Supreme Court Limits Race in Redistricting, Weakening Voting Rights Act Section 2
The 6-3 ruling in Louisiana v. Callais could reshape congressional maps nationwide ahead of the 2026 midterms.
The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that Louisiana's redrawn congressional map — which created a second majority-Black district — constituted an unconstitutional racial gerrymander, delivering a landmark 6-3 decision along ideological lines that significantly limits Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and could trigger a new wave of redistricting battles ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.
The Ruling and What It Says About Section 2
Writing for the conservative majority in Louisiana v. Callais, Justice Samuel Alito declared the Louisiana map an 'unconstitutional gerrymander,' arguing that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act 'was designed to enforce the Constitution — not collide with it.' Alito further stated that Section 2 is limited to 'instances of intentional discrimination,' which he described as a very high standard — a framing that narrows the law's practical reach considerably.
Chief Justice John Roberts described the contested district as a 'snake that stretches more than 200 miles' linking parts of Shreveport, Alexandria, Lafayette, and Baton Rouge. The conservative majority did assert that the opinion was a limited ruling that still preserved the Voting Rights Act, but the court's three liberal justices pushed back sharply in dissent.
Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the liberal wing, argued that the majority's 'updates eviscerate the law, so that it will not remedy even the classic example of vote dilution.' She wrote that the outcome allows states to 'without legal consequence, systematically dilute minority citizens' voting power.' The extent to which Section 2 remains operative after Wednesday's decision is, by most legal assessments, genuinely unclear.
Civil Rights Groups and Democratic Leaders Condemn the Decision
Civil rights organizations were swift and unsparing in their condemnation. Stuart Naifeh, Manager of the Redistricting Project at the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, called the ruling 'an evisceration of what has been called the crown jewel of the civil rights movement, Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act,' adding that it 'elevates partisanship above protections against racial discrimination.'
Democratic members of Congress held a press conference Wednesday afternoon to register their opposition. Sen. Raphael Warnock of Georgia said the ruling 'harkens back to the darkest days of the Jim Crow era, when Black Americans were kept out of rooms of power,' calling it 'one huge step backwards for racial justice and for the health of our democracy.' Rep. Terri Sewell of Alabama warned it 'will pave the way for the greatest reduction in representation for black and minority voters since the years following reconstruction.'
Rep. Cleo Fields of Louisiana — who was returned to the House after the state's congressional map was redrawn in 2024 and whose district was at the center of the case — also spoke out. 'If you tell me that I have to jump a certain height. I could probably do that,' Fields said. 'But if you tell me I have to be white to serve in Congress from Louisiana, I can't do nothing about that.'
Republicans Applaud; Speaker Johnson Weighs In
Republicans welcomed the ruling. House Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana told reporters on Capitol Hill that he had long maintained the Louisiana congressional map was not legal. Johnson's home state was the epicenter of the case, giving his comments particular resonance.
The decision opens the door for more redistricting across the country that could aid Republican efforts to control the House. According to voting rights groups Fair Fight Action and Black Voters Matter Fund, a ruling gutting the race provision would allow the GOP to redraw up to 19 House seats nationwide to favor the party.
Broader Implications: Nationwide Redistricting and the 2026 Midterms
Election law expert Nicholas Stephanopoulos estimated to The Associated Press that nearly 70 of the 435 congressional districts are protected by Section 2 — meaning the ruling's downstream effects could be substantial. Some states, including Louisiana, will likely need to consider a new round of redistricting as a result.
The timing adds urgency. The court heard Louisiana v. Callais for a second time in October, and with the decision arriving at the end of April, redistricting considerations may face a time crunch ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. Wednesday's ruling also arrives as Florida legislators debate a proposed redrawing of congressional districts submitted by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, which could give Republicans as many as four additional seats.
The decision also stands in notable contrast to a ruling in a similar Alabama case less than three years ago, which led to a new map sending two Black Democrats to Congress. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the three liberal justices in that ruling. Both sided with Alito this time. Alabama currently has a separate pending appeal at the Supreme Court.
Nevada leaders and advocacy groups, including the Nevada State Republican Party and the Las Vegas branch of the NAACP, also weighed in on the ruling Wednesday, reflecting the national scope of the reaction.
Constitutional Law Experts: A Fundamental Shift
Constitutional law professor Stephen Wermiel of American University put the ruling in stark historical terms. 'For about the last 45 years, states have used race to try to give minorities more representation in drawing congressional districts,' Wermiel said. 'And the Supreme Court has now pretty much said states can't do that anymore.'
