Supreme Court Weakens Voting Rights Act on Congressional Redistricting

Supreme Court sharply weakened a key provision of the Voting Rights Act, limiting race consideration in congressional redistricting and potentially enabling Republican gains.

Objective Facts

The Supreme Court ruled that Louisiana's 2024 congressional map, which created a second majority-Black district, was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander even though it was drawn to comply with the Voting Rights Act. In a 6-3 decision with the court's conservatives in the majority, the justices told states they can almost never consider race when drawing maps to comply with Section 2. Conservative Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, stated that 'allowing race to play any part in government decision-making represents a departure from the constitutional rule that applies in almost any other context'. The ruling could lead to fewer minority-majority districts not just in Congress but also in state and local government, reducing the number of non-white elected officials. An NPR analysis found a ruling affecting Section 2 provisions could put at risk at least 15 House districts currently represented by Black members of Congress.

Left-Leaning Perspective

Derrick Johnson, president of the NAACP, called the decision a betrayal, stating 'The Supreme Court betrayed Black voters, they betrayed America, and they betrayed our democracy'. Justin Levitt, an election law expert at Loyola Law School who served as a redistricting advisor in the Biden White House, characterized the ruling as 'burn the house down and pretend the house still exists because you can point to where the foundation used to be'. Ken Martin, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, called the ruling a 'gut punch,' saying 'Today is a dark day for America — the Supreme Court just rolled back the clock on the Civil Rights Movement' and that 'The GOP-captured Supreme Court just effectively killed Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act'. Justice Elena Kagan's dissent argued that under the new test, plaintiffs must show legislators acted with racially discriminatory motive, which is 'well-nigh impossible,' and warned that minority voters in Louisiana and other states will lose the equal opportunity to elect their preferred candidates, leading to a sharp decline in minority representation. Kareem Crayton, vice president of the Brennan Center's Washington DC office, criticized the reasoning, arguing that 'With a rather cynical claim that race discrimination is rare in the South now, Justice Alito essentially shrugs at the millions of voters whose ability to elect representatives of their choice have greatly improved with Section 2'. Former Attorney General Eric Holder declared the ruling 'Supreme Court sanctioned racial and partisan gerrymandering' and warned that 'the Roberts court makes this decision at a time when Republican leaders across the country are foaming at the mouth to draw the American people out of a meaningful say in our elections'. Left-leaning election law experts argue that while the Supreme Court did not declare Section 2 unconstitutional, it modified what one must do to win a Section 2 case in ways that will make it 'much harder or impossible for voters of color to use'. The NAACP Legal Defense Fund argues that the majority has made partisan goals a wholesale defense for racism and has allowed discrimination to run rampant as long as state mapmakers cite even the most tenuous justification.

Right-Leaning Perspective

The Trump White House celebrated the decision as a 'complete and total victory' for voters, with Abigail Jackson stating 'The color of one's skin should not dictate which congressional district you belong in' and commending the court for putting an end to 'the unconstitutional abuse of the Voting Rights Act'. Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill, a Republican, defended the decision, saying 'The Supreme Court has ended Louisiana's long-running nightmare of federal courts coercing the state to draw a racially discriminatory map' and calling it 'a seismic decision reaffirming equal protection under our nation's laws'. President Trump called the decision 'the kind of ruling I like'. Edward Greim, who represented the plaintiffs, lauded the decision saying it moves toward a 'colorblind society' and claimed there are 'fake Voting Rights Act districts that really shouldn't have been drawn, those will be challenged'. Adam Kincaid, president of the National Republican Redistricting Trust, wrote that 'For decades the left has spent hundreds of millions of dollars seeking to divide Americans along racial lines in a cynical pursuit of partisan power masquerading as civil rights enforcement' and called the decision a rebuttal to 'that divisive and unconstitutional effort'. Republican Rep. Barry Moore of Alabama argued that 'Activist judges have been abusing federal law to suppress conservative voices for too long' and asserted that 'Elections should be determined by Alabama's values and candidates' ideas, not the color of anyone's skin'. Republican-aligned elections lawyer Jason Torchinsky argued that intentional discrimination cases are 'much rarer than they used to be' and that proving intent requires 'some sort of smoking gun evidence' like 'an email where someone says Yeah, I carved up the Hispanic neighborhood and people don't do that'.

