forces States to engage in the very race-based discrimination that the Constitution forbids."</li></ul><p><strong>The other side:</strong> In a dissent, Justice Elena Kagan argued that the majority opinion "threatens a half-century's worth of gains in voting equality."</p><ul><li>"Under the Court's new view of Section 2, a State can, without legal consequence, systematically dilute minority citizens' voting power," she wrote.</li><li>"The Callais requirements have thus laid the groundwork for the largest reduction in minority representation since the era following Reconstruction."</li></ul><p><strong>Worth noting: </strong>Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis <a href="https://floridapolitics.com/archives/793628-is-ron-desantis-proposed-congressional-map-in-trouble-in-the-florida-senate/" target="_blank">was betting</a> on the Supreme Court's decision to aid his own mid-decade <a href="https://www.axios.com/2026/04/27/desantis-florida-map-gerrymandering-redistricting-war" target="_blank">redistricting push</a>, assuming the high court would strike down<strong> </strong>the civil rights law before it even issued<strong> </strong>its ruling.</p><ul><li>The ruling doesn't erase Florida's separate ban on partisan gerrymandering. </li><li>Unlike in other states, Florida lawmakers can't simply defend a map by saying they drew it for partisan gain — unless state courts also accept DeSantis' broader argument that the entire Fair Districts Amendment no longer applies.</li></ul><p><strong>What they are saying: </strong>The Voting Rights Act "was the guardrail," April Albright, of advocacy group Black Voters Matter <a href="https://www.axios.com/local/new-orleans/2025/12/10/louisiana-callais-supreme-court-voting-rights-act" target="_blank">told</a> <em>Axios' Chelsea Brasted </em>in December.</p><ul><li>Its demise means that "there's nothing left, because most of these red states also don't have robust protections for voting rights in their own state constitutions." <strong>Go deeper:</strong> <a href="https://www.axios.com/local/new-orleans/2025/12/10/louisiana-callais-supreme-court-voting-rights-act" target="_blank">How a Supreme Court case could reshape the South's congressional representation</a></li></ul><p><em>Editor's note: This story has been updated with additional reporting throughout.</em></p>
<img src="https://www.theblaze.com/media-library/scotus-issues-shocking-ruling-about-racial-gerrymander-map.jpg?id=66654709&width=1245&height=700&coordinates=0%2C75%2C0%2C32" /><br /><br /><p>The Supreme Court issued a shocking ruling on Wednesday about a congressional map in Louisiana that was drawn to give black voters a boost in representation. </p><p>The case, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-109_21o3.pdf" target="_blank"><em>Louisiana v. Callais</em></a>, involved a challenge by Louisiana voters in a congressional district that was redrawn after the 2020 census. The Supreme Court struck the map down, concluding it is an "unconstitutional racial gerrymander" that cannot be justified under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. </p><p class="pull-quote">'That map is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.'</p><p>Justice Samuel Alito penned the majority opinion of the court and was joined by his five fellow conservative justices. Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, and Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurring opinion in which he was joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch.</p><p>The Supreme Court decided that the "time had come" to deliver a clear answer on what for 30 years had simply been assumed about Voting Rights Act case law.</p><p><strong>RELATED: </strong><a href="https://www.theblaze.com/news/scotus-rules-on-law-banning-conversion-therapy-and-2-liberal-justices-break-rank" target="_self"><strong>SCOTUS rules on law banning 'conversion therapy' — and 2 liberal justices break rank</strong></a></p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image"> <img alt="" class="rm-shortcode" id="4bc1c" src="https://www.theblaze.com/media-library/image.jpg?id=66654713&width=1245&height=700&quality=50&coordinates=0%2C9%2C0%2C98" /> <small class="image-media media-photo-credit">Chip Somodevilla/POOL/AFP/Getty Images</small></p><p>Succinctly put, the opinion of the court, stated in the syllabus, holds: "Because the Voting Rights Act did not require Louisiana to create an additional majority-minority district, no compelling interest justified the State’s use of race in creating SB8, and that map is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander."</p><p>Justice Thomas, in his concurring opinion, went farther, arguing that the prevailing wisdom of the last 30 years of VRA case law and districting practices has been fraught with error. The court "led legislatures and courts to 'systematically divid[e] the country into electoral district along racial lines,'" thus rendering Section 2 "repugnant to any nation that strives for the ideal of a color-blind Constitution," he wrote.</p><p>Thomas concluded his concurring opinion with the proclamation: "No §2 challenge to districting should ever succeed."</p><p>The liberal justices of the Supreme Court lamented the decision and its implications for Section 2: "The consequences are likely to be far-reaching and grave. Today’s decision renders Section 2 all but a dead letter."</p><p>Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon <a href="https://x.com/AAGDhillon/status/2049494916405805236?s=20" target="_blank">celebrated the decision</a> of the court on social media: "Extremely gratified to see this decision we’ve been waiting for! I was proud to co-author the brief for the United States as amicus in this important case, perhaps one of the most important developments in decades in Voting Rights Act jurisprudence!"</p><p><em>Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. </em><em><a href="https://www.theblaze.com/newsletters/theblaze-articlelink" target="_self">Sign up here</a></em><em>!</em></p>
<p>The Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down a race-based redistricting map in Louisiana, ruling that the state's second black-majority district violates the Constitution.</p> <p>The post <a href="https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2026/04/29/u-s-supreme-court-voids-race-based-redistricting-map-in-louisiana/" rel="nofollow">U.S. Supreme Court Voids Race-Based Redistricting Map in Louisiana</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.breitbart.com" rel="nofollow">Breitbart</a>.</p>
The Supreme Court rule 6-3 in a decision that has implications for the scope of the landmark Voting Rights Act.
