Supreme Court Moves Closer to Dismantling Key Voting Rights Protections
- Cloud 9 News
- Oct 15
- 4 min read
October 15, 2025 - Washington, D.C. – The U.S. Supreme Court appeared poised on Wednesday to significantly weaken Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965—the cornerstone civil rights law that prohibits racial discrimination in voting—during oral arguments in a high-stakes challenge over Louisiana's congressional district map. Conservative justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, expressed skepticism toward race-conscious redistricting, suggesting they might impose new limits on when lawmakers can consider race to ensure minority voting power, potentially upending maps nationwide and handing Republicans a stronger grip on Congress.
The case, Callais v. Diamond, stems from a yearslong legal battle over Louisiana's six congressional districts, where Black voters—who make up 33% of the state's population—have long argued for fair representation. After the 2020 census, Republican lawmakers drew a map with just one majority-Black district, despite federal courts finding it diluted Black voting strength in violation of the Voting Rights Act. A lower court ordered a second such district in 2023, leading to a serpentine map adopted in January 2024 that stretched from southeast Louisiana to the northwest, snaking through Baton Rouge and Shreveport.
Non-Black voters, backed by Republican interests, sued, claiming the map unconstitutionally prioritized race over traditional districting criteria like compactness and community interests. A three-judge panel struck it down in April 2024, but the Supreme Court stayed the ruling, allowing the map for the 2024 elections. Democrats gained a seat, with Rep.-elect Cleo Fields (D-La.) winning the new 6th District by a landslide—81% of Black voters statewide backed Kamala Harris in 2024, per a Fox News/AP survey. Fields, sworn in last November, vowed to fight the challenge: "This is about ensuring every voice counts—not just in Baton Rouge, but across the South."
During the 90-minute hearing, the court's 6-3 conservative majority grilled advocates for Black voters and the Biden-era Justice Department, which intervened to defend the law. Justice Samuel Alito questioned whether Section 2 should ever allow "bizarrely shaped" districts, while Justice Clarence Thomas remained silent, as is his custom. Kavanaugh probed for a potential "sunset" on race-based remedies, drawing parallels to the court's 2023 affirmative action ban in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, suggesting such measures might be temporary tools against "lingering" discrimination rather than permanent fixtures.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett voiced concerns about "overly aggressive" use of race, asking if it could lead to "packing" minorities into fewer districts. Roberts, often the swing vote, emphasized judicial restraint but hinted at narrowing the law's scope to require proof of "traditional" gerrymandering harms, beyond mere dilution. Liberal justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson pushed back fiercely; Sotomayor warned that weakening Section 2 would "invite a resurgence of the very discrimination the Act was designed to eradicate," citing the 1965 Bloody Sunday march on Selma's Edmund Pettus Bridge that spurred the law's passage.
Louisiana Solicitor General Elizabeth Murrill defended the map as a "good-faith" compliance effort, but Janai Nelson of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund rebutted: "Without Section 2, states could freely dilute minority votes, returning us to Jim Crow-era maps." The case marks the court's second look after deadlocking last term—a rare rehearing signaling deep divisions.
This isn't the court's first assault on the Voting Rights Act. In 2013's Shelby County v. Holder, a 5-4 ruling gutted Section 4's preclearance formula, freeing states from federal oversight on voting changes and leading to a surge in restrictive laws—voter ID requirements, polling closures, and purges that disproportionately hit minorities. Last year, in Alexander v. South Carolina NAACP, the court upheld a congressional map accused of racial gerrymandering, with Justice Elena Kagan dissenting that it "weaponized race" under the guise of partisanship.
A ruling expected by June 2026 could invalidate the Louisiana map and ripple across 19 states with similar challenges pending, per a Princeton Gerrymandering Project analysis. One study projects it could flip up to 19 House seats to Republicans by enabling map redraws that dilute Black and Latino votes—enough to secure a GOP trifecta in the 119th Congress. In Louisiana alone, reverting to the original map could oust Fields and hand the seat to a Republican.
Civil rights groups rallied outside the court, chanting "No justice, no peace" amid rainy skies. Rev. Al Sharpton addressed protesters: "They gutted it in '13, chipped away last year—now they want to finish the job. But we won't go back." The ACLU warned of "catastrophic" consequences, including disenfranchisement for 10 million minority voters by 2026 midterms.
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), whose district overlaps the contested area, praised the arguments as a "vindication of state sovereignty." Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries countered: "This court is on track to become the biggest threat to democracy since the poll tax." President Trump's DOJ, now under new leadership, has stayed neutral, but allies like the America First Legal Foundation filed briefs urging a narrow reading of Section 2.
If the court imposes limits—like requiring districts to mirror "traditional" boundaries or capping race's role—states could swiftly redraw maps post-2030 census, analysts say. Nelson told reporters post-hearing: "The sky might not fall for them in Baton Rouge, but it will for millions across America."
As the nation reflects on the 60th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act next year, Wednesday's arguments underscore a court at odds with its legacy: one that once enforced equality, now seemingly eager to redefine it.
Comments