The Supreme Court of the United States on Wednesday issued a sweeping decision that critics say guts core protections of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, ruling that Louisiana’s congressional map was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander — even though it was drawn to comply with the landmark civil rights law.
In a 6-3 decision, the court’s conservative majority said states may almost never consider race when drawing political maps under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, a provision long used to protect minority voters from discrimination.
The ruling forces Louisiana to redraw its map again and is expected to reverberate nationwide, potentially reducing the number of majority-minority districts and reshaping political representation at every level of government.
The case stems from Louisiana’s redistricting process after the 2020 census. Lawmakers initially approved a map with just one majority-Black district out of six, despite Black residents making up roughly one-third of the state’s population.
A federal court found that map likely violated the Voting Rights Act, prompting the state to adopt a revised map in 2024 that included a second majority-Black district.
That revised map — intended to comply with federal law — is the one the Supreme Court struck down, concluding that race was used too heavily in its design.
With Louisiana’s primary election scheduled for May 16, the state now faces a tight timeline to produce a new map.
Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito said that while there may be rare “extreme” cases where race can be considered, Louisiana’s situation did not meet that threshold.
He argued that allowing race to influence redistricting decisions departs from a broader constitutional principle requiring government neutrality.
The ruling reflects a “colorblind” interpretation of the Constitution rooted in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution — an approach long advocated by conservative jurists.
In a concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the decision should largely end the practice of drawing districts based on race.
The court also pointed to broader legal developments, including a 2019 ruling that allowed partisan gerrymandering, suggesting that states can now more easily justify maps based on political — rather than racial — considerations.
Louisiana officials and the Trump administration praised the ruling as a major legal victory.
Republican Attorney General Liz Murrill called the decision “seismic,” saying it confirms that race can only be used in redistricting under very narrow circumstances involving proven intentional discrimination.
A White House spokesperson described the ruling as “a complete and total victory for American voters,” adding that congressional districts should not be determined by race.
Voting rights advocates and civil rights groups warned that the decision could have sweeping consequences for minority political power.
In a dissent, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that the ruling’s impact would be “far-reaching and grave,” arguing it effectively renders Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act unenforceable.
“Under the court’s new view … a state can, without legal consequence, systematically dilute minority citizens’ voting power,” Kagan wrote.
Derrick Johnson, leader of the NAACP, called the decision a “betrayal,” saying it undermines decades of progress in expanding access to political representation.
Legal experts echoed those concerns, warning that future challenges to discriminatory maps may be significantly harder to win.
The decision is the latest in a series of rulings that have narrowed the scope of the Voting Rights Act. The court weakened federal oversight of election laws in 2013 and further limited protections in a 2021 decision.
While the court upheld a Voting Rights Act challenge in Alabama in 2023, Wednesday’s ruling signals a more restrictive approach moving forward.
The practical effect could be a decline in majority-minority districts across the country, particularly in Southern states where race and party affiliation are often closely aligned.
Louisiana must now redraw its congressional map in line with the court’s ruling, with little time before upcoming elections.
More broadly, states are expected to reassess how they approach redistricting, as the decision raises new legal risks around considering race in mapmaking.
Advocates say the ruling sets the stage for a new wave of litigation — and could redefine the balance between civil rights protections and constitutional limits on government action for years to come.
