Supreme Court sharply limits use of race in redistricting in a win for Republicans

Newsmax

1254596

FOX News

Supreme Court rules on key Voting Rights Act rule as Republicans and Democrats wage redistricting war

Democracy Docket

SCOTUS smothers Voting Rights Act, greenlighting racial discrimination and a rash of GOP gerrymanders

Supreme Court of the United States

National Review

Supreme Court Orders Louisiana to Redraw Racially Gerrymandered Map in Blow to Voting Rights Act

The New York Times

Supreme Court Voting Rights Act.Html

Naacpldf

Supreme Court Should End Racial Gerrymandering

The Wall Street Journal

Louisiana V Callais Supreme Court Gingles Voting Rights Act Districts 06095Da3

Metaculus

Which party will hold a plurality in the US House of Representatives after the 2026 midterm elections?

Edward Blum

Clarence Thomas

Ketanji Brown Jackson

Elena Kagan

The Hill

SCOTUSblog

The Nation

Maya Sen

Devon Ombres

Max Flugrath

Jim Saksa

Amy Howe

"Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, both of whom joined the Milligan majority, also seemed highly skeptical of Louisiana’s new maps."

Ian Millhiser

"Each of the propositions [being put] forward here that Section 2 has to be limited in some way just to purposeful discrimination, that it doesn't authorize race-based redistricting as a remedy, and that we need to fundamentally overhaul the Gingles threshold inquiry was rejected, I don't know, three years ago, two years ago, by a majority of this Court."

"Justice Kavanaugh pointed out that, in another case, Louisiana is arguing that Section 2 is unconstitutional—perhaps suggesting that it is odd for the state to claim a compelling interest in complying with Section 2 at the same time that it is arguing that Section 2 is unconstitutional. "

Michael DiMino

"It's a pretty bare – it's a pretty significant showing – to establish that unequal opportunity of electoral processes is happening in a situation."

"Section 2 may remain in effect and be enforceable even if the court holds in Callais that states may not draw race-based districts to avoid a Section 2 violation."

"Kavanaugh appears to be the pivotal justice in the Louisiana case, just as he was two years ago in a similar redistricting dispute from Alabama... But now as the stakes have risen, Kavanaugh’s doubts have deepened."

"Expectations are growing that the Supreme Court’s decades-old framework that forces states to draw additional majority-minority districts under the key provision will be reined in one way or another."

“I am hopeful that this Court will soon realize that the conflict its Section 2 jurisprudence has sown with the Constitution is too severe to ignore.”

"I predict that Louisiana will be able to cobble together five votes one way or another."

Rick Hasen

"The outcome in this case was decided long before the lawyers arrived at the courthouse. The six Republican justices are going to declare the Voting Rights Act inert and allow the dilution of Black voting rights through racist gerrymandering"

Will the U.S. Supreme Court Overturn Provisions of the Voting Rights Act as Part of Louisiana v. Callais?

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Louisiana v. Callais on Wednesday, finding that Louisiana's redrawn congressional map — which created a second majority-Black district — was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander under the Equal Protection Clause.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Louisiana v. Callais on Wednesday, finding that Louisiana's redrawn congressional map — which created a second majority-Black district — was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander under the Equal Protection Clause.

Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, held that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act imposes liability only when circumstances give rise to a strong inference of intentional discrimination, narrowing how the provision applies to redistricting.

Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, held that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act imposes liability only when circumstances give rise to a strong inference of intentional discrimination, narrowing how the provision applies to redistricting.

The ruling updated the framework of a previous case, Thornburg v. Gingles, requiring plaintiffs to submit illustrative maps that meet all of a state's nonracial districting goals — including political objectives — and to control for party affiliation when demonstrating racially polarized voting.

The ruling updated the framework of a previous case, Thornburg v. Gingles, requiring plaintiffs to submit illustrative maps that meet all of a state's nonracial districting goals — including political objectives — and to control for party affiliation when demonstrating racially polarized voting.

Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson in dissent, argued the ruling "renders Section 2 all but a dead letter" and called it "the latest chapter" in what she described as the majority's "demolition of the Voting Rights Act."

Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson in dissent, argued the ruling "renders Section 2 all but a dead letter" and called it "the latest chapter" in what she described as the majority's "demolition of the Voting Rights Act."

Louisiana's Republican Attorney General Liz Murrill called the decision "seismic," while NAACP President Derrick Johnson said it "betrayed Black voters." An analysis by Fair Fight Action and Black Voters Matter Fund estimated the ruling could affect up to 12 Democratic-held House districts.

Louisiana's Republican Attorney General Liz Murrill called the decision "seismic," while NAACP President Derrick Johnson said it "betrayed Black voters." An analysis by Fair Fight Action and Black Voters Matter Fund estimated the ruling could affect up to 12 Democratic-held House districts.

The decision marks the third major SCOTUS ruling limiting the scope of the Voting Rights Act since 2013, following Shelby County v. Holder and Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee in 2021. Justice Kagan noted that no Section 2 ballot-restriction suit has succeeded since the 2021 ruling.

The decision marks the third major SCOTUS ruling limiting the scope of the Voting Rights Act since 2013, following Shelby County v. Holder and Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee in 2021. Justice Kagan noted that no Section 2 ballot-restriction suit has succeeded since the 2021 ruling.

NBC #

Newsmax #

FOX News #

Democracy Docket #

Supreme Court of the United States #

National Review #

The New York Times #

Naacpldf #

The Wall Street Journal #

Metaculus #

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Louisiana v. Callais on April 29, 2026, finding that Louisiana's redrawn congressional map — which created a second majority-Black district — constituted an unconstitutional racial gerrymander under the Equal Protection Clause.

