WASHINGTON — The conservative-majority Supreme Court on Wednesday appeared open to again undermining the Voting Rights Act in a congressional redistricting case from Louisiana.
The Voting Rights Act has long been a target of conservative legal attacks, with the Supreme Court weakening it in two major rulings in 2013 and 2021.
But the conservative majority could limit the ability of civil rights groups to challenge state maps under the Voting Rights Act.
One option would be to adopt a proposal made by the Trump administration, which suggested the court leave Section 2 intact but make changes to a 1986 Supreme Court case called Thornburg v. Gingles.
Kavanaugh also returned to a point he has previously made that allowing race to be used to remedy redistricting violations under the Voting Rights Act “should not be indefinite.”
WASHINGTON — In a congressional redistricting case from Louisiana on Wednesday, the conservative-majority Supreme Court seemed willing to once more overturn the Voting Rights Act.
In order to comply with Section 2 of the 1965 law, which was passed to protect minority voters against a backdrop of historic racial discrimination, the justices heard oral arguments over the summer on whether states can ever take race into account when creating new districts.
The Supreme Court weakened the Voting Rights Act in two significant decisions in 2013 and 2021, and it has long been the focus of conservative legal challenges.
The lengthy dispute relates to the congressional map, which Louisiana had to redo last year after being sued under the Voting Rights Act to guarantee two districts with a majority of Black voters. There was only one such district on the original map, in a state with a third of the population being Black.
In a rare move, the Supreme Court asked the parties to re-argue the case in June after initially hearing it earlier this year on a more limited set of legal issues. By requesting that the attorneys concentrate on a more significant constitutional issue, the court then increased the stakes.
After first defending its new map, Louisiana has changed its mind and joined a group of voters who call themselves “non-African-Americans” who filed a lawsuit to stop it on constitutional grounds. The state’s new stance is also supported by the Trump administration.
The justices are currently debating whether creating a map that includes majority-Black districts contradicts the 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution, which were both passed following the Civil War to guarantee equal rights, including the ability to vote, for former slaves.
Both constitutional amendments, according to conservatives, forbid taking race into account at any point. This “colorblind” reading of the Constitution has been adopted by the Supreme Court in the past, most notably in its 2023 decision to abolish the use of race in college admissions.
The two-and-a-half-hour oral argument left it unclear if the court would expressly declare that race had no place in district creation.
On the other hand, the conservative majority may restrict civil rights organizations’ ability to contest state maps under the Voting Rights Act.
One possibility would be to follow the Trump administration’s proposal, which recommended that the court modify a 1986 Supreme Court decision known as Thornburg v. Wade but leave Section 2 unaltered. Gingles.
That argument would give states greater freedom to create maps that reflect overt partisanship.
Brett Kavanaugh, the conservative justice who is expected to cast a crucial vote in the case, appeared open to that argument.
“I guess I would have thought that solves a lot of concerns that you’ve identified,” he said to Solicitor General Benjamin Aguiñaga, the attorney for Louisiana.
Additionally, Kavanaugh reiterated his earlier argument that the Voting Rights Act’s provision permitting the use of race to correct redistricting violations “should not be indefinite!”. “.
There is much debate over the potential effects of a decision that adopts the Trump administration’s argument, which is less forceful than Louisiana’s.
The Trump administration’s stance, as described by liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor, is that “the bottom line is just get rid of Section 2.”. “.
A decision along those lines would “swallow Section 2 whole,” according to Janai Nelson, who spoke on behalf of the civil rights organizations that contested the original map. “.”.
One complicating factor is that, in a different congressional redistricting case from Alabama two years ago, the Supreme Court unexpectedly upheld the requirement that race be used to redraw districts when necessary to comply with the law.
The court’s three liberal justices joined two conservatives, Chief Justice John Roberts and Kavanaugh, in a 5-4 decision.
In the argument on Wednesday, Roberts played down the significance of the decision, which he wrote.
The precedent that was in place at the time was taken for granted in that case, he stated.
A sweeping decision in favor of Louisiana would lessen the requirement that states create legislative districts that are predominately made up of members of minority groups, which would probably result in fewer minority lawmakers in state legislatures and Congress.
Louisiana and other states may have time to create new districts before the 2026 midterm elections if the decision is made quickly. Republicans may gain from such a move, as Black voters frequently cast Democratic ballots.
