On April 29, 2026, in a 6-3 decision, in the case of Louisiana v. Callais, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a 2024 Louisiana redistricting map. All 6 conservative justices voted to strike down the map, and all 3 liberal justices voted to keep the map in place.
Read the 92-page Supreme Court ruling here.
The ruling has major implications for the Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965.
Read the full text of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 here.
Source:
Howe, Amy. (April 29, 2026). "In major Voting Rights Act case, Supreme Court strikes down redistricting map challenged as racially discriminatory". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved 2026-05-01.
Lindsey Granger, a NewsNation contributor and co-host of The Hill commentary show "Rising" summarized the history of the case and explained the decision saying:
In a 6–3 ruling, the court limited how Section 2 of that law can be used. That's the part that's been the main tool for challenging maps that dilute the voting power of Black and minority communities.
This case came out of Louisiana, where lawmakers drew a second majority-Black congressional district after courts said the original map underrepresented Black voters, who make up about a third of the state. That new district helped elect a Black Democrat. But now, the Supreme Court says that map relied too heavily on race.
For decades, Section 2 has required states to consider race to make sure minority voters aren't shut out. Now, the court is essentially saying you can't lean on race too much, even when you're trying to fix discrimination.
So what does that actually mean?
It raises the bar for proving racial discrimination in voting maps. And it gives states more room to argue that their maps are about politics, not race — even when the outcome disproportionately affects communities of color.
Source:
Granger, Lindsey. (April 30, 2026). "Supreme Court strips Voting Rights Act in Louisiana gerrymandering ruling". The Hill. Retrieved 2026-05-01.
A more detailed history of the case is described in an article on SCOTUSblog written by Amy Howe entitled "In major Voting Rights Act case, Supreme Court strikes down redistricting map challenged as racially discriminatory." Howe's article also goes into a very lengthy and detailed explanation of the reasoning behind the Supreme Court's decision.
The Supreme Court decision was written by Justice Samuel Alito. Here are a few excerpts from what Alito said (§2 refers to Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965):
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. [page 2]
The Constitution almost never permits a State to discriminate on the basis of race, and such discrimination triggers strict scrutiny. [page 2]
This interpretation does not require abandonment of the framework for evaluating §2 claims that the Court established in Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U. S. 30. [page 3]
Nothing in Allen v. Milligan, 599 U. S. 1, dictates a different result. [page 4]
Under the updated Gingles framework, the facts of this suit easily require affirmance. Louisiana's enactment of SB8 triggered strict scrutiny because the State's underlying goal was racial. [page 4]
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 52 U. S. C. §10301 et seq., was designed to enforce the Constitution—not collide with it. Unfortunately, lower courts have sometimes applied this Court's §2 precedents in a way that forces States to engage in the very race-based discrimination that the Constitution forbids. [page 6]
Another problem stemmed from the long-unresolved question whether compliance with the Voting Rights Act provides a compelling reason that may justify the intentional use of race in drawing legislative districts. For over 30 years, we have assumed for the sake of argument that the answer is yes. [page 7]
These and other problems convinced us that the time had come to resolve whether compliance with the Voting Rights Act can indeed provide a compelling reason for race-based districting. We now answer that question: Compliance with §2, as properly construed, can provide such a reason. Correctly understood, §2 does not impose liability at odds with the Constitution, and it should not have imposed liability on Louisiana for its 2022 map. Compliance with §2 thus could not justify the State's use of race-based redistricting here. The State's attempt to satisfy the Middle District's ruling, although understandable, was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander, and we therefore affirm the decision below. [page 7-8]
In joining the opinion of the Court, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote:
This Court should never have interpreted §2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to effectively give racial groups "an entitlement to roughly proportional representation." [page 43]
As I explained more than 30 years ago, I would go further and hold that §2 of the Voting Rights Act does not regulate districting at all. [page 44]
In her dissent, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan wrote:
A minority community that is cohesive in its geography and politics alike, and that faces continued adversity from racial division, is split—"cracked" is the usual term—so that it loses all its electoral influence. Members of the racial minority can still go to the polls and cast a ballot. But given the State's racially polarized voting, they cannot hope—in the way the State's White citizens can—to elect a person whom they think will well represent their interests. Their votes matter less than others' do; they translate into less political voice. Or, as this Court put it recently, the cracking makes "a minority vote unequal to a vote by a nonminority voter." Allen v. Milligan, 599 U. S. 1, 25 (2023). [page 46]
And because that is so, Congress in the Voting Rights Act made the practice illegal. Section 2 of that Act guarantees that members of every racial group have an equal "opportunity" to "elect representatives of their choice." 52 U. S. C. §10301(b). [page 46]
