The Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down Louisiana’s voting map, finding that lawmakers had illegally used race when drawing up a new majority-Black district.
The decision was 6-to-3, split along ideological lines. The conservative majority asserted that the opinion was a limited ruling that preserved a central tenet of the Voting Rights Act, but the court’s liberal wing, in dissent, argued that the justices had taken the final step to dismantle the landmark civil rights law.
In the majority opinion, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote that the court had kept intact the Voting Rights Act but that Louisiana’s new majority-minority district violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
For decades, lawmakers have crafted congressional districts with a focus on ensuring that minority voters had the opportunity to elect candidates of their choice, often working to create majority-minority districts as they labored under scrutiny from federal courts that guaranteed the rights of minorities because of the Voting Rights Act.
Justice Alito wrote that the justices were updating the 40-year-old framework that courts look to for evaluating the use of race in drawing up congressional districts, essentially saying that the Voting Rights Act only prevents lawmakers from drawing maps that would intentionally limit the power of minority voters.
To successfully challenge district maps under the Voting Rights Act now, Justice Alito wrote, challengers will need to show proof a state “intentionally drew its districts to afford minority voters less opportunity because of their race.” A legal challenge that “cannot disentangle race from the state’s race-neutral considerations, including politics,” will fail.
Justice Alito added that the new framework “reflects important developments” since the court laid out factors for evaluating the use of race in voting maps in 1986. He cited increased voter registration and turnout by minorities, writing that “the racial gap in voter registration and turnout” had “largely disappeared.”
Justice Elena Kagan, in dissent, countered that the practical effect of the decision would be to make it nearly impossible to use race when drawing up voting maps, writing that “the court’s decision will set back the foundational right Congress granted of racial equality in electoral opportunity.”
Justice Kagan read her dissent from the bench, a rare move that often signals a justice’s strong displeasure with a decision.
It is unclear how the decision will impact the midterm elections amid the nationwide redistricting battle that has spiraled already into multiple states.
Coming in the middle of the primary calendar, there were still multiple states that could draw new maps, citing today’s decision. Republicans in Florida moved swiftly after the announcement. The state’s House approving a new map on Wednesday morning. Louisiana will likely lose one Democratic district when it finalizes a new map.
Any map that eliminated majority-minority districts and was drawn in the wake of the ruling would likely be challenged in court — potentially prompting a new wave of litigation.
Representative Troy Carter of Louisiana, a Democrat, condemned the ruling.
“It sends a dangerous signal that the progress we have made can be undone under the guise of legal theory,” Mr. Carter said in a statement. “The Voting Rights Act is not a relic. It is a living promise, a commitment that our democracy belongs to everyone.”
Wednesday’s decision marks the latest in a series of rulings by the justices to weaken the Voting Rights Act of 1965, often considered the crown jewel of the civil rights-era laws.
The case, Louisiana v. Callais, arose from a dispute over a new voting map drafted by Louisiana lawmakers after the 2020 census. Before then, only one of the state’s six congressional districts was majority Black, even though Black Louisianans made up about a third of the state’s population.
Two groups of Black voters sued in 2022, after state lawmakers adopted a new map that still included only one majority-Black district. They argued Louisiana had violated the Voting Rights Act by packing Black voters into one district, which had the effect of diluting the power of their votes. A federal judge agreed.
In 2024, state lawmakers tried again, this time adopting a map that included a second majority-Black district. A group of white Louisiana voters then challenged that map, claiming it was an illegal racial gerrymander. They pointed to the boundaries of the new district, which snakes diagonally across the state from the southeast to the northwest.
Lawmakers initially defended the map, arguing that the odd shape was the result of politics, not race. They said that lawmakers created the second district’s area to protect high-profile politicians, including House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Republican. The court has said it is acceptable to draw maps motivated by partisan advantage.
The Supreme Court first heard the challenge to the Louisiana map in spring 2025, considering whether state lawmakers had properly balanced race and political considerations. But in June, rather than announce a decision, the justices said they would rehear it in the fall. In August, the justices announced they were expanding the case, asking the lawyers to prepare for an argument on a much broader question than they had originally considered: Whether the state’s creation of a second majority-minority district violated the Constitution.
That announcement raised alarms among proponents of the Voting Rights Act, who feared that the court’s conservative majority — long skeptical of the legislation — would use the case to deal a fatal blow to the law and rule its provision requiring lawmakers to consider race was unconstitutional.
Just two years ago, the justices heard a similar dispute over Alabama’s congressional map and cited the Voting Rights Act without finding it unconstitutional. In that case, Allen v. Milligan, the Supreme Court ruled that the state’s Republican supermajority illegally diluted the power of Black voters in violation of the Voting Rights Act.
But in that case, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh wrote in a concurring opinion that he wondered whether there should be a time limit on the ability of states to “conduct race-based redistricting,” writing that it could not “extend indefinitely into the future.”
During the oral arguments in the Louisiana case, Justice Kavanaugh and several other conservative justices appeared to question whether there should be a sunset to taking race into account in drawing voting maps.
“What exactly do you think the end point should be, or how would we know, for the intentional use of race to create districts?” Justice Kavanaugh had asked a lawyer for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, who argued to uphold the Voting Rights Act.
Nick Corasaniti and Rick Rojas contributed reporting."