That framing captures the magnitude of what Wednesday's decision represents. Section 2 has been the primary legal tool for challenging racially discriminatory election practices since the Voting Rights Act's passage in 1965. Whether the provision retains meaningful force after this ruling is a question that will play out in courtrooms and state legislatures for years to come.
What we know
- The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 along ideological lines in Louisiana v. Callais, finding that Louisiana's redrawn congressional map — which created a second majority-Black district — was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.
- Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion; Justice Elena Kagan wrote the dissent for the three liberal justices.
- The ruling limits Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which has been used to challenge racially discriminatory election practices and redistricting maps.
- Alito stated that Section 2 is limited to 'instances of intentional discrimination,' which he described as a very high standard.
- Election law expert Nicholas Stephanopoulos estimated to The Associated Press that nearly 70 of the 435 congressional districts are protected by Section 2.
- The court heard the case for a second time in October; with the ruling arriving at the end of April, redistricting ahead of the 2026 midterms may face a time crunch.
- Voting rights groups Fair Fight Action and Black Voters Matter Fund said a ruling gutting the race provision would allow the GOP to redraw up to 19 House seats nationwide to favor the party.
- The ruling contradicts a similar Alabama case decided less than three years ago, in which Roberts and Kavanaugh joined the liberal justices; both sided with Alito in Wednesday's decision.
The take
Wednesday's ruling represents the most significant curtailment of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act since the Supreme Court gutted Section 4 — the preclearance formula — in Shelby County v. Holder in 2013. That decision eliminated the requirement that states with histories of discrimination obtain federal approval before changing voting laws, effectively ending preclearance as a practical tool. Section 2 became the primary remaining mechanism for challenging discriminatory redistricting in the years that followed. Now that avenue is substantially narrowed as well.
The shift in Roberts and Kavanaugh's positions from the 2022 Alabama ruling is particularly telling. In that case, Allen v. Milligan, the two justices sided with the liberal wing to uphold a Section 2 challenge. Their alignment with Alito this time suggests the court's appetite for race-conscious remedies in redistricting has moved decisively. Alito's framing — that Section 2 requires proof of intentional discrimination — sets a bar that is historically very difficult to clear in voting rights litigation, where discriminatory effects have long been the operative standard.
For states with significant minority populations and competitive congressional delegations, the practical consequences could be immediate. Redistricting cycles are already underway in several states, and the 2026 midterms are close enough that new maps drawn under this ruling's framework could determine House control. The Florida situation, already in motion, is the most visible near-term test case.
Why it matters
For Nevada and states across the country, the ruling reshapes the legal landscape for how congressional districts can be drawn. Minority communities that have relied on Section 2 challenges to ensure representation now face a significantly higher legal bar. With the House majority potentially in play in 2026, redistricting decisions made in the coming months — under this new framework — could have lasting consequences for which communities hold political power and which do not. The decision effectively transfers leverage from federal courts enforcing civil rights law to state legislatures and partisan mapmakers.
What’s next
Some states, including Louisiana, will likely need to consider a new round of redistricting following the ruling. Alabama has a separate pending appeal at the Supreme Court that may be affected by Wednesday's decision. Florida legislators are currently debating a proposed congressional map submitted by Gov. Ron DeSantis. With the 2026 midterm elections approaching, redistricting timelines in multiple states are expected to face significant pressure in the coming months.
Frequently asked questions
What did the Supreme Court rule in Louisiana v. Callais?
The court ruled 6-3 that Louisiana's redrawn congressional map, which created a second majority-Black district, was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander that relied too heavily on race.
What is Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act?
Section 2 is broadly viewed as a means to challenge racially discriminatory election practices and has been used for decades to protect minority voting power in redistricting.
How many congressional districts could be affected by this ruling?
Election law expert Nicholas Stephanopoulos estimated to The Associated Press that nearly 70 of the 435 congressional districts are protected by Section 2.
Who wrote the majority opinion and who wrote the dissent?
Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion for the six conservative justices; Justice Elena Kagan wrote the dissent for the three liberal justices.
How does this ruling compare to a recent Alabama redistricting case?
The decision contradicts a ruling in a similar Alabama case less than three years ago; Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh joined the liberal justices in that ruling but both sided with Alito this time. Alabama currently has a separate pending appeal at the Supreme Court.