The Supreme Court appeared ready on Wednesday to deliver yet another blow to the historic 1965 Voting Rights Act, a law once hailed as a cornerstone of the civil rights movement.
During more than two hours of arguments, the conservative-majority court signaled skepticism toward the creation of Louisiana’s second majority-Black congressional district, potentially reshaping the state’s political map and weakening protections for minority voters.
The case revolves around a redistricting map drawn by Louisiana’s legislature following the 2020 census. After prolonged litigation, the state, where roughly 30% of residents are Black, finally agreed to establish a second majority-Black district. Currently, two of the state’s six U.S. House members are African-American. However, a group of self-described “non-African-American voters” challenged the new map, arguing it unfairly prioritized race in violation of the Constitution.
Representing the challengers, Deputy Solicitor General Hashim Mooppan argued before the justices that race should not have been the determining factor in creating a second district. “If they were all white, we all agree they wouldn’t get a second district,” Mooppan stated.
The court’s three liberal justices pushed back, emphasizing that federal law focuses on the real-world effects of redistricting, especially in states like Louisiana, where voting remains starkly racially polarized. “Even white Democrats for the most part don’t vote for Black candidates,” one justice noted, underlining how race continues to drive political divisions in the state.
Justice Samuel Alito, representing the conservative wing, suggested that seeking partisan advantage is distinct from racial discrimination. In response, Janai Nelson, president of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, rejected that idea. “The extremely racially polarized voting that we have in Louisiana cannot be explained away by party,” Nelson said. “We’re talking about racially polarized voting above 84%. That means nearly all white voters don’t vote for Black candidates.”
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who played a decisive role in upholding the Voting Rights Act in an Alabama case two years ago, appeared to shift his tone. “Race-based remedies are permissible for a period of time,” he said, “but they should not be indefinite.” Nelson countered that Congress intentionally chose not to limit this specific section of the Voting Rights Act, emphasizing that the Fifteenth Amendment, which guarantees voting rights, contains no expiration date.
When Justice Elena Kagan asked what the consequences would be if the court limited or struck down the law’s redistricting protections, Nelson’s reply was stark: “It would be pretty catastrophic.” She warned that Black lawmakers across the Deep South, whose seats exist because of the Voting Rights Act, could lose representation.
Justice Neil Gorsuch probed whether the law itself discriminates by race, to which Nelson responded, “No, the only breathing room in Louisiana is to ensure that districts drawn to dilute the Black vote are eliminated.”
Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguinaga, however, argued the opposite. “Race-based redistricting is fundamentally contrary to our Constitution,” he said. His statement drew a sharp rebuke from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who reminded him that he had previously defended the very same majority-Black district during an earlier session. “Are you walking that back?” she asked pointedly. Aguinaga declined to give a clear answer.
The outcome of this case could have sweeping national implications. If the Supreme Court rules against the existing interpretation of the Voting Rights Act, Louisiana’s newly drawn district could be eliminated before the 2026 congressional elections. Experts warn that, in a worst-case scenario, Democrats could lose as many as 19 congressional seats nationwide if similar challenges to minority districts succeed.
Chief Justice John Roberts, who authored a 2022 decision upholding part of the Voting Rights Act, appeared to distance himself from that ruling on Wednesday, suggesting it might not influence this case’s outcome.
For now, the court’s decision remains pending, but its tone made one thing clear: the Voting Rights Act, once considered the crown jewel of American democracy, faces yet another formidable test before a deeply divided Supreme Court.
- Dolly’s Locations in Cincinnati and Dayton Closing Early Ahead of Final Day - October 24, 2025
- National Guard Deployment to San Francisco Put on Hold After Trump Talks With Tech Leaders - October 24, 2025
- Mayor Eric Adams Backs Andrew Cuomo to Halt Zohran Mamdani’s Rise in NYC Race - October 24, 2025