Under the Court's new view of Section 2, a State can, without legal consequence, systematically dilute minority citizens' voting power. Of course, the majority does not announce today's holding that way. Its opinion is understated, even antiseptic. The majority claims only to be "updat[ing]" our Section 2 law, as though through a few technical tweaks. Ante, at 26, 29, 32. But in fact, those "updates" eviscerate the law, so that it will not remedy even the classic example of vote dilution given above. [page 47]
Today's ruling is part of a set: For over a decade, this Court has had its sights set on the Voting Rights Act. In 2013, the Court made a nullity of Section 5, the provision of the Act enabling the Department of Justice to review and block new voting rules—including redistrictings—in jurisdictions with a history of voter suppression. See Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U. S. 529 (2013). [page 48]
Not surprisingly, a flood of discriminatory voting laws followed, and now only Section 2 stood in the gap. In 2021, the Court did half what was needed to raze that section too. See Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, 594 U. S. 647 (2021). Section 2 prohibits not only vote-diluting districting plans, but also discriminatory burdens on the casting of ballots. In a suit involving the latter type of law, the Court invented a new legal standard making Section 2 useless, on the theory that the statute as written was too "radical." See id., at 674. [page 48-49]
The Voting Rights Act is—or, now more accurately, was—"one of the most consequential, efficacious, and amply justified exercises of federal legislative power in our Nation's history." Shelby County, 570 U. S., at 562 (Ginsburg, J., dissenting). It was born of the literal blood of Union soldiers and civil rights marchers. It ushered in awe-inspiring change, bringing this Nation closer to fulfilling the ideals of democracy and racial equality. And it has been repeatedly, and overwhelmingly, reauthorized by the people's representatives in Congress. Only they have the right to say it is no longer needed—not the Members of this Court. I dissent, then, from this latest chapter in the majority's now-completed demolition of the Voting Rights Act. [page 49-50]
Source:
(April 29, 2026). "LOUISIANA v. CALLAIS ET AL.". supremecourt.gov. Retrieved 2026-05-02.
Donald Trump responded to the decision on Truth Social:
Today's 6-3 Supreme Court decision in the Callais case is a BIG WIN for Equal Protection under the Law, as it returns the Voting Rights Act to its Original Intent, which was to protect against intentional Racial Discrimination. Thank you to brilliant Justice Samuel Alito for authoring this important and appropriate Opinion. Congratulations! President DONALD J. TRUMP
Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry responded to the decision on X:
The Supreme Court has affirmed what we have said for years: drawing districts for political reasons is the States' prerogative, not a federal civil-rights violation. Federal judges cannot force a State to engage in race-based redistricting, and plaintiffs can no longer repackage partisan disagreements as Voting Rights Act cases.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (Democrat-New York) responded to the decision on the Senate floor:
Earlier this morning, the conservative majority on the Supreme Court took another step towards resurrecting the Jim Crow South.
In a decision that, for all practical purposes, upends half a century of precedent, defies the spirit of the American civil rights movement, and reverses generations of progress toward racial justice, the right-wing Court today essentially declared it valid and appropriate for states to discriminate against racial minorities in drawing districts.
The Voting Rights Act—a law written in the blood, sweat, tears, and sacrifice of Americans who marched, who fought, and died for the right to vote and to prevent racial discrimination—has been diminished once again.
The consequence of this decision is as clear as it is dangerous: fewer protections for voters, more power for politicians to draw maps that silence them, particularly historically disenfranchised voters.
Now, the conservative Court has tried to make it seem like its decision today was narrow and tailored.
But let's be very clear, in the words of Justice Kagan, this decision is a "demolition"—a demolition—of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. It opens the floodgates for states across the South to redraw their Congressional districts and make voters of color essentially invisible in our democracy. By some estimates this decision could lead conservative state legislatures to draw as many as 19 additional seats that favor Republicans in the House.
So, far from being a narrow decision, this is the MAGA Court trying to give Republicans a leg up, an illegitimate leg up, in future elections.
Let me say it again: this case is the MAGA Court trying to give Republicans a leg up in future elections.
It is a knife to the heart of some of our most important civil rights legislation that past generations marched for, organized for, and bled for.
It will bring back the old, sinister practices long discarded to the dustbin of history: state legislatures diluting, erasing, and overpowering voters of color.
Shame on the high court.
Shame on the MAGA Justices rigging our elections.
This did not happen all at once. For years, this Court — beginning with Chief Justice Roberts in the awful Shelby County decision— chipped away at the Voting Rights Act, decision by decision. Chief Justice Roberts bears a lot of the blame for this awful decision.
The commitment of equal representation has been broken before—but every time, Americans have forced it back into law. Senate Democrats will fight it once again to reverse this awful, awful decision.
NAACP President and CEO Derrick Johnson responded to the decision with the following statement:
Today's decision is a devastating blow to what remains of the Voting Rights Act, and a license for corrupt politicians who want to rig the system by silencing entire communities. 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. But the people still can fight back. Our best defense and offense is the ballot box, and we're going to turn out voters for the midterm elections to make sure we can elect representatives who look out for us. Our democracy is crying for help.
