Supreme Court redefines how states can factor race into congressional maps
In a landmark ruling on Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a Louisiana congressional map 鈥� drawn to protect the electoral clout of Black voters in the state 鈥� is itself an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.
The case, Louisiana v. Callais, concerned a map creating two majority-minority voting districts in a state where about one-third of the population is Black, and in a country where voting behavior often tracks closely with race.
The decision continues a decadelong trend of the high court reinterpreting a 1965 civil rights law enacted to protect minority voting rights. It could set off another wave of partisan redistricting, with potentially decisive consequences for which party controls Congress in the coming midterm elections and in years to come.
Why We Wrote This
In a major voting rights case, the Supreme Court struck down Louisiana鈥檚 congressional map, calling it an unconstitutional race-based gerrymander. This continues a decadelong trend of the high court reinterpreting the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
broke 6-3 along the court鈥檚 ideological divide. The majority opinion didn鈥檛 strike down the portion of the law at issue 鈥� Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act 鈥� but it did craft an updated framework through which courts must now evaluate race-based challenges to proposed voting maps.
These updates 鈥渆viscerate鈥� Section 2, Justice Elena Kagan wrote in a dissent joined by her two liberal colleagues. But the majority contended that its ruling corrects a recurring flaw with modern redistricting 鈥� and, more broadly, modern American society 鈥� that reinforces racial segregation. The majority opinion, penned by Justice Samuel Alito, contends that efforts to address racial discrimination through the Voting Rights Act have sometimes perpetuated discrimination instead. It鈥檚 a familiar concern for the court, which three years ago 鈥� in another 6-3 decision along ideological lines 鈥� struck down affirmative action policies at colleges and universities.
鈥淯nfortunately, lower courts have sometimes applied this Court鈥檚 [Section 2] precedents in a way that forces States to engage in the very race-based discrimination that the Constitution forbids,鈥� wrote Justice Alito in the majority opinion for Callais.
鈥淏ut,鈥� he added, 鈥渁llowing race to play any part in government decisionmaking represents a departure from the constitutional rule that applies in almost every other context.鈥�
Legal experts differed in their immediate responses to Wednesday鈥檚 ruling and its significance, largely mirroring the splits among the justices.
The ruling was 鈥渓ong overdue鈥� and 鈥渕akes it clear that the government can鈥檛 treat citizens differently based on their race,鈥� says Zack Smith, senior legal fellow and manager of the Supreme Court and Appellate Advocacy Program at the conservative Heritage Foundation.
鈥淭he court did not overturn Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act; they simply said that the way certain lower courts had been interpreting and applying it was incorrect,鈥� he adds.
The ruling wasn鈥檛 simply a narrow one, says Kareem Crayton, a vice president at the left-leaning Brennan Center for Justice, but one that broadly undermines the Voting Rights Act.
鈥淚t purported to keep the provision in question in place, but effectively prevented any practical usage of the act to actually get at the object of the framers, which is to end racial discrimination,鈥� he says.
As a result of the ruling, Louisiana will need to redraw its congressional map. That might face new legal challenges, as well as a time crunch; early voting for Louisiana鈥檚 primary starts Saturday.
Addressing a 鈥渓ong-unresolved question鈥�
Wednesday鈥檚 decision is a major development in a long-running dispute dating back to the 2020 census. After every decennial census, state legislatures traditionally redraw their congressional maps to account for population changes.
When Louisiana redrew its congressional map, the State Legislature adopted a six-district map in 2022, with one majority-Black district.
A group of Black voters challenged the new map in federal court, alleging that it violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which bars any voting practice or procedure that 鈥渞esults in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen ... to vote on account of race or color.鈥� Lower courts agreed with that argument and ordered Louisiana to draw a new map.
In 2024, the legislature drew a new map, this one featuring a second majority-Black district. This map also faced legal challenge, this time from a group of 鈥渘on-African American鈥� voters who alleged that it had unconstitutionally sorted voters by race.
The case over the second map reached the Supreme Court last term, and the justices heard oral arguments in March 2025. In a rare turn of events, the court did not issue a decision, instead scheduling a second round of arguments for October 2025 after the court鈥檚 summer recess.
The case teed up for the court what Justice Alito described in his opinion as a 鈥渓ong-unresolved question.鈥�
鈥淭he Constitution almost never permits [discrimination] on the basis of race,鈥� he wrote. Supreme Court precedents have identified a 鈥渧ery short list of compelling interests鈥� that can justify flouting the Constitution in this way, he added. Should Section 2 be added to that list?
鈥淔or over 30 years, the Court has simply assumed for the sake of argument that the answer is yes,鈥� wrote Justice Alito.
With its ruling in Callais, the high court has turned that answer from a 鈥測es鈥� to a 鈥測es, if.鈥�
How Section 2 can now be used
Section 2 must be reconciled with the 15th Amendment of the Constitution, which prohibits intentional racial discrimination, the Supreme Court majority held. This would mean the provision 鈥渄oes not intrude on States鈥� prerogative to draw districts based on nonracial factors, including to achieve partisan advantage,鈥� wrote Justice Alito.
