The Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down Louisiana’s remedial congressional map that created two majority-Black districts, ruling that compliance with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act could not alone justify the state’s use of race in drawing those lines.
In a 6-3 opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito, the conservative majority upheld a lower court finding that mapmakers relied too heavily on race when they redrew the state’s House districts. Alito wrote that because the Voting Rights Act did not require Louisiana to create an additional majority-minority district, no compelling interest justified the state’s race-conscious plan and that the remedial map was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.
The decision changes the legal standard courts will use to evaluate Section 2 vote-dilution claims, raising the burden on plaintiffs. Alito described the court’s approach as an ‘‘updated’’ standard that requires strong evidence that a state intentionally drew districts to reduce minority voters’ opportunities because of their race.
Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented. She warned the majority’s test ‘‘eviscerates’’ Section 2 and effectively requires proof of a discriminatory motive by legislators, which she said will be ‘‘well-nigh impossible’’ to show and will harm minority voters’ ability to elect candidates of their choice.
Background: Louisiana’s 2022 plan had produced five majority-White districts and one majority-Black district. After Black voters sued under Section 2, a federal judge ordered a remedial map adding a second majority-minority district for the 2024 cycle. That redrawn 6th Congressional District was adopted in 2024 and elected Representative Cleo Fields, a Black Democrat, in November 2024.
A separate group of 12 self-described “non-African-American” voters challenged the remedial map as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. A three-judge panel agreed that the legislature had relied too much on race. Louisiana Republicans and Black voters appealed to the Supreme Court. After the court agreed to consider the constitutionality of race-based redistricting, state officials changed positions and argued the intentional creation of a majority-minority district violated the Constitution.
The ruling arrives months before the November midterm elections, after candidates have already filed across Louisiana’s six districts and with primaries set for May 16. The window for the state to redraw maps appears limited because of the impending primary schedule and early voting.
Reactions split largely along partisan lines. The White House described the ruling as a “complete and total victory for voters,” saying “the color of one’s skin should not dictate which congressional district you belong in.” The NAACP, which represented plaintiffs defending the two majority-minority districts, condemned the decision and urged voter mobilization, calling it a devastating blow to the Voting Rights Act.
Former President Donald Trump praised the ruling on social media, calling it a “BIG WIN for Equal Protection under the Law.” Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill, a Republican, said the decision vindicated the state and vowed to help produce a constitutionally compliant map.
Voting rights advocates warned the ruling could have effects beyond Louisiana. Section 2 has been a key mechanism for challenging redistricting plans alleged to discriminate on the basis of race, and observers note recent Supreme Court decisions have narrowed Voting Rights Act protections. Critics say the new standard will make it harder for minority voters and civil rights groups to prevail in future challenges, potentially reducing the number of majority-minority districts and minority representation in Congress.
It is uncertain whether other states will attempt last-minute redistricting in response. Lawmakers in several states have conducted mid-decade redistricting in recent years, and some voting rights groups said states with later primary calendars could move quickly to redraw lines, potentially affecting minority representation before the midterms.
The case is one of several recent high-court decisions reshaping how race-conscious districting claims are litigated under the 14th and 15th Amendments and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, and it will influence how electoral maps are drawn and challenged going forward.