The Supreme Court has dealt a devastating blow to the Voting Rights Act, ruling in a landmark 6-3 decision that effectively guts one of its last powerful provisions and opens the door to a fresh wave of partisan gerrymandering across the United States.
In Louisiana v. Callais, the court’s conservative majority ordered the state to redraw its congressional map, striking down a second majority-Black district that had been created to comply with a federal judge’s order. Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito declared that “compliance with section 2 could not justify the state’s use of race-based redistricting here,” calling the map “an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.” The ruling, split along ideological lines, has dramatically narrowed the scope of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the provision long used to prevent racial discrimination in redistricting.
How Section 2 worked – and what the court changed
Section 2 prohibits any voting practice that discriminates on the basis of race, colour, or language minority status. It was amended in 1982, after the Supreme Court’s decision in Mobile v. Bolden, to allow challenges based on discriminatory effects rather than requiring proof of discriminatory intent. That amendment was a deliberate act by Congress to restore the law’s original strength. For decades, plaintiffs have used Section 2 to argue that electoral maps dilute minority voting power, even when no deliberate racism could be proven. The landmark 1986 case Thornburg v. Gingles established a three-part test – known as the Gingles preconditions – to assess such claims under the “totality of circumstances.”
Friday’s ruling, however, adds a new hurdle. Justice Alito’s opinion states that Section 2 now imposes liability only when circumstances give rise to a “strong inference that intentional discrimination occurred.” That is a far higher bar for plaintiffs to meet, effectively making it much harder to challenge maps that have a discriminatory effect. In a sharp dissent, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that the decision “renders Section 2 all but a dead letter” and represents the “latest chapter in the majority’s now-completed demolition of the Voting Rights Act.” She was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
The case had already taken an unusual path. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments last March, then asked lawyers to re-argue the case in October 2025, specifically on whether Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act itself was constitutional. That question was not directly answered, but the practical effect of the ruling is to neuter the provision. The decision builds on previous blows to the VRA: the 2013 Shelby County v. Holder ruling struck down the preclearance formula that had required certain states to get federal approval before changing voting laws, and the 2019 Common Cause v. Rucho decision barred courts from blocking partisan gerrymandering. Taken together, critics argue that the court has now effectively made all gerrymandering constitutional.
‘A devastating blow’ – civil rights leaders react
Derrick Johnson, president of the NAACP, said the decision delivers “a devastating blow to what remains of the Voting Rights Act” and called it “a license for corrupt politicians who want to rig the system by silencing entire communities.” In a statement, he added: “The Supreme Court betrayed Black voters, they betrayed America, and they betrayed our democracy. This ruling is a major setback for our nation and threatens to erode the hard-won victories we’ve fought, bled, and died for.”
Lauren Groh-Wargo, executive director of Fair Fight Action, the voting rights group founded by former Georgia representative Stacey Abrams, said the court “guts” voting rights protection while “pretending to uphold it.” She noted that the ruling rewrites the law to require a showing of intentional discrimination – precisely what Congress sought to overturn when it amended the Voting Rights Act in the early 1980s after an earlier Supreme Court decision in an Alabama case. She pointed out that Chief Justice John Roberts was a justice department attorney at the time advocating for exactly that standard. “It allows states, counties and cities to shield their discriminatory maps by claiming they are advancing their own partisan interests, ignoring that race and party are highly correlated in places across the country, particularly the South,” she said.
Elected officials warn of ‘severe’ consequences
US Senator for Georgia Reverend Raphael Warnock, a Democrat, said the decision “further ravaged” the Voting Rights Act and leaves the country “at a crossroads where politicians are picking their voters.” In a statement, he declared: “Today’s Supreme Court decision marks a profound defeat for American democracy and will pave the way for partisan politicians to pick their voters. We must restore the Voting Rights Act and ban gerrymandering. Our democracy is on the line.”
US Representative Troy Carter, whose predominantly Black district includes New Orleans, said the ruling “is about far more than lines on a map — it’s about whether Black Louisianians will have a meaningful opportunity to make their voices heard.” He warned that the consequences will be “immediate and severe,” with Louisiana’s two majority-Black congressional districts now at risk of being dismantled. “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,” he said. “This decision will embolden efforts to dismantle majority-Black districts and fracture communities that have finally begun to see themselves reflected in their government. This isn’t just about federal representation. This decision will also impact state and local governments, impacting Black representation in state capitols and city council chambers across the country.”
Helena Moreno, the Democratic mayor of New Orleans, called the ruling “a step backward,” saying that “for decades, the Voting Rights Act has served as a critical safeguard to ensure every voice, especially those historically marginalized, has a meaningful opportunity to be heard.” She added: “Striking down a district that reflected diversity suppresses voices and weakens our democracy. We should be working to expand representation, not roll it back.”
White House hails ‘victory for American voters’
The White House offered a starkly different assessment. Spokesperson Abigail Jackson said: “This is a complete and total victory for American voters. The colour of one’s skin should not dictate which congressional district you belong in. We commend the court for putting an end to the unconstitutional abuse of the Voting Rights Act and protecting civil rights.”
The ruling could now embolden Republican-led states to eliminate Black and Latino electoral districts that tend to favour Democrats, affecting the balance of power in Congress. Former president Donald Trump has already sparked a nationwide redistricting battle aimed at boosting the GOP’s chances. The decision sends a dangerous signal, critics say, that progress achieved since the Voting Rights Act was enacted in the wake of the Selma marches can be undone under the guise of legal theory.
