In a 6-3 decision announced on Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court has significantly curtailed the scope of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, making it harder for minority voters to challenge electoral district maps that dilute their voting power. The ruling in Louisiana v. Callais requires challengers to prove that state legislators acted with discriminatory intent rather than merely demonstrating the dilutive effects of a map, a shift that civil rights advocates say will undermine protections against racial gerrymandering.
The case originated from Louisiana's redistricting process following the 2020 census. A lower federal court had ruled that the state's congressional map, which included only one majority-Black district out of six, violated Section 2 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. That section prohibits voting practices that dilute the voting strength of racial minorities. The court ordered the creation of a second Black-majority district to remedy the issue. However, a group of white residents appealed, arguing that such remedies unconstitutionally prioritize race.
Delivering the majority opinion from the bench, Justice Samuel Alito explained the court's reasoning in a measured tone. He detailed the history of the Louisiana litigation and the evolution of standards under Section 2. Alito emphasized that future challenges must show "circumstances give rise to a strong inference that intentional discrimination occurred," rather than relying solely on the effects of vote dilution techniques like "cracking"—dispersing minority voters across districts—or "packing"—concentrating them into fewer districts.
Alito's opinion drew heavily from the court's 2013 landmark decision in Shelby County v. Holder, where Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that "things have changed dramatically" since the Voting Rights Act's passage. "(V)ast social change has occurred throughout the country and particularly in the South," Alito wrote, adapting Roberts' language to argue that the nation's progress in eliminating racial discrimination in voting means intentional discrimination is now harder to prove—a development he described as "cause for celebration."
The majority's view aligns with a series of prior rulings narrowing the Voting Rights Act. In 2021's Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, the same 6-3 conservative majority, penned by Alito, upheld Arizona voting restrictions and limited Section 2's application to practices without clear discriminatory purpose. Earlier, in 2006, Roberts had criticized race-based redistricting in a Texas case, calling it "a sordid business, this divvying us up by race." Alito was the only justice to join that partial dissent.
Roberts, who has led the court since 2005, has consistently advocated for colorblind approaches to race in public policy. During his time in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations in the 1980s and 1990s, he wrote memos arguing that federal protections under the Voting Rights Act were no longer necessary. Appointed by President George W. Bush, Roberts joined the bench the same year as Alito, and the two have frequently aligned on racial issues, including the 2007 school desegregation case where Roberts famously stated, "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."
They were together again in 2023's decision ending race-conscious affirmative action in college admissions, a ruling Alito referenced briefly in Wednesday's opinion. Both justices, along with the court's other conservatives—Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett—formed the majority. Three of the conservative justices were appointed by former President Donald Trump during his first term.
From the bench, Justice Elena Kagan delivered a sharp dissent on behalf of the court's three liberal justices—Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson joining her. "This court’s project to destroy the Voting Rights Act is now complete," Kagan declared, her voice carrying emphasis as she addressed the courtroom. She described the law as "born of the literal blood of Union soldiers and civil rights marchers," referencing its passage after the violent "Bloody Sunday" attack on March 7, 1965, when sheriff's deputies beat marchers on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama.
Kagan recounted the history of post-Reconstruction discrimination, noting how states used "a seemingly boundless array of mechanisms—most of them facially race-neutral and among them the drawing of district lines—to either prevent Black citizens from casting ballots or ensure that their votes would count for next to nothing." The Voting Rights Act, she said, was "meant as the corrective." She accused the majority of imposing "made-up and impossible-to-meet evidentiary standards" that would "greenlight districting plans" disadvantaging minorities nationwide.
The decision comes amid a broader pattern under the Roberts Court. In 2013's Shelby County, the court struck down a key provision requiring states with histories of discrimination to seek federal preclearance for voting changes, a move that Kagan and others said opened the door to renewed suppression. Wednesday's ruling builds on that, further limiting Section 2's reach. The case had been argued twice before the justices; the first round in 2022 led to a reargument, signaling the court's intent for a major shift.
A partial exception appeared in 2023's Alabama redistricting case, where the court upheld the need for race-conscious remedies in some instances to correct prior discrimination. However, Wednesday's decision in Louisiana suggests that was a narrow holding, as the majority did not outright ban race considerations but raised the bar so high that proving intent in partisan redistricting battles will be challenging.
Immediately after the ruling, officials in Republican-led states signaled plans to act. In Florida, for example, lawmakers were reportedly prepared to redraw maps in ways that could affect minority representation. Louisiana's map, which the lower court had deemed dilutive—with Black voters comprising about 33% of the state's population but holding only one of six congressional seats—remains in flux, though the Supreme Court's decision reverses the mandate for a second majority-Black district.
The ruling's implications extend beyond Louisiana. With midterm elections approaching, it could influence redistricting in states like Georgia, Texas, and North Carolina, where Section 2 challenges have been used to combat gerrymanders. Civil rights groups, including the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, which supported the Louisiana plaintiffs, warned that the decision would reduce opportunities for Black, Latino, Native American, and other minority voters to elect representatives of their choice.
Roberts, assigning the opinion to Alito despite his seniority, maintained an expressionless demeanor during the bench announcements, as did Alito. The courtroom atmosphere underscored the divisions, with Kagan's dissent drawing stark contrast to the majority's drier delivery. Legal scholars note that the transformed court composition—now with a solid conservative supermajority—has accelerated the erosion of race-based remedies across policy areas, from education to voting.
Looking ahead, the decision may prompt new legislation or constitutional amendments to bolster voting protections, though such efforts face steep hurdles in a divided Congress. For now, it solidifies the Roberts Court's legacy on race, prioritizing intent over impact in a nation still grappling with the echoes of its discriminatory past.