The Supreme Court appears ready to weaken the Voting Rights Act. What this could mean.
The Supreme Court weighed in during oral arguments Wednesday on significantly narrowing a crucial provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 — a move that could significantly boost Republicans’ hopes of winning the U.S. House of Representatives in the next election and significantly reduce the number of Black and Hispanic officials in the country.
The justices heard arguments in Louisiana v. Callais, a case centered on a congressional map for the state of Louisiana that created two majority-black districts. The Trump administration and the state of Louisiana argued that using race to designate congressional districts as a remedy for discrimination was itself a violation of the Constitution. If a majority of the court agreed, it would render ineffective the 60-year-old law, which has paved the way for increased representation of minorities in the United States since the civil rights era. This would essentially undo the Voting Rights Act’s final enforcement mechanism and open the door for Republicans to eliminate a host of majority and minority congressional seats in states they control.
A decision in Louisiana’s favor could potentially solidify Republican control of the House for years to come and shake up congressional voting maps right down to the city council and school district boundaries. During oral arguments, Janai Nelson, an attorney for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, warned that if the court struck down Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the part of the law still intact after an earlier Supreme Court decision weakened another part of the law, “the results would be quite catastrophic” for minority representation.
Why we wrote this
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case asking whether using race as a factor in congressional maps violated the Constitution. If the justices rule that is the case, the ruling could open the door for Republican politicians to redraw the maps to eliminate a number of black and Hispanic districts.
Hashim Mooppan of the Justice Department, defending the plaintiffs, suggested that there is “no reason to assume that because there is a large Democratic population in Louisiana that does not have a district that it is a racial reason rather than a partisan reason.”
Conservatives hold a 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court, and following the oral arguments, many scholars predict this will significantly limit the law’s enforcement.
“I think it’s very unlikely that the Voting Rights Act will escape this court unscathed. I think it’s very likely that they will strike down parts of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act,” says Maya Sen, a professor at the Harvard Kennedy School who researches law and policy.
Should the Voting Rights Act continue?
The Supreme Court threw out another key part of the Voting Rights Act in 2013. In that decision, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion that effectively ended the federal government’s previous ability to block maps it viewed as racial gerrymanders in states with a history of discrimination. Justice Roberts has long been skeptical of the law: as a young lawyer in the Reagan administration, he worked unsuccessfully to oppose the expansion of the Voting Rights Act. This left Section 2 as the primary enforcement mechanism.
Ed Blum, a conservative legal activist who led the charge in the case that led to the 2013 ruling, predicts the court will further chip away at the law.
“It is unlikely that the Court will rule that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional,” he told the Monitor. “However, it appears that Section 2 will be narrowed in a way that would make race-based gerrymandering for purportedly remedial purposes illegal.”
This court has already surprised observers on questions of voting rights. Two years ago, the conservative-majority court ruled 5-4 to uphold an injunction against an Alabama map that lower courts had found discriminated against black voters under Section 2, with Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joining the court’s three liberals in the majority.
But on Wednesday, Justice Kavanaugh was much more sympathetic to the arguments presented by the Trump administration and Louisiana, raising the question of whether enforcement of the VRA should continue indefinitely. Chief Justice Roberts remained fairly silent during oral arguments. If just one of these two justices sided with their conservative colleagues, what remains of the Voting Rights Act could be significantly weakened.
Josh Blackman, a conservative jurist and law professor at South Texas College of Law, believes that “there are almost certainly six votes” to rule in Louisiana’s favor in the case.
“Judge Kavanaugh came to the argument extremely well prepared and seemed to have mapped out all the contours of an opinion. It seemed like he was reading from notes and articulating different standards that might apply,” he says. “I think he’s generally comfortable with the way the government is presenting the case.”
Political ramifications
The political consequences of such a move would be profound, likely allowing red-state Republicans to wipe out a number of Democratic-held black and Hispanic districts in the South and virtually lock in their control of the House.
Republicans, at the behest of President Donald Trump, already began mid-decade redistricting in states including Texas, Ohio, Missouri, North Carolina, Kansas and possibly Indiana to eliminate Democratic-held seats and consolidate their House majority. (California Democrats are responding by attempting to redraw their state’s map.) But that effort pales in comparison to what the Republican Party would be able to do without the constraints of the Voting Rights Act.
Republicans could eliminate as many as 19 congressional seats held by minority Democrats and all but guarantee their majority in the House in the next election, according to a recent report from Democratic voting rights groups Black Voters Matter and Fair Fight Action. A New York Times analysis estimates that if the Supreme Court gives Republicans carte blanche to eliminate these seats, Democrats would need to win the national popular vote in the House of Representatives by about five percentage points in the next election to regain control of the chamber, compared to just 1.4 points assuming Republican states complete their current gerrymandering efforts.
Unusually, the Supreme Court heard this case during its last term — and sent it back for another round of oral arguments, asking lawyers for both sides to focus specifically on whether the Voting Rights Act violates the 14th and 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The 14th Amendment provides equal protection under the law, while the 15th Amendment prohibits governments from denying or abridgeing citizens’ right to vote “because of race, color, or previous conditions of servitude.” Voting rights advocates viewed the court request itself as disturbing, creating a broader challenge to the law.
David Becker, executive director of the Center for Election Innovation and Research, says it’s “a very troubling question posed by the Supreme Court.”
Conservatives argued in that case that Louisiana’s congressional map was drawn with the goal of maximizing Republican representation rather than minimizing black voting strength, and that considering race in gerrymandering defies the 14th and 15th Amendments. Louisiana v. Callais arose after Louisiana redrew its congressional map in 2022 with one majority-black district out of the state’s six districts. About a third of the state’s population is black. A federal judge ruled that map likely violated the Voting Rights Act and ordered the state to draw new maps. In 2024, the state created a second majority-black district. A group of “non-African American” plaintiffs challenged the most recent version, and a federal district court upheld their view, leading to a direct appeal to the Supreme Court.
“Race-based redistricting is fundamentally contrary to our Constitution. It requires removing enough members of the majority race to sufficiently diminish their voting power, and it requires attracting enough members of a minority race to sufficiently increase their voting power,” Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguiñaga argued during the hearing.
The Trump administration’s Justice Department has taken a slightly different position: Section 2 does not need to be struck down, just narrowed.
Ms. Nelson, in her rebuttal, argued that restricting the Voting Rights Act would lead to a resurgence of racially discriminatory gerrymandering.
The court is expected to issue a quick ruling in the case if it matters for the 2026 midterm elections, and it’s unclear how quickly a decision could be reached. Louisiana Secretary of State Nancy Landry asked the court to rule this winter so she can put a new map in place before the state’s April primary, a request lawyers reiterated during oral arguments Wednesday.
The Supreme Court generally issues its main rulings in June or July. This would not provide enough time for most states to redraw their maps in time for their state’s primary election filing deadlines. But it’s unclear whether that will be the case this time, or whether the justices could issue a quicker ruling in time to upend the 2026 midterm elections and help President Trump’s party maintain unified control over Washington.
Staff writer Victoria Hoffmann contributed reporting to this story.
