October 15 – The U.S. Supreme Court appeared inclined on Wednesday to further restrict how race can be used when drawing legislative boundaries, potentially reshaping a core provision of the Voting Rights Act that has safeguarded minority voting rights for decades. This pivotal law, enacted in 1965, has been a cornerstone of the civil rights movement, ensuring fair representation for Black and minority voters in political offices nationwide.
During an extended hearing, the conservative majority of the Court showed sympathy toward arguments presented by attorneys for Louisiana and representatives from the Trump administration. They claimed that race played an excessive role in Louisiana’s creation of a second Black-majority congressional district, contending it violated the Constitution’s guarantee of equal treatment for all citizens. Meanwhile, Black voters who initially filed suit argued their electoral influence had been weakened under the state’s earlier district map.
Justices Question the Role of Race in Redistricting
Several conservative justices sought to determine how much race should influence redistricting. Any new ruling could dramatically alter how states consider racial composition in drawing district maps, potentially reducing the number of minority legislators and prompting widespread redistricting battles across the country.
At the heart of the case lies Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. This provision compels states to design districts that allow minority communities, under specific circumstances, to elect candidates who represent their interests. Originally enacted to combat discriminatory voting practices, Section 2 was reinforced in 1982 to address persistent racial disparities at the polls.
However, some conservative members of the Court suggested that the law’s race-based considerations should not be indefinite. Justice Brett Kavanaugh emphasized that while race-conscious remedies may be justified for a time, they should not continue without an endpoint. Chief Justice John Roberts echoed that sentiment, questioning the appropriate extent to which race should factor into drawing voting districts.
Their remarks contrasted with their earlier positions in a 2023 ruling, when both Kavanaugh and Roberts voted to affirm that Alabama’s congressional map had unfairly diluted the power of Black voters. Their current tone, however, hinted at a possible shift in how far the Court may go in redefining or trimming Section 2’s reach.
Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguiñaga argued that race-based redistricting fundamentally conflicts with constitutional principles, asserting that Louisiana has evolved socially and politically, reducing the need for federal oversight. He claimed that crafting districts to favor one race over another perpetuates outdated racial assumptions.
Hashim Mooppan, representing the Trump administration, struck a slightly different tone. He acknowledged that race could be considered in redistricting but insisted that it must remain secondary to traditional, race-neutral priorities such as geographic continuity and protecting incumbents. According to him, Section 2 has too often been used to advance partisan interests instead of ensuring fairness.
Liberal Justices Warn of Far-Reaching Consequences
The Court’s three liberal justices, however, raised strong objections. Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned that scaling back Section 2 would effectively dismantle the Voting Rights Act, while Justice Elena Kagan questioned the potential consequences of such a move. Janai Nelson, representing Black voters in Louisiana, said any rollback of Section 2 would have “catastrophic” effects, arguing that litigation under the law has been essential for promoting diversity in Southern leadership.
Currently, a dozen or so majority-minority districts exist across the South, accounting for nearly one in four Black members of Congress. Civil rights advocates fear that if Section 2 is weakened, Republican-led state legislatures could eliminate those districts, drastically reducing minority representation.
The Louisiana case arrives at a politically charged moment. President Trump and Republican leaders have urged several states to redraw maps to strengthen conservative control in Congress, while Democrats in some states are exploring counter-redistricting measures. A final decision from the Supreme Court is expected by early summer 2026, though its timing may determine whether the outcome affects the next round of congressional elections.
The case being heard was a reargument, as the justices had previously considered it last term. In August, they expanded their review to include whether Section 2 itself might violate the 14th and 15th Amendments, which were ratified after the Civil War to guarantee equal treatment and voting rights for Black citizens.
This ongoing legal battle highlights the delicate balance between two constitutional principles: the need to remedy past racial discrimination and the prohibition against drawing districts based explicitly on race. The 14th Amendment demands equal protection under the law, while the 15th bars racial discrimination in voting. Balancing these sometimes conflicting mandates has proven to be one of the most challenging tasks in modern election law.
The Louisiana dispute underscores that difficulty. In 2022, civil rights groups sued the state, claiming its congressional map unfairly diluted Black voters’ influence by establishing only one Black-majority district out of six, despite African Americans comprising about one-third of the state’s population. A federal judge sided with the plaintiffs, ordering the creation of a second Black-majority district. Lawmakers complied in 2024, producing a map stretching from Baton Rouge to Shreveport.
That plan, however, soon faced new opposition from a group of white voters who claimed the redrawn map amounted to unconstitutional racial gerrymandering. A lower court sided with those challengers, but the Supreme Court later allowed the map to stand for the 2024 elections, leading to the election of Cleo Fields, a Black Democrat, to the newly created seat.
This case now stands at a crossroads for the Voting Rights Act’s future. The Supreme Court already weakened another major provision in 2013 when it struck down Section 5, which had required states with histories of racial discrimination to obtain federal approval before changing election laws. That decision spurred a wave of voter ID laws and other restrictions, which critics say have disproportionately affected minority communities.