The U.S. Supreme Court appears on the verge of reshaping one of the most important remaining tools in federal voting rights law, signaling it may impose stricter limits on how Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is enforced in redistricting cases. The implications of such a move are vast. Section 2, originally enacted as part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and strengthened by Congress in 1982, prohibits voting practices or procedures that discriminate on the basis of race. For decades, it has served as the primary legal mechanism through which minority voters have challenged district maps that dilute their political power. Now, in a case arising from Louisiana, the Court’s conservative majority appears open to narrowing how plaintiffs can prove violations, especially in situations where race and partisanship overlap — a dynamic that defines much of modern Southern politics. Civil rights advocates warn that weakening Section 2 could significantly alter congressional representation nationwide, potentially enabling Republican-controlled legislatures to redraw as many as 19 congressional districts to their political advantage.

The case before the Court, Louisiana v. Callais, stems from Louisiana’s congressional redistricting following the 2020 census. Black residents make up roughly one-third of Louisiana’s population, yet the state’s 2022 congressional map created only one majority-Black district out of six. A federal district court found that arrangement likely violated Section 2 because it diluted Black voting strength by concentrating Black voters into a single district while dispersing others across majority-white districts where their preferred candidates would likely lose. Under longstanding Supreme Court precedent established in Thornburg v. Gingles (1986), plaintiffs alleging vote dilution must show three things: that the minority group is sufficiently large and geographically compact to form a majority in an additional district; that the group is politically cohesive; and that the white majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to usually defeat the minority’s preferred candidates. Applying that test, the district court concluded Louisiana likely should have drawn a second majority-Black district.

In response, Louisiana lawmakers adopted a remedial congressional map in 2024 that included a second majority-Black district. That adjustment, however, triggered a new lawsuit — this time from white voters who argued that the revised map constituted an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. They contended that race was used too prominently in drawing district lines, violating the Equal Protection Clause. A federal district judge sided with those challengers, setting the stage for the Supreme Court’s involvement. The case initially came before the justices last year, but they ordered re-argument and requested supplemental briefing on a broader and more consequential question: whether Section 2 itself is constitutional in its current form and whether its enforcement improperly requires race-conscious districting.

During re-arguments, several conservative justices signaled discomfort with the tension between Section 2’s mandate to prevent minority vote dilution and the Constitution’s prohibition against racial classifications. This tension has defined redistricting jurisprudence for decades. On one hand, Section 2 often requires states to consider race to ensure minority voters have an equal opportunity to elect representatives of their choice. On the other, the Court has repeatedly stated that race cannot be the predominant factor in drawing districts unless narrowly tailored to comply with federal law. The Trump Justice Department, participating in the case, advanced a framework that would make it more difficult for plaintiffs to prevail in Section 2 claims when political affiliation closely tracks race. Because Black voters in states like Louisiana overwhelmingly support Democratic candidates, the argument goes, mapmakers should be permitted to pursue partisan objectives — such as strengthening Republican districts — even if those choices disproportionately affect minority voters, so long as race is not the sole or explicit motive.

This approach builds on the Court’s 2019 decision in Rucho v. Common Cause, which held that federal courts cannot adjudicate claims of partisan gerrymandering because such disputes present political questions beyond judicial competence. In Rucho, the Court effectively removed federal oversight of extreme partisan line-drawing. The concern raised by voting rights advocates now is that if states can characterize redistricting decisions as partisan rather than racial — even where the two are deeply intertwined — Section 2 protections may become hollow in many Southern states. Chief Justice John Roberts, who authored the majority opinion in Allen v. Milligan (2023) — a case requiring Alabama to create a second majority-Black district under Section 2 — appeared focused during arguments on whether the new framework could be reconciled with Milligan and Gingles without completely overturning precedent. His questioning suggested caution about fully dismantling Section 2 but openness to refining its application.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who joined Roberts and the Court’s liberal justices in the Milligan decision, raised the possibility that race