Supreme Court Appears Poised to Weaken Voting Rights Act

The U.S. Supreme Court appears ready to narrow how federal courts enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, signaling a potential win for constitutionalists who argue that race-based redistricting has gone too far — and for states seeking to protect their legislative authority from activist judges.

During Wednesday’s re-arguments in Louisiana v. Callais, the Court’s conservative majority seemed receptive to an approach long backed by the Trump Justice Department — one that would make it more difficult for plaintiffs to claim racial discrimination when political and racial lines overlap.

The case involves Louisiana’s congressional map, initially ruled a likely Section 2 violation for grouping Black voters — roughly a third of the state’s population — into just one majority-Black district out of six. After Democrats and civil rights groups sued, the state created a second such district. But that move sparked a new lawsuit — this time from white voters who argued the so-called “fix” was itself a racial gerrymander.

A district judge agreed, and now the issue has reached the nation’s highest court.

Louisiana has since urged the justices to end or sharply limit race-conscious districting altogether, contending that federal courts have forced states into unconstitutional racial balancing acts. Black voters who brought the original challenge, meanwhile, insist the new map was necessary to correct past discrimination.

Conservative justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and Justice Samuel Alito, appeared cautious about striking down Section 2 outright — but signaled strong interest in curbing its reach.

Representing the Trump administration, Principal Deputy Solicitor General Hashim Mooppan argued that states should be allowed to defend maps based on legitimate partisan motives, even if those political patterns coincide with race. He cited the Court’s 2019 Rucho v. Common Cause ruling, which held that partisan gerrymandering is beyond the reach of federal courts.

Under Mooppan’s logic, a state could prioritize Republican representation without violating Section 2 — so long as the goal wasn’t explicitly racial.

Chief Justice Roberts probed how that standard might align with the Court’s past decisions, including the 2023 Allen v. Milligan case, which required Alabama to add a second majority-Black district. Roberts seemed intent on threading the needle — keeping Gingles and Allen intact while reining in federal judges’ discretion.

Justice Kavanaugh floated the idea of a “sunset” for Section 2 remedies, suggesting that race-based redistricting may have once been necessary but should not be permanent. Justice Alito questioned whether the law’s enforcement had become unconstitutionally broad, warning against “judicial overreach” when race and partisanship are nearly indistinguishable.

Louisiana Solicitor General Ben Aguiñaga pressed the justices to go further — calling the current system “government-mandated racial balancing” that violates the Equal Protection Clause. Several conservatives acknowledged the dilemma: states are routinely trapped between statutory demands to create minority districts and constitutional bans on racial favoritism.

The Court’s liberal bloc pushed back. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson controversially likened the Voting Rights Act to the Americans with Disabilities Act — a comparison critics blasted as both inappropriate and racially tone-deaf. Justice Elena Kagan warned that allowing partisan intent as a defense would “gut Section 2 in the South,” where race and party affiliation often overlap. NAACP attorney Janai Nelson echoed that concern, claiming the rule would let states disguise racial discrimination as political strategy.

Still, the momentum clearly favors a more restrained view of Section 2 — one that restores state sovereignty and limits judicial intrusion into inherently political questions.

With redistricting battles raging across Republican-led states, the ruling could reshape congressional maps heading into 2026, defining how far federal courts can go in forcing race-based outcomes in the name of “voting rights.”

The decision, expected later this term, could become a landmark — clarifying that the Constitution does not require states to sort voters by skin color under the guise of fairness.