The Supreme Court has decided a closely watched case over Louisiana’s congressional map and the scope of the Voting Rights Act.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday released an opinion striking down a set of Louisiana congressional district maps that added a second majority black district.
In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that a congressional map in Louisiana was a racial gerrymander even though it was drawn to comply with the landmark Voting Rights Act, which is aimed at protecting minority voters. NBC News' Ryan Reilly and Julie Tsirkin report on how this could make it harder for civil rights plaintiffs to challenge future maps.
Democrats stand to lose at least one blue-leaning district in Louisiana, but the timing was unclear. Florida is drawing a redder map, and Republicans in several other states are weighing new maps.
The court kept Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act intact, but the decision all but guts a landmark law that came out of the Civil Rights Movement and protected the collective voting power of racial minorities when political maps are redrawn.
The Supreme Court issued a major ruling Wednesday preserving but tightening the use of the Voting Rights Act, saying states should be more careful when they draw districts intended to boost the voting power of racial and ethnic minorities.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down Louisiana's second majority Black congressional district in a decision that could open the door for Republican-led states to eliminate Black and Latino electoral districts that tend to favor Democrats and affect the balance of power in Congress.
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that a Louisiana congressional district’s boundaries relied too much on race, in a redistricting case that could impact which party controls Congress in the years ahead.  The district is represented by Rep. Cleo Fields, a Democrat. During arguments, Chief Justice John Roberts said the district was drawn like a “snake,”...
In a Voting Rights Act case, justices find that the state’s redistricting represents an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.
<img alt="Tbe Supreme Court in the evening." class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" src="https://thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Supreme-Court-1200x675.jpg" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;" />'Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 ... was designed to enforce the Constitution — not collide with it,' wrote Justice Alito.
<p>NAACP decries 6-3 decision that ruled Louisiana must redraw its congressional map, a landmark case that guts major section of Voting Rights Act</p><ul><li><p><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/news/2026/feb/17/sign-up-for-the-breaking-news-us-email-to-get-newsletter-alerts-direct-to-your-inbox?utm_medium=ACQUISITIONS_STANDFIRST&utm_campaign=BN22326&utm_content=signup&utm_term=standfirst&utm_source=GUARDIAN_WEB">Sign up for the Breaking News US email</a></p></li><li><p><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/29/supreme-court-louisiana-congressional-map-case-ruling">US supreme court ‘demolishes’ key Voting Rights Act provision that prevented racial discrimination</a></p></li></ul><p></p><p><strong>The US Federal Reserve is widely expected to hold interest rates steady on Wednesday after a key policy meeting, likely the last chaired by central bank chief Jerome Powell, a frequent target of president Donald Trump’s ire.</strong></p><p>Policymakers will weigh the risks of surging energy prices and snarled supply chains due to the US-Israel war on Iran, with analysts widely expecting a third pause in a row as the effects of the conflict ripple through the world’s largest economy.</p> <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2026/apr/29/king-charles-new-york-donald-trump-zohran-mamdani-iran-us-politics-live">Continue reading...</a>
<p>Terri Sewell and Shomari Figures are at risk of losing their seats in Alabama’s Black congressional districts after ruling</p><p>The lawmakers who represent Alabama’s two Black congressional districts, who are now at risk of losing their seats after the supreme court effectively decimated the Voting Rights Act, said the decision sends the US “backwards”.</p><p>The 6-3 ruling in Louisiana v Callais on Wednesday weakens a key provision of the Voting Rights Act, opening the door for Republicans to eliminate majority-minority congressional districts across the south, and representatives Terri Sewell and Shomari Figures stand in the crosshairs.</p> <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/29/black-lawmakers-supreme-court-voting-rights-ruling">Continue reading...</a>
<p>Republicans hold a 217-212 majority in the House, but they could lock in more seats if reapportionments go their way</p><p>Republicans and Democrats have been engaged in a political tug of war in legislatures, courts and the ballot box to narrow the battlefield of 2026 before a single vote is cast.</p><p>Normally, redistricting only occurs after the US census counts residents in each state every 10 years. A demand from Donald Trump to lock in more Republican-leaning districts in Congress, together with a changing legal landscape around partisan gerrymandering, set off a chain of mid-decade reapportionments.<br /></p> <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2025/nov/02/us-redistrcting-congressional-map">Continue reading...</a>
