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 ruled 6-3 that Louisiana's 2024 congressional map, which was redrawn to create a second majority-Black district, constituted an "illegal" racial gerrymander. The court's decision sharply narrows states' use of race as a factor when drawing their congressional districts, effectively watering down Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in question designed to protect minority voters.
Compliance with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, "as properly construed, can provide such a reason," Justice Samuel Alito said, writing for the majority. "Correctly understood, Section 2 does not impose liability at odds with the Constitution, and it should not have imposed liability on Louisiana for its 2022 map."
"Compliance with Section 2 thus could not justify the State's use of race-based redistricting here," he added.
The impact of the ruling could be felt as early as the November midterm elections, as the majority opinion did not include instructions as to how, or when, the states in the throes of their redistricting processes should proceed under the new guidance.
JUDGES SAY THEY'LL REDRAW LOUISIANA CONGRESSIONAL MAP THEMSELVES IF LAWMAKERS CAN'T
The case, Louisiana v. Callais, centered on whether Louisiana’s 2024 congressional map, which had added a second majority-Black district, amounted to an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. Though the justices acknowledged that compliance with the Voting Rights Act can be considered by states as a compelling interest in redistricting, they said that it did not require Louisiana to add the creation of a second, majority Black district, siding with a lower court that had also blocked the state's use of the map.
While Wednesday's ruling does not overturn the Voting Rights Act or Section 2, it is likely to narrow how minority representation influences multiple states' congressional maps, and trigger a new wave of legal challenges over congressional boundaries. It will also make it harder for plaintiffs to challenge the maps in question, as it requires them to prove a racially discriminatory motive.
Justice Elena Kagan, who authored the dissent, lamented the 6-3 ruling as the "latest chapter in the majority’s now-completed demolition of the Voting Rights Act."
The majority opinion "straight-facedly holds that the Voting Rights Act must be brought low to make the world safe for partisan gerrymanders," Kagan wrote. "I dissent because the Court betrays its duty to faithfully implement the great statute Congress wrote. I dissent because the Court’s decision will set back the foundational right Congress granted of racial equality in electoral opportunity. I dissent."
Republican National Committee (RNC) Chair Joe Gruters praised the ruling in a statement provided to Fox News Digital, describing it as a "win for fairness, the rule of law, and anyone who opposes racial gerrymandering."
"The American people don’t want to see Americans segregated by race in their congressional maps, which is exactly what was happening in Louisiana," he added. "Today, the Supreme Court reaffirmed a basic constitutional principle: the government cannot discriminate on the basis of race when drawing congressional maps.
DNC Chair Ken Martin, meanwhile, lamented the ruling as a "dark day for America," adding that the "Supreme Court just rolled back the clock on the Civil Rights Movement."
"The GOP-captured Supreme Court just effectively killed Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, a major step back in the fight for racial justice and fair representation. While today’s decision is a gut punch, make no mistake: Democrats will fight tooth and nail to ensure the voices of all Americans will be heard in November and in every election that follows."
TOP US COURT HANDS TRUMP A WIN ON DEPORTATIONS AS SCOTUS CHALLENGE LOOMS
The dispute reached the high court after months of legal back-and-forth, including oral arguments last March, and a rare second round of arguments last October, focused on whether Louisiana's map (and creation of the second majority-Black district under the VRA) violated the 14th or 15th Amendments of the Constitution.
Conservative justices appeared skeptical during October's arguments about keeping Section 2 of the VRA in place, as is, and pressed the lawyer for the NAACP on whether she believed there should be a time duration limit on the intentional use of race in drawing voting districts under the law.
During those arguments, Justice Brett Kavanaugh and other conservatives on the high court appeared open to the idea that Congress, in passing the 1965 Voting Rights Act law, may have intended a sort of "sunset period" for Section 2, allowing it to weaken over time.
That possibility was invoked by Kavanaugh several times during oral arguments, as he pressed lawyers for the state of Louisiana and the NAACP for more specifics.
Hashim Mooppan, the principal deputy solicitor general, told the court the congressional map in Louisiana that was drafted in response to Section 2 of the VRA could also be construed as a "reverse partisan gerrymander," and one that is also based on "purely racial" considerations.
Meanwhile, NAACP lawyer Janai Nelson, arguing the case on behalf of Black voters, told the high court that siding with Louisiana’s request to reverse the map would be a "staggering reversal of precedent," which she said "would throw maps across the country into chaos."
NEW MAJORITY-BLACK LOUISIANA HOUSE DISTRICT REJECTED, NOVEMBER ELECTION MAP STILL UNCERTAIN
A ruling from the high court has long been expected to have major implications for future elections.
Critics have warned in recent months that weakening VRA could further erode protections for minority voters under the Voting Rights Act, at a time when several Republican-led states have attempted to aggressively push through new congressional maps ahead of the midterms.
They argued in filings to the Supreme Court that non-Black voters failed to show the direct harm required for equal protection claims or prove race was the main factor in redrawing the map.
But lawyers arguing the case on behalf of the NAACP and Black voters in the state have warned that a ruling in favor of Louisiana could have a staggering impact on races in 2026 and beyond.
A recent report from the nonprofit groups Fair Fight Action and Black Voters Matter Fund estimates that an overhaul of the VRA could swing an estimated 12 Democratic-held House districts in favor of Republican candidates.
Fox News Digital's Eric Mack contributed to this report.
Source: Fox News - Politics
