Topline
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday in a major voting rights case that could cement Republicans’ control of the House, with the court’s conservative majority signaling they could substantially weaken a protection in the Voting Rights Act that helps prevent racially discriminatory practices.
Voting rights activists protest outside the U.S. Supreme Court on October 15
CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images
Key Facts
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a pair of cases concerning a long-running dispute over Louisiana’s congressional map, after state lawmakers first drew a map that only had one majority-Black district, prompting a lawsuit alleging the state was diluting the votes of Black residents.
Lawmakers then drew an updated map with two majority-Black districts, but that then sparked a different lawsuit from non-Black voters in the newly drawn district, who claimed the map was an instance of unconstitutional racial gerrymandering and lawmakers “sacrificed traditional redistricting factors” in order to create a new district solely based on race.
Justices were set to decide which version of the map should be used last term, but the court ended up keeping the case on hold in order to hear oral arguments on it again, and said over the summer it now wanted the two sides to argue whether demanding Louisiana create a second majority-Black district violates the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause and 15th Amendment, which guarantees citizens the right to vote regardless of their race or color.
The case now carries much bigger stakes as a result, as that question suggests justices want to decide the legality of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which has long prohibited voting practices and procedures that are racially discriminatory.
Justices signaled during oral arguments that they were sympathetic toward the non-Black voters and Louisiana’s position that the second majority-Black district should be invalidated, which would likely significantly weaken Section 2 and its protections.
Should the justices overturn or significantly weaken Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, that would give GOP-controlled states much more power to draw districts that dilute the votes of minority voters—who are statistically more likely to vote Democratic—meaning Republicans could broadly create more seats that are likely to go for GOP candidates and Democrats would have far less recourse to challenge those seats in court.
What To Watch For
Justices are unlikely to issue a ruling for a few more months, but some time before their term ends in June 2026. The timing of the ruling will likely determine whether it can be used for the 2026 midterms, or whether the present map—which has a second majority-Black district—will remain in place until 2028. Edward Greim, the attorney arguing on behalf of the non-Black voters, urged the court Wednesday to rule in time for a new map to be drawn for the 2026 elections.
What Did The Justices Say?
While the court’s liberal justices signaled strong support for keeping Louisiana’s second majority-Black district and Section 2 in place, conservative justices on the court hinted they could be inclined to strike the new Louisiana map down and weaken the Voting Rights Act. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, considered a key swing vote in the case, suggested during oral arguments that he believed protections around racial discrimination should have an “end point” and not be “indefinite.” Kavanaugh and other justices also took issue with the new Louisiana district not being “compact” enough and being overly gerrymandered in order to incorporate enough Black voters, with Kavanaugh suggesting districts face more scrutiny when they are not “reasonably configured and compact.” Chief Justice John Roberts, who ruled in favor of the Voting Rights Act in a 2023 case but has otherwise often advocated against Section 2, also indicated his 2023 vote may have been a one-off, saying it was based on Alabama’s “particular challenge” in how its maps were drawn. Conservative Justice Samuel Alito suggested state lawmakers have a right to draw maps in order to give themselves a political advantage—since the Supreme Court has already allowed partisan gerrymandering—which is what Republicans in Louisiana would be doing by getting rid of the second majority-Black district.
How Will The Supreme Court’s Ruling Affect The House?
An October study by left-leaning groups Fair Fight Action and Black Voters Matter Fund found if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the non-Black voters and weakens Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act—allowing state legislators to create districts that dilute minority voters’ ballots—it could essentially ensure Republicans will control the House for years. A ruling that strikes down Section 2 could allow the GOP to redraw districts and create 27 more safe Republican seats in the House than there are now, the study found, even before the 2030 Census. Of those seats, 19 could be flipped as a direct result of Section 2 being overturned. The exact impact will depend on what extent the Supreme Court weakens Section 2 and allows future challenges to allegedly discriminatory maps, and attorneys for Louisiana and the federal government tried to rebut claims from the other side that a ruling in their favor could be “catastrophic,” with Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguinaga telling the court he “[doesn’t] know what our legislature would do” if Section 2 is weakened, but “I don’t think the sky is going to fall.” Prior to this latest round of arguments at the Supreme Court, the yearslong legal battle over Louisiana’s map had already resulted in the state using the map with the second majority-Black district in the 2024 election. Democratic Rep. Cleo Fields won the new district, and the creation of the second majority-Black district unseated former Rep. Garret Graves, the Republican incumbent who had been serving in Louisiana’s 6th District.
News Peg
The case and its potential impact on the House comes as Republicans have already been trying to shore up additional seats through redistricting, with GOP state lawmakers seeking to redraw their maps ahead of 2026, disrupting the traditional 10-year redistricting cycle. A ruling in the GOP’s favor by the Supreme Court could help these Republican-led efforts even more by limiting Democrats’ ability to challenge them in court. Texas became the first state to make headlines for its attempt to redraw congressional districts, passing a new map in August, and more have since followed, including Missouri, Indiana, and most recently North Carolina. Some Democratic-led states have also pushed for redistricting in response, in order to bolster Democratic seats, such as California and Maryland.
Big Number
33%. That’s the approximate share of Louisiana residents who are Black, according to court filings in the legal dispute. Black voters also make up 31% of the state’s voting-age population.
Key Background
This is the fourth time the Supreme Court has weighed in on Louisiana’s congressional map as the redistricting process has been tied up in court. The high court previously let the state’s first map, with only one majority-Black district, take effect in 2022 while the legal dispute over it played out, later sending the case back to a lower court where the map was then struck down. After the non-Black voters then sued over the redrawn map, the Supreme Court ruled in the map’s favor in May 2024, allowing it to be used in the 2024 election despite the ongoing legal battle. It then punted on the case at the end of its last term, teeing it up for its second round of oral arguments on Wednesday. Justices have often ruled on redistricting and how states draw their congressional maps, and since the 2020 census, the Supreme Court has issued major rulings on maps in Alabama, North Carolina and South Carolina. The conservative-leaning court has also frequently been criticized for issuing rulings that are unfavorable to voting rights: Justices ruled in 2013’s Shelby County v. Holder to significantly weaken the Voting Rights Act by declaring the law’s fourth section unconstitutional, before further limiting the law’s scope with Abbott v. Perez in 2018 and Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee in 2021. That ruling made it easier to impose restrictive voting laws, as the court upheld voting rules in Arizona that restricted provisional voting and third parties submitting ballots on another person’s behalf. One exception was in 2023, when the Supreme Court voted to strike down Alabama’s redrawn map and preserve the VRA’s protections against diluting Black votes.
Further Reading
Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2025/10/15/supreme-court-suggests-it-could-weaken-voting-rights-act-and-hand-gop-the-house/