As a result, he continued, a Section 2 challenge can succeed 鈥渙nly when the evidence supports a strong inference that the State intentionally drew its districts to afford minority voters less opportunity because of their race.鈥�
The Voting Rights Act provision does still have legal force 鈥� though Justice Kagan, in dissent, argued otherwise 鈥� the majority explained. The court had outlined how plaintiffs can prove racial 鈥渧ote dilution鈥� cases under Section 2 in the 1986 case Thornburg v. Gingles. The Callais decision 鈥渙nly update[s] the [Gingles] framework鈥� to align with, among other things, 鈥渋mportant developments鈥� over the past four decades.
Among those developments, Justice Alito wrote: 鈥淰ast social change has occurred throughout the country and particularly in the South, which [has] made great strides in ending entrenched racial discrimination鈥� from the Jim Crow era.
In a one-paragraph concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas 鈥� joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch 鈥� said the Callais ruling has been overdue.
With its original Gingles framework, 鈥渢he Court led legislatures and courts to 鈥榮ystematically divid[e] the country into electoral districts along racial lines,鈥欌�� wrote Justice Thomas, quoting his own concurrence in a case from 1994.
鈥淭oday鈥檚 decision should largely put an end to this 鈥榙isastrous misadventure鈥� in voting-rights jurisprudence,鈥� he added.
鈥淚n general, the government cannot treat citizens differently based on race, and unfortunately, I think in a lot of areas of the law, there鈥檚 been this idea that there can be such a thing as good discrimination,鈥� says Mr. Smith of the Heritage Foundation. 鈥淲hat the Roberts court has done well, in particular, is say that, no, there is no such thing as good discrimination.鈥�
A dilution of voting power?
In a lengthy dissent, Justice Kagan 鈥� joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson 鈥� blasted the majority for a decision she warned could lead to the widespread disenfranchisement of minority voters.
鈥淯nder the Court鈥檚 new view of Section 2, a State can, without legal consequence, systematically dilute minority citizens鈥� voting power,鈥� wrote Justice Kagan.
The majority opinion downplayed the significance of its holding, she added, describing Justice Alito鈥檚 opinion as 鈥渦nderstated, even antiseptic.鈥�
鈥淭he majority claims only to be 鈥榰pdat[ing]鈥� our Section 2 law, as though through a few technical tweaks,鈥� she continued. 鈥淏ut in fact, those 鈥榰pdates鈥� eviscerate the law.鈥�
This decision will 鈥渞everberate for a very long time,鈥� says Lindsay Langholz, the vice president of policy and program at the American Constitution Society, a progressive legal organization.
鈥淚t is the final piece in the Roberts court鈥檚 attack on the Voting Rights Act,鈥� she says. 鈥淪ection 2 was one of the very few meaningful provisions left, and they鈥檝e now essentially rendered it powerless.鈥�
Tracking Supreme Court precedent on the Voting Rights Act
The Callais ruling in many ways echoes the court鈥檚 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder. In that case, the court held that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act was unconstitutional. That decision effectively ended the law鈥檚 preclearance requirement, in which certain jurisdictions with a history of discrimination needed to have any proposed changes to voting procedures cleared by the Justice Department or a federal judge in Washington before they could go into effect.
The Shelby County ruling left Section 2 as the primary statute through which to challenge allegedly discriminatory voting laws. In a 2021 decision, the high court limited when challenges under that provision could be brought. A year later, the justices dismissed a challenge to Section 2 from the state of Alabama over an allegedly racially gerrymandered voting map. (During this period, the court also ruled that partisan gerrymandering claims are not reviewable by federal courts.)
Alabama had argued that the Gingles Section 2 framework conflicted, to an unconstitutional degree, with the 15th Amendment, Justice Kagan noted in her Callais dissent. 鈥淲e stomped on that objection,鈥� she added.
Exactly what effects the Callais ruling will have on redistricting are unclear, but the Shelby County case might be instructive. That decision led to a surge in states enacting stricter voting laws, the nonpartisan League of Women Voters. A decrease in Black voter turnout, relative to white voters, has also been documented in a 2024 in the Journal of Public Economics.
As in Callais, the justices who decided Shelby County pointed to positive social change since the civil rights era as a reason the Voting Rights Act provision was no longer needed. (鈥淭hings have changed dramatically鈥� in the South, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in that .)
The Callais majority 鈥渟ummons the slogan of Shelby County鈥� when it comes to citing increases in Black voter registration and Black elected officials, Justice Kagan wrote.
鈥淣o doubt that is so, in large measure because of the Voting Rights Act. But it is a separate question whether those gains will endure once the Act鈥檚 protections are gone,鈥� she added.
