This article may contain commentary
which reflects the author’s opinion.
The U.S. Supreme Court struck down Louisiana’s congressional map on Wednesday and sharply limited the use of race in drawing district boundaries in a major ruling that could carry significant consequences for future House elections.
In comparison to 2024 maps, the decision could increase the Republican dominance in the House by an extra 19 seats and alter voting throughout the South.
Louisiana had been ordered by lower courts to create a second majority-Black congressional district in 2024 to comply with Section 2 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which bars states from diluting minority voting strength.
Advertisement
The Trump administration and state officials challenged the revised map, arguing it amounted to an unconstitutional racial gerrymander in violation of the 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law, reports said on Wednesday.
In a majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito said that “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, and that map is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.”
About one-third of Louisiana’s residents are African-American, and the state’s only two Democratic lawmakers in Congress (compared to four House Republicans) were elected from majority-black districts.
Advertisement
The ruling carries immense weight, with two prominent voting rights organizations noting earlier that the removal or restriction of Section 2 will likely empower Republican-led legislatures to change the boundaries of as many as 19 congressional districts to their advantage, in order to comply with the court.
“However, it’s not clear if red states will be able to seize on the Supreme Court’s decision in time to significantly impact the 2026 midterms, in which Democrats are favored to retake the House of Representatives,” the New York Post reported.
Advertisement
This would enable mapmakers to emphasize Republican strengths.
Chief Justice John Roberts, the author of the 2023 Allen v. Milligan ruling that requires the establishment of a second majority-Black district in Alabama, examined whether this framework is consistent with Allen and the Court’s Thornburg v. Gingles criteria.
The test mandates that plaintiffs demonstrate a minority group is not only sizable and cohesive but also experiences majority bloc voting that undermines their electoral candidates. Roberts appeared focused on aligning the proposal with established norms, steering clear of a complete transformation.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, an influential voice in the Allen case alongside Roberts and the liberal justices, raised the possibility of a “sunset” clause for Section 2 remedies, referencing precedents that restrict race-based policies to temporary solutions.
Voting rights organizations aligned with the Democratic Party already warned that the removal or restriction of Section 2 could empower Republican-led legislatures to change the boundaries of as many as 19 congressional districts to their advantage.
Fair Fight Action and the Black Voters Matter Fund argue that if Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is invalidated, it could significantly increase the likelihood that Republicans will maintain control of the House of Representatives for years.
Research has identified 27 congressional seats nationwide that Republicans could benefit from if the current legal and political landscape remains unchanged.
Nineteen of these changes are directly tied to the potential loss of Section 2 protections.
The SCOTUS ruling will prompt many states to redraw maps ahead of November’s elections.
“Extremely gratified to see this decision we’ve been waiting for! I was proud to co-author the brief for the United States as amicus in this important case, perhaps one of the most important developments in decades in Voting Rights Act jurisprudence!” wrote U.S. Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division Harmeet Dhillon on X, celebrating the Supreme Court gutting the VRA.
“The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was enacted to ban racial discrimination in voting. Rather than enforce that discrimination ban, the Supreme Court greenlight the Left’s twisting of the VRA into a mandate to create every possible racially gerrymandered ‘majority-minority’ district,” wrote Missouri Republican Sen. Eric Schmitt.
