Supreme Court limits use of race in redistricting

WASHINGTON (Gray DC) - The Supreme Court on Wednesday threw out Louisiana’s congressional map and significantly limited a Civil Rights-era law.

The ruling was made along ideological lines, 6-3, in a case that challenged the map after it had been redrawn to include a second majority Black congressional district. The conservative majority ruled that the map was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.

In the majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that “Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965... was designed to enforce the Constitution— not collide with it. Unfortunately, lower courts have sometimes applied this Court’s [Section] 2 precedents in a way that forces States to engage in the very race-based discrimination that the Constitution forbids."

Legal experts said that the ruling is highly significant for Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which has been used for decades to protect minority voting power.

“For about the last 45 years, states have used race to try to give minorities more representation in drawing congressional districts. And the Supreme Court has now pretty much said states can’t do that anymore,” said Stephen Wermiel, a constitutional law professor at American University.

Civil rights groups said the ruling effectively “guts” Section 2.

“Today’s decision is an evisceration of what has been called the crown jewel of the civil rights movement, Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Today’s decision elevates partisanship above protections against racial discrimination,” said Stuart Naifeh, Manager of the Redistricting Project at NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund.

The court’s liberal wing wrote in its dissent that the decision can dilute minority voting power.

“[The majority’s] opinion is understated, even antiseptic,” wrote Justice Elena Kagan. “The majority claims only to be “updat[ing]” our Section 2 law, as though through a few technical tweaks. But in fact, those ‘updates’ eviscerate the law, so that it will not remedy even the classic example of vote dilution."

After the ruling, several Democratic members of Congress sharply condemned the decision.

“This ruling harkens back to the darkest days of the Jim Crow era, when Black Americans were kept out of rooms of power. This is one huge step backwards for racial justice and for the health of our democracy,” said Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-GA).

House members of the Congressional Black Caucus held a press conference on Wednesday afternoon to discuss the decision.

“Today, the far right Supreme Court has dealt a devastating blow to our democracy and to the Voting Rights Act of 1965,” said Rep. Terri Sewell (D-AL). “It will pave the way for the greatest reduction in representation for black and minority voters since the years following reconstruction.”

Rep. Cleo Fields (D-LA), who returned to the House after the map was redrawn in 2024, also spoke out against the decision.

“If you tell me that I have to jump a certain height, I could probably do that. Tell me I have to run a certain distance, I could probably do that, too. But if you tell me I have to be white to serve in Congress from Louisiana, I can’t do nothing about that,” the congressman said.

hat” the congressman said.

“Let’s be clear: this is not about so-called ‘colorblind’ principles,” said Rep. Troy Carter (D-LA), in a statement. “History has shown us time and again that policies claiming neutrality, from literacy tests to poll taxes, have been used to silence Black voices. Louisiana knows this history all too well. Without the protections of the Voting Rights Act, there is no evidence to suggest that Black voters in our state will be able to elect candidates of their choice.”

Several Republicans applauded the court’s decision, including President Donald Trump.

“Today’s 6-3 Supreme Court decision in the Callais case is a BIG WIN for Equal Protection under the Law, as it returns the Voting Rights Act to its Original Intent, which was to protect against intentional Racial Discrimination,” the president wrote in a social media post.

While speaking to reporters on Capitol Hill, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) said that the ruling was the “obvious result.”

”They determined that the last map that was drawn for Louisiana was done unconstitutionally. And we’ve been saying that consistently from the beginning,” he said. “So we’ll see what effect it has.”

Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill (R-LA), who has been involved in the congressional map litigation for years, said that the decision was “seismic.”

“This decision vindicates a position that we took from the beginning that says that we shouldn’t be sorting our voters by race. I think that continues to be true. This opinion reaffirms that principle that we shouldn’t be sorting our voters by race,” she said.

Expert said that the decision will likely spur the redrawing of congressional maps in several Republican-controlled states, but it is unclear if that will happen before November’s midterm elections.

“It may not all happen before the November election, but I would say between now and 2028, we’re likely to see quite a few states start over in redrawing their maps,” Wermiel said.