NAACP General Counsel Kristen Clarke responded to the decision with the following statement:
This is one of the most-consequential and devastating rulings issued by the Supreme Court in the 21st Century. The Supreme Court has put the death knell into our nation's most important federal civil rights law, one that provided Black Americans access to a democracy that they had long been excluded from. The ruling defies precedent, ignores statutory text, and will reverse decades of progress we have made as a nation. This will embolden lawmakers in former slave-holding states to target and eradicate districts that have provided Black Americans a fair opportunity to elect candidates of choice, and they will do so with the blessing of this Court. It ignores the tremendous sacrifice made by Americans who bled and died for passage of the Voting Rights Act.
Expect more Americans to call into question the integrity and independence of this Court which is moving unabashedly and at lightning speed to dismantle our bedrock civil rights protections.
The NAACP will not stand by idly in the face of this ruling which seeks to diminish our standing and render us second-class citizens. This is not a moment for any one of us to sit on the sidelines. We are witnessing the full machinery of government aided by the Court disenfranchising and silencing Black America and hijacking democracy as we know it. We will continue to fight and ensure that our voices are heard this midterm election cycle.
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani responded to the decision on X:
Today's Supreme Court decision is a direct assault on the promise of the Voting Rights Act. It risks disenfranchising millions of Americans along racial lines and weakening the very foundation of our democracy.
Democracy is not self-sustaining. We must build, preserve, and defend it together.
Here in New York City, we will always lead a government of, by, and for the people — all of the people.
Maryland Governor Wes Moore responded to the decision on X:
The day before the Supreme Court's disastrous decision to gut the Voting Rights Act of 1965, I signed the Maryland Voting Rights Act of 2026 into law, banning election systems that weaken the voting power of protected groups.
Even if Washington won't protect your vote, I will.
On May 1, 2026, I received an e-mail from Marc Elias (Democracy Docket) where he describes the immediate effects of the Supreme Court's decision.
Here's the text of the e-mail (bold added for emphasis):
After Supreme Court's destruction of Voting Rights Act, here's the latest on redistricting:
Alabama: Gov. Kay Ivey (R) called a special session to reinstate the state's old gerrymander before the midterms — pending a greenlight from SCOTUS.
Louisiana: The state successfully suspended its U.S. House primaries yesterday. There are already three lawsuits against the state for halting its active election and nullifying votes.
Tennessee: In a move that may eliminate its one blue congressional seat and disenfranchise Black voters, Tennessee is now seeking to redistrict mid-cycle.
South Carolina: Lawmakers and the state GOP have urged the governor to call for a special session to mid-cycle redistrict.
Georgia: The governor has said he won't call a special session to redraw for 2026, but as we saw after Alabama's 180, that could change.
Florida: We're waiting for Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) to sign the recently passed gerrymandered map.
Virginia: The Republican National Committee is appealing its loss in a third challenge to Virginia's 10-1 congressional map approved by voters last month.
Check out our redistricting map >>>
To boot, SCOTUS' ruling may also demolish states' voting rights laws
State-level statutes that seek to bar racially discriminatory voting practices are also in danger after this weeks catastrophic decision to gut the Voting Rights Act.
And Trump's DOJ says 'We are ON IT!'
Trump's DOJ is preparing to weaponize the Supreme Court's gutting of the Voting Rights Act and challenge maps that protect Black and Latino voters — starting with California.
Commentary:
This decision will disenfranchise Black voters, especially those in the southeastern U.S.
Despite the legal and technical rationale and justification employed by the conservative Supreme Court justices, this decision is yet another example of the methodical demise of American democracy.
Our nation was built, and is still being built, on people of all ethnic backgrounds, races, and colors. That's an essential part of what makes America such an outstanding country. This decision helps to erode this long-standing idea.
In my opinion, this Supreme Court decision has it's roots in racism. It's a reflection of all the white Americans who believe that people of color shouldn't have a say in the way our country is governed, and the laws that we make.
The "Great Replacement Theory" contends that there's a "plot to diminish the influence of white people" in America. This idea is based on the fear that white people are being slowly "replaced" by people of color, and that over time, whites will make up a lesser proportion of the U.S. population, which would give people of color a greater say in government.
I believe that this theory, like racism itself, is alive and well in America. Most of the time it's covert, because racism is publicly frowned upon, but it's still in the minds and hearts of way, way too many white people.
In my opinion, the conservative Supreme Court justices are afflicted with a certain degree of racism, and they espouse to a certain extent (perhaps unconsciously) the "Great Replacement Theory" conspiracy. Those justices would swear up and down, with hands proudly placed on a Bible, that there isn't a single racist bone in their bodies, but the decision they just arrived at, to me shows otherwise.
To say that this is troubling is a gross understatement.
It makes me angry, and it makes me sad.
A long time ago (sometime in the 1970's), when I was living in Wisconsin, I had a part-time job working for a stock broker in downtown Milwaukee. One day, I held the door open for a Black man. He responded with a somewhat surprised look of appreciation, saying "God bless you for opening the door for a Black man." I will never, ever forget this short interaction.
On April 29, 2026, the conservative justices on the U.S. Supreme Court didn't hold any doors open for people of color. Instead, they slammed them shut.