The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to take up a pivotal case questioning whether race should continue to be a determining factor in the drawing of congressional voting districts—setting the stage for a landmark decision that could dismantle decades of race-based redistricting and redefine the political map nationwide.

The case, originating from Louisiana, challenges the long-standing use of the 1965 Voting Rights Act to justify the intentional creation of majority-Black and majority-Hispanic districts. In a rare procedural move on June 27, the high court expanded the scope of the dispute and delayed a final ruling, signaling its intention to revisit whether such racial considerations remain constitutionally permissible in today’s America.

Currently, there are 11 majority-Black and 31 majority-Hispanic districts in the U.S. House, according to Bloomberg News, which first reported on the Court's expanded review. The ruling could influence not just federal congressional maps but also state legislatures and local governments—shaking the very foundation of race-based political boundaries nationwide.

At the heart of the controversy is Louisiana’s 2022 congressional map, which was redrawn by a lower court to include a second majority-Black district—despite the state already having six congressional seats and a 33% Black population. The new 6th District snakes 250 miles from Shreveport to Baton Rouge, in what critics describe as a racially gerrymandered district created for the sole purpose of ensuring a Democrat victory. That seat is now held by Democrat Cleo Fields.

House Speaker Mike Johnson’s seat was unaffected by the redesign, but the political implications are far-reaching. A group of plaintiffs—who describe themselves as “non-African Americans”—challenged the map under the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause, arguing that race was improperly used as the primary factor in district design.

A three-judge panel agreed and struck down the map. However, the Supreme Court allowed the contested map to remain in place for the 2023 election cycle, citing concerns over altering electoral rules too close to a federal vote.

Now, with oral arguments scheduled and a decision expected in 2025, the case could decide whether decades of legally sanctioned race-based districting come to an end. Several conservative justices have voiced skepticism about the continued use of racial classifications in redistricting, particularly when based on outdated assumptions from the 1982 amendments to the Voting Rights Act.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, seen as a potential swing vote, indicated during March arguments that the plaintiffs may have undermined their own challenge by failing to raise certain procedural objections earlier in the legal process—though he stopped short of endorsing the race-based map.

The timing of the case couldn’t be more politically charged. In Texas, Republicans are advancing a mid-decade redistricting plan that could yield up to five additional GOP-leaning seats—potentially securing a stronger majority to advance President Donald Trump’s second-term agenda. Meanwhile, blue states like California and New York are considering their own map rewrites in response.

As Bloomberg noted, these aggressive efforts on both sides could determine whether Democrats regain control of the House—thus threatening to obstruct Trump’s policies and launch partisan investigations into his administration.

The case could also accelerate the dismantling of affirmative-action style politics in legislative mapping, just as the Court has done in education. With Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch firmly against race-based policies, the tide appears to be turning toward a Constitution-first approach that prioritizes individual equality over group identity.

This new legal challenge builds on President Trump’s broader push to restore equal treatment under the law and dismantle the institutionalized racial favoritism embedded within the administrative state. The high court’s ruling—expected sometime next year—will likely come too late to affect the 2026 midterms but could dramatically influence how states prepare for the 2028 election cycle and beyond.