Supreme Court Signals Possible Tightening of Voting Rights Act Limits

On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court appeared inclined to scale back how aggressively federal courts can enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, potentially insulating some state redistricting decisions from challenges that treat race and partisanship as one and the same. The justices’ demeanor during reargument in Louisiana v. Callais suggested openness to a framework advanced by the Trump Department of Justice, one that could make it more difficult for plaintiffs to prevail in racial vote‐dilution cases in states where racial blocs and party affiliations frequently overlap.

The Dispute at Hand

The case centers on Louisiana’s 2022 congressional map. Black residents make up roughly one third of the state’s population, yet the plan concentrated Black voters into just one majority-Black district out of six. A federal court found that configuration likely violated Section 2’s prohibition on denying minorities equal electoral opportunity. In response, Louisiana’s legislature adopted a remedy in 2024 creating a second majority-Black district.

White voters then filed suit, arguing the remedial map constituted an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. A district court sided with them, setting the stage for Supreme Court review. Earlier this term, the Court asked for new briefing on the constitutional limits of Section 2, leading to this reargument.

A Shift in Positions

Louisiana has shifted positions. While originally defending the need for a second Black district, its current argument asks the Court to curb or even eliminate the role of race in redistricting. The state now urges justices to accept defenses grounded in partisan interests, even where those interests overlap with racial demographics.

During reargument, conservative justices appeared skeptical of entirely jettisoning Section 2—a civil rights tool passed in 1965 and strengthened in 1982. Instead, they entertained a narrower theory advanced by Principal Deputy Solicitor General Hashim Mooppan, representing the Trump DOJ. Mooppan’s proposal draws on the 2019 Rucho v. Common Cause decision, which holds that federal courts cannot police partisan gerrymandering. He suggests that states should be permitted to defend racial overlap in maps as legitimate partisan aims—as long as race is not the sole or dominant motive.

Reconciling New and Old Precedents

Chief Justice John Roberts, author of the Court’s 2023 Allen v. Milligan decision (which required Alabama to create a second majority-Black district), pressed whether Mooppan’s concept can be squared with existing precedent, especially the Gingles framework. Under Gingles, plaintiffs must show (1) a minority group is sufficiently numerous and geographically compact, (2) it votes cohesively, and (3) that the majority votes as a bloc to defeat it.

Roberts asked whether a states’ interest in partisan balance must be weighed against those factors, and whether the new approach risks displacing the protections Allen affirmed.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a crucial swing vote in Allen, floated another idea: Should Section 2 remedies automatically expire after a time, perhaps with a “sunset” clause to avoid permanent race-based lines? Justice Samuel Alito also probed how courts should judge proportionality when race and party affiliation overlap so tightly—pondering how much deference must be given to state mapmakers in politically charged settings.

Louisiana’s Solicitor General, Ben Aguiñaga, went further, arguing for a total ban on any race-conscious redistricting. He claimed that Gingles, in practice, forces states into “government-mandated racial balancing,” which he viewed as an equal protection violation. Some conservative justices nodded at this conflict: states may be trapped between statutory mandates to create minority‐opportunity districts and constitutional limits on racial sorting.

Dissenting Voices

The Court’s three liberal justices pushed back hard. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson likened Section 2’s protections to the Americans with Disabilities Act, emphasizing the gravity of inclusion rights. Justice Elena Kagan warned that the partisan-defense theory would hollow out Section 2 in the South—where Black voters overwhelmingly favor Democrats and white voters lean Republican—allowing states to rewrite maps disguised as political tweaks. Janai Nelson, representing the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, cautioned that such a rule would permit states to dismantle racial protections under the guise of partisan adjustments.

Stakes and Implications

If adopted, this new doctrine could shift the redistricting landscape in GOP-led states. Many Southern states draw maps where racial demographics tightly align with party lines. A ruling that gives more leeway to partisan defenses may reduce the risk of federal intervention in maps that some view as suppressing minority voting power.

Already, Louisiana has drawn new district lines twice since the 2020 census. Similar battles are brewing in other states, and a narrowing of Section 2 could tilt the balance of power over redistricting to state legislatures. It could also shift Section 2 litigation from federal courts into an increasingly constrained toolbox—or make many challenges unviable when race and party track together.

The Court gave no timeline for an opinion. But when it comes, the ruling may clarify or curtail Allen and Gingles, effectively rebalancing the tension between federal oversight and state sovereignty in a deeply polarized political era.