Supreme Court Signals Willingness to Weaken Voting Rights Act in Louisiana Redistricting Case

The U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative majority appeared ready this week to further narrow the scope of the Voting Rights Act during oral arguments over a congressional redistricting dispute from Louisiana. The case could redefine how race can be considered when drawing political maps and potentially diminish protections for minority voters across the country.

The justices heard arguments over whether states may ever take race into account while attempting to comply with Section 2 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act — the core provision designed to protect minority voters from discrimination in elections. The case centers on Louisiana’s congressional map, which civil rights groups challenged for including only one majority-Black district in a state where roughly one-third of the population is Black.

After initially defending its revised map, Louisiana reversed its stance and joined a group of white voters who claimed that creating additional majority-Black districts violates the Constitution’s equal protection guarantees under the 14th and 15th Amendments. The Trump administration has thrown its support behind this position, arguing that the Constitution forbids any race-based considerations in redistricting.

The dispute gained national attention after the Supreme Court broadened the case over the summer, directing the parties to address larger constitutional questions. Several conservative justices signaled support for a “colorblind” interpretation of the Constitution, echoing the Court’s 2023 decision that ended the use of race in college admissions.

While the justices did not make their intentions explicit, the conservative majority appeared open to curbing how Section 2 claims can be brought. One possibility discussed was adopting a proposal from the Trump administration that would leave Section 2 technically intact but weaken its enforcement by changing the legal standards established in Thornburg v. Gingles (1986). Under that framework, states could justify their redistricting decisions by citing political objectives — such as partisan advantage — rather than racial ones.

Such a shift could make it far more difficult for civil rights groups to challenge racially discriminatory maps, effectively limiting the law’s power. The Court’s more liberal justices pushed back, warning that hollowing out Section 2 would erase decades of protections against racial gerrymandering and undermine the Court’s legitimacy.

The hearing took place just two years after a 5–4 ruling in an Alabama case reaffirmed that states must sometimes consider race to ensure compliance with the Voting Rights Act. That decision, written by Chief Justice John Roberts and supported by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, surprised observers who expected the Court to further weaken the law. During this week’s arguments, however, both justices suggested that ruling was based on existing precedent and may not constrain the Court going forward.

A ruling in favor of Louisiana could have sweeping implications nationwide. It would likely reduce the number of majority-minority districts and, consequently, the representation of Black and other minority lawmakers in Congress and state legislatures. The decision could also reshape the political map ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, with potential benefits for Republican candidates in states where minority populations tend to support Democrats.

The Court is expected to issue its decision in the coming months, a ruling that may determine the future strength — or fragility — of one of the nation’s cornerstone civil rights laws.