Deep Dive

The case hinges on a fundamental constitutional disagreement: conservatives see tension between the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution's 14th and 15th Amendments, viewing those amendments as requiring an entirely 'colorblind' approach, a position liberals reject. By prioritizing formal colorblindness over substantive equality, the Court has recast the Reconstruction Amendments from tools of inclusion into constraints on remediation. What each perspective gets right: Conservatives correctly note that Louisiana's district was geographically sprawling and that courts historically have required intentional discrimination findings in some contexts. Liberals correctly observe that Section 2's 'disparate impact' framework was adopted by Congress in 1982 precisely because discriminatory intent is so easily concealed, requiring courts to examine results, not rhetoric. The practical problem liberals identify is real: modern legislators rarely leave explicit documentary evidence of discriminatory intent. What conservatives minimize is the substantial empirical evidence of persistent racial voting patterns and discrimination in the South.The most striking inconsistency involves Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh, who in the 2023 Alabama case sided with liberals to uphold Section 2, then joined Alito's opinion striking it down three years later without explaining their reversal. Roberts has long been at the center of efforts to limit race in public life—he targeted the Voting Rights Act since his time as a young lawyer in the Reagan-era Justice Department, writing in 2006 that 'It is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race'. What remains unresolved: whether the ruling will survive congressional action, whether future Courts will apply the same strict scrutiny to partisan gerrymandering, and whether states like Alabama will successfully redraw maps eliminating remaining majority-minority districts.

OBJ SPEAKING

Create StoryTimelinesVoter ToolsRegional AnalysisAll StoriesCommunity PicksUSWorldPoliticsBusinessHealthEntertainmentTechnologyAbout

Supreme Court Weakens Voting Rights Act on Congressional Redistricting

Supreme Court sharply weakened a key provision of the Voting Rights Act, limiting race consideration in congressional redistricting and potentially enabling Republican gains.

Apr 29, 2026
What's Going On

The Supreme Court ruled that Louisiana's 2024 congressional map, which created a second majority-Black district, was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander even though it was drawn to comply with the Voting Rights Act. In a 6-3 decision with the court's conservatives in the majority, the justices told states they can almost never consider race when drawing maps to comply with Section 2. Conservative Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, stated that 'allowing race to play any part in government decision-making represents a departure from the constitutional rule that applies in almost any other context'. The ruling could lead to fewer minority-majority districts not just in Congress but also in state and local government, reducing the number of non-white elected officials. An NPR analysis found a ruling affecting Section 2 provisions could put at risk at least 15 House districts currently represented by Black members of Congress.

Left says: Justice Elena Kagan wrote in dissent that 'Today's decision renders Section 2 all but a dead letter', while civil rights leaders view the ruling as enabling systematic voter suppression of minorities across redistricting nationwide.
Right says: The ruling means states that have been forced to draw districts based on race now have significantly more freedom to redraw those maps without prioritizing racial outcomes, as the court raised the bar for when the Voting Rights Act actually requires race-based line drawing.
✓ Common Ground
Both conservative and liberal observers note an apparent inconsistency: Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote the 2023 Allen v. Milligan opinion upholding Section 2, did not explain his shift in the Louisiana case, nor did Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who had joined Roberts and the three liberals in the Alabama case.
There is general agreement that Louisiana's late primary on May 16 makes immediate redistricting for 2026 impractical, with most observers acknowledging the decision's impact will be felt more fully in 2028.
Both sides acknowledge the ruling is likely to narrow how minority representation influences states' congressional maps and make it harder for plaintiffs to challenge maps in question by requiring them to prove a racially discriminatory motive.
Objective Deep Dive

The case hinges on a fundamental constitutional disagreement: conservatives see tension between the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution's 14th and 15th Amendments, viewing those amendments as requiring an entirely 'colorblind' approach, a position liberals reject. By prioritizing formal colorblindness over substantive equality, the Court has recast the Reconstruction Amendments from tools of inclusion into constraints on remediation.

What each perspective gets right: Conservatives correctly note that Louisiana's district was geographically sprawling and that courts historically have required intentional discrimination findings in some contexts. Liberals correctly observe that Section 2's 'disparate impact' framework was adopted by Congress in 1982 precisely because discriminatory intent is so easily concealed, requiring courts to examine results, not rhetoric. The practical problem liberals identify is real: modern legislators rarely leave explicit documentary evidence of discriminatory intent. What conservatives minimize is the substantial empirical evidence of persistent racial voting patterns and discrimination in the South.The most striking inconsistency involves Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh, who in the 2023 Alabama case sided with liberals to uphold Section 2, then joined Alito's opinion striking it down three years later without explaining their reversal. Roberts has long been at the center of efforts to limit race in public life—he targeted the Voting Rights Act since his time as a young lawyer in the Reagan-era Justice Department, writing in 2006 that 'It is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race'. What remains unresolved: whether the ruling will survive congressional action, whether future Courts will apply the same strict scrutiny to partisan gerrymandering, and whether states like Alabama will successfully redraw maps eliminating remaining majority-minority districts.

◈ Tone Comparison

Left-leaning coverage uses apocalyptic language like 'gutted,' 'demolished,' and 'dead letter,' emphasizing breakdown of civil rights protections, while right-leaning outlets frame the decision as restoring constitutional order and ending 'activist judge' overreach, employing terms like 'institutionalized racism' to describe prior race-conscious redistricting rather than the ruling itself.