Supreme Court decision weakens the Voting Rights Act

The Supreme Court on Wednesday weakened a landmark Civil Rights-era law that increased minority representation in Congress and elsewhere, striking down a majority Black congressional district in Louisiana. The decision opens the door for more redistricting across the country, which could aid Republican efforts to control the House.

In a 6-3 ruling, the court’s conservative majority found that the Louisiana district represented by Democrat Cleo Fields relied too heavily on race. Chief Justice John Roberts had described the 6th Congressional District as a “snake” that stretches more than 200 miles (320 kilometers) to link parts of Shreveport, Alexandria, Lafayette, and Baton Rouge.

“That map is an unconstitutional gerrymander,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the six conservatives.

The effect of the ruling may be felt more strongly in 2028 as most filing deadlines for this year’s congressional races have passed. Louisiana, though, may have to change its redistricting plan to comply with the decision. However, it is unclear how much of the provision — known as Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 — remains.

In her dissent for the three liberal justices, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that the court’s “gutting of Section 2 puts that achievement in peril.”

Her sentiment was echoed by former President Barack Obama, who said the decision showed “how a majority of the current Court seems intent on abandoning its vital role in ensuring equal participation in our democracy.”

The voting rights law succeeded in opening the ballot box to Black Americans and reducing persistent discrimination in voting. Nearly 70 of the 435 congressional districts are protected by Section 2, election law expert Nicholas Stephanopoulos has estimated.

Taking too long?

Reload document

Open in new tab

SCOTUS & The Voting Rights Act
Category	Details
The Ruling	The U.S. Supreme Court ruled [Insert Vote Count, e.g., 6-3] in a decision that limits the scope and enforcement of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
The Legal Focus	The case centered heavily on [Insert specific section, e.g., Section 2] of the VRA, which prohibits voting practices or procedures that discriminate on the basis of race.
Majority Opinion	Authored by [Insert Justice Name], the majority argued that [Insert brief summary of the conservative/majority argument, e.g., the specific state laws do not impose an unconstitutional burden on voters].
Dissenting Opinion	Authored by [Insert Justice Name], the dissenting justices strongly pushed back, arguing the decision [Insert brief summary of the liberal/dissent argument, e.g., effectively guts the remaining protections against minority voter dilution].
The Impact	The ruling shifts more power back to state legislatures to set their own election maps and voting rules, making it significantly harder for civil rights groups to sue over alleged discriminatory practices in federal court.