Washington — The Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down Louisiana’s congressional map that included two majority-Black districts, delivering a major victory for Republicans and narrowing the scope of the Voting Rights Act.
In a 6-3 decision authored by Justice Samuel Alito, the conservative majority upheld a lower court’s finding that Louisiana mapmakers relied too heavily on race when they redrew the state’s House districts to comply with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The court concluded that compliance with Section 2 could not by itself justify the state’s use of race in drawing SB8, the contested map.
“Because the Voting Rights Act did not require Louisiana to create an additional majority-minority district, no compelling interest justified the state’s use of race in creating SB8,” Alito wrote. “That map is an unconstitutional gerrymander, and its use would violate the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.”
The ruling changes the legal framework courts use to evaluate Section 2 vote-dilution claims, raising the bar plaintiffs must meet to prove a violation. Alito said the court’s “updated” standard reflects developments since the test was first adopted four decades ago, and he argued Section 2 imposes liability only when evidence supports a strong inference that the state intentionally drew districts to afford minority voters less opportunity because of their race.
Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented, saying the majority “eviscerates” Section 2 and reduces the law to “all but dead-letter.” Kagan warned the new test effectively requires plaintiffs to show a racially discriminatory motive by legislators, a showing she called “well-nigh impossible.” She said the decision will harm minority voters’ ability to elect preferred candidates and set back equal electoral opportunity.
The ruling comes months before the November midterm elections. Candidates have already filed across Louisiana’s six congressional districts, and the window for state Republicans to redraw the map appears closed; party primaries are set for May 16, with early voting beginning Saturday.
Louisiana’s map — used in the 2024 election cycle — included four majority-White districts and two majority-Black districts. The original 2022 plan adopted by state Republicans had five majority-White districts and one majority-Black district. After a group of Black voters sued under Section 2, a federal judge ordered a remedial map adding a second majority-minority district. The legislature adopted the reconfigured 6th Congressional District in 2024; Rep. Cleo Fields, a Black Democrat, was elected to represent that district in November 2024.
A separate group of 12 self-described “non-African-American” voters challenged the remedial map as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. A divided three-judge panel invalidated the new lines, finding the legislature relied too much on race. Louisiana Republicans and Black voters appealed to the Supreme Court and asked the justices to preserve the remedial map. After the court said it would consider whether race-based redistricting is constitutional, state officials reversed course and argued the intentional creation of a majority-minority district violated the Constitution.
Reactions to the decision split largely along partisan lines. The White House called the ruling a “complete and total victory” for voters, with a spokeswoman saying, “The color of one’s skin should not dictate which congressional district you belong in,” and praising the court for ending what the statement called an unconstitutional abuse of the Voting Rights Act.
The NAACP, which represented plaintiffs defending the two majority-minority districts, condemned the ruling and urged voters to mobilize for the midterms. “Today’s decision is a devastating blow to what remains of the Voting Rights Act, and a license for corrupt politicians who want to rig the system by silencing entire communities,” NAACP President Derrick Johnson said. He called the decision a major setback that threatens hard-won civil rights gains.
Former President Trump hailed the ruling on Truth Social as a “BIG WIN for Equal Protection under the Law,” thanking Alito. Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill, a Republican, said the decision vindicated the state and pledged to work with officials to provide guidance on a constitutionally compliant map. “The Supreme Court has ended Louisiana’s long-running nightmare of federal courts coercing the state to draw a racially discriminatory map,” she said.
National Republican figures praised the ruling as restoring fairness and limiting what they described as activist manipulation of redistricting. Ken Martin, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, called the decision a “gut punch,” saying the court “rolled back the clock on the Civil Rights Movement” and effectively killed Section 2.
Voting rights advocates warned the ruling could have consequences beyond Louisiana. Section 2 has been a key tool for challenging redistricting plans alleged to discriminate on the basis of race. The decision follows prior rulings in 2013 and 2021 that also narrowed Voting Rights Act protections, and observers say it likely will make it harder for minority voters and civil rights groups to prevail in future challenges. Some warned it could lead to fewer majority-minority districts and a decline in minority representation in Congress.
It remains unclear whether other states will attempt last-minute redistricting. Lawmakers in Texas, California, North Carolina, Virginia and Missouri have carried out mid-decade redistricting in recent years, often for political reasons. Voting rights groups have also said some states with later primaries could move quickly to redraw districts in response to the decision, potentially affecting minority representation ahead of the midterms.
The case represents one of the latest high-court moves reshaping the legal terrain for challenges to race-conscious districting under the 14th and 15th Amendments and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, with wide implications for how electoral maps are drawn and litigated going forward.
In:
– Redistricting
– Supreme Court of the United States
– Voting Rights
– Louisiana