Voting rights in America hang in the balance as the U.S. Supreme Court reconsiders a pivotal Louisiana redistricting case that could dismantle the last major enforcement tool of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. On Wednesday, October 15, 2025, justices heard rare rearguments in Louisiana v. Callais, a case that has evolved from a narrow dispute over district lines into a full-blown constitutional challenge to Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act—the provision that allows lawsuits against discriminatory voting maps.
What Is the Voting Rights Act Section 2 Case About?
The legal battle began after the 2020 census revealed that Black residents made up roughly one-third of Louisiana’s population—yet only one of the state’s six congressional districts was majority-Black. Two groups of Black voters sued, arguing the map diluted their political power in violation of Section 2.
In response, Louisiana lawmakers drew a second majority-Black district in early 2024. But then, a dozen white voters filed a counter-lawsuit, claiming the new map constituted an illegal racial gerrymander. A federal panel struck down the map, prompting Louisiana to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Now, the Court has dramatically broadened the scope of the case, asking whether the “intentional creation of a second majority-minority district” violates the 14th or 15th Amendments—a move that puts Section 2 itself on trial.
Why This Supreme Court Case Could Reshape American Democracy
If the Court rules against Section 2, experts warn the consequences could be catastrophic:
- At least a dozen Democratic-held, majority-minority House districts across the South could be eliminated.
- States could redraw maps without considering racial fairness, effectively rolling back decades of civil rights progress.
- Minority voters—especially Black, Latino, and Native American communities—could lose meaningful political representation.
Janai Nelson, president of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and lead counsel for the Black voters, told the Court: “We only have the diversity we see across the South because of litigation under Section 2.”
Justices Signal Deep Skepticism—Especially on Race-Based Remedies
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who sided with liberals in a similar 2023 Alabama case, now questioned whether race-conscious redistricting should have a “sunset date.” Chief Justice John Roberts, long critical of race-based policies, pressed attorneys on whether using race to draw districts violates the Constitution’s equal protection clause.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor pushed back hard, highlighting the difference between unconstitutional racial quotas and lawful efforts to ensure minority voters aren’t systematically silenced. “This isn’t about preferences,” she said. “It’s about preventing dilution of voting power.”
Louisiana’s Dramatic Flip-Flop
In a stunning reversal, Louisiana’s Republican leadership—once defending the two-district map—now argues against it. Attorney General Liz Murrill declared Section 2 “unworkable and unconstitutional,” claiming it relies on “racial stereotypes.”
Yet just months ago, state lawmakers admitted politics—not race—drove the map’s design, specifically to protect powerful Republicans like Speaker Mike Johnson and Majority Leader Steve Scalise.
Historical Context: How We Got Here
| Year | Milestone |
|---|---|
| 1965 | Voting Rights Act signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson |
| 1982 | Congress amends Section 2 to ban voting practices with discriminatory effects, not just intent |
| 2013 | Shelby County v. Holder guts Section 5 (federal preclearance) |
| 2023 | Court upholds Section 2 in Alabama redistricting case |
| 2025 | Supreme Court reargues Louisiana case—now targeting Section 2 itself |
Legal scholars note this rehearing is a classic “Roberts Court” tactic—offering a “last chance” before overturning precedent. The same playbook was used in Citizens United and public-sector union cases.
What’s at Stake Beyond Louisiana?
Section 2 has been used nationwide—not just in the South. Cases have succeeded in Montana, New Mexico, New York, and South Dakota to protect Native American, Latino, and Black voters. If struck down, those communities lose their primary legal recourse against gerrymandering and voter suppression.
As former Attorney General Eric Holder warned: “Any decision that fails to reaffirm precedent could shatter Americans’ faith in the judicial system.”
Sources
The New York Times: Supreme Court Questions Role of Race in State Election Maps