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Louisiana v. Callais on April 29, 2026, finding that Louisiana's redrawn congressional map — which created a second majority-Black district — constituted an unconstitutional racial gerrymander under the Equal Protection Clause.

The ruling updated the Gingles framework, requiring plaintiffs to submit illustrative maps that meet all of a state's nonracial districting goals — including political objectives — and to control for party affiliation when demonstrating racially polarized voting.

The ruling updated the Gingles framework, requiring plaintiffs to submit illustrative maps that meet all of a state's nonracial districting goals — including political objectives — and to control for party affiliation when demonstrating racially polarized voting.

The decision marks the third major ruling weakening the Voting Rights Act since 2013, following Shelby County v. Holder and Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee in 2021. Justice Kagan noted that no Section 2 ballot-restriction suit has succeeded since the 2021 ruling.

The decision marks the third major ruling weakening the Voting Rights Act since 2013, following Shelby County v. Holder and Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee in 2021. Justice Kagan noted that no Section 2 ballot-restriction suit has succeeded since the 2021 ruling.

Racial gerrymandering was never actually required by the Voting Rights Act — courts and bureaucrats invented that mandate out of thin air. Section 2 bans discriminatory voting practices, not equal political outcomes, and the Constitution's 14th and 15th Amendments explicitly forbid using race as the dominant factor in drawing maps. Ending race-based districts doesn't gut voting rights; it restores them to their original, colorblind purpose.

Racial gerrymandering was never actually required by the Voting Rights Act — courts and bureaucrats invented that mandate out of thin air. Section 2 bans discriminatory voting practices, not equal political outcomes, and the Constitution's 14th and 15th Amendments explicitly forbid using race as the dominant factor in drawing maps. Ending race-based districts doesn't gut voting rights; it restores them to their original, colorblind purpose.

The Supreme Court just handed Republicans a generational weapon to strip Black voters of meaningful representation across the South. By demanding proof of intentional discrimination — a standard Congress explicitly rejected in 1982 — the 6-3 ruling guts Section 2 without technically striking it down, making it nearly impossible to challenge racially discriminatory maps. Analysts project the decision could flip up to 19 majority-minority seats away from Democrats.

The Supreme Court just handed Republicans a generational weapon to strip Black voters of meaningful representation across the South. By demanding proof of intentional discrimination — a standard Congress explicitly rejected in 1982 — the 6-3 ruling guts Section 2 without technically striking it down, making it nearly impossible to challenge racially discriminatory maps. Analysts project the decision could flip up to 19 majority-minority seats away from Democrats.

US Politics: Gerrymandering

SCOTUS Guts Voting Rights Act in 6-3 Ruling

Verdicts & sentences

Court system

Race

Electoral systems

United States of America

Racial gerrymandering was never actually required by the Voting Rights Act — it was invented by activist courts and bureaucrats out of thin air. Section 2 bans discriminatory voting practices, not equal political outcomes, and the Constitution's 14th and 15th Amendments explicitly forbid using race as the dominant factor in drawing maps. Ending race-based districts doesn't gut voting rights; it restores them to their original, colorblind purpose.

Racial gerrymandering was never actually required by the Voting Rights Act — it was invented by activist courts and bureaucrats out of thin air. Section 2 bans discriminatory voting practices, not equal political outcomes, and the Constitution's 14th and 15th Amendments explicitly forbid using race as the dominant factor in drawing maps. Ending race-based districts doesn't gut voting rights; it restores them to their original, colorblind purpose.

SCOTUS just handed Republicans a generational weapon to strip Black voters of meaningful representation across the South. By demanding proof of intentional discrimination — a standard Congress explicitly rejected in 1982 — the ruling guts Section 2 without technically striking it down, making it nearly impossible to challenge racially discriminatory maps. Racist maps could now flip up to 19 majority-minority seats away from Democrats.

SCOTUS just handed Republicans a generational weapon to strip Black voters of meaningful representation across the South. By demanding proof of intentional discrimination — a standard Congress explicitly rejected in 1982 — the ruling guts Section 2 without technically striking it down, making it nearly impossible to challenge racially discriminatory maps. Racist maps could now flip up to 19 majority-minority seats away from Democrats.

There's an 87.2% chance that Democrats will hold the most seats in the U.S. House of Representatives after the 2026 elections, according to the Metaculus prediction community.

There's an 87.2% chance that Democrats will hold the most seats in the U.S. House of Representatives after the 2026 elections, according to the Metaculus prediction community.

SCOTUS Limits Racial Gerrymandering in 6-3 Ruling

SCOTUS GutsLimits VotingRacial RightsGerrymandering Act in 6-3 Ruling

The Spin

Metaculus Prediction

The Controversies

Millhiser

Kagan

Jackson

SCOTUSblog

CNN

Hill

Nation

Go Deeper

Sign Up for Our Free Newsletters
Sign Up for Our Free Newsletters

SCOTUS Limits Racial Gerrymandering in 6-3 Ruling

SCOTUS GutsLimits VotingRacial RightsGerrymandering Act in 6-3 Ruling

The Spin

Metaculus Prediction

The Controversies

Millhiser

Kagan

Jackson

SCOTUSblog

CNN

Hill

Nation

Go Deeper

Sign Up for Our Free NewslettersSign Up for Our Free Newsletters

Sign Up for Our Free Newsletters
Sign Up for Our Free Newsletters