<p>Justices rule in landmark decision Louisiana must redraw congressional map, largely killing major civil rights law</p><ul><li><p><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2026/apr/29/king-charles-new-york-donald-trump-zohran-mamdani-iran-us-politics-live">US politics live – latest updates</a></p></li><li><p><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/news/2026/feb/17/sign-up-for-the-breaking-news-us-email-to-get-newsletter-alerts-direct-to-your-inbox?utm_medium=ACQUISITIONS_STANDFIRST&utm_campaign=BN22326&utm_content=signup&utm_term=standfirst&utm_source=GUARDIAN_WEB">Sign up for the Breaking News US newsletter email</a></p></li></ul><p>The US supreme court <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-109_21o3.pdf">has ruled </a>that Louisiana will have to redraw its congressional map, in a landmark decision that effectively guts a major section of the Voting Rights Act.</p><p>In a 6-3 decision along partisan lines, the court rendered ineffective section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the last remaining powerful provision of the 1965 civil rights law that prevents racial discrimination in voting. Section 2 specifically has long been used to ensure minority voters are treated fairly in redistricting.</p> <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/29/supreme-court-louisiana-congressional-map-case-ruling">Continue reading...</a>
The Supreme Court has issued a 6-3 opinion that strikes down the 2024 Louisiana redistricting map as an “unconstitutional racial gerrymander,” a significant challenge to the Voting Rights Act. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion. Justice Elena Kagan led the dissent, which she read aloud in court. The court’s final oral arguments of the…
Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) on Wednesday ripped what he called the Supreme Court’s “awful decision” to strike down a voting map in Louisiana, which critics cast as a serious blow to the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The court in a 6-3 ruling held that creating majority-minority districts can result in unconstitutional racial gerrymandering,…
The National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) on Tuesday celebrated the Supreme Court ruling striking down Louisiana’s congressional map that created a second-Black majority district. “Today’s decision is a victory for the Constitution and the principle that every American citizen is equal under the law,” NRCC Chairman Rep. Richard Hudson (R-N.C.) wrote in a statement.  …
The Supreme Court’s liberal justices called their colleagues’ decision clawing back race-based redistricting on Wednesday a “now-completed demolition” of the Voting Rights Act.  In a 48-page dissent, Justice Elena Kagan held up the landmark 1965 law as helpful to the nation’s progress on racial discrimination.  “At this last stage, the Court’s gutting of Section 2…
The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision along ideological lines, struck down Louisiana’s congressional map on Wednesday that added a second majority-Black district, a decision that carries seismic implications for the future of the Voting Rights Act.  Louisiana’s legal saga thrust the state into the center of conservatives’ push to weaken a central provision of…
The Supreme Court declared Louisiana’s addition of a second majority-Black congressional district an unconstitutional racial gerrymander on Wednesday, a 6-3 decision along ideological lines that weakens a central provision of the Voting Rights Act. Louisiana’s legal saga thrust the state into the center of conservatives’ push to curtail Section 2 of the landmark voting law, which has…
<p>David Daley</p> <div><img alt="" src="https://www.thenation.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Roberts.jpg" /></div> <div> <div class="wp-block-the-nation-dek article-title__dek"> <p>Beginning with his first job in the Reagan Justice Department, the chief justice has been hell-bent on dismantling the Voting Rights Act. </p> </div> </div> <p>The post <a href="https://www.thenation.com/article/society/jon-roberts-callais-v-louisiana-supreme-court-voting-rights/">The Supreme Court’s Death Blow Against Voting Rights Is the Culmination of John Roberts’s 50-Year Crusade</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.thenation.com">The Nation</a>.</p>
Get yourself a man who loves you as much as Justice Samuel Alito loves partisan gerrymandering. The Supreme Court’s decision in Louisiana v. Callais, which was handed down on Wednesday, was expected to deal a mortal blow to a longstanding federal rule that guarantees Black and Latino voters a minimum level of representation in some […]
The decision could touch off a scramble by Republicans to redraw majority-minority congressional districts, especially in the South, that could cost many Black Democrats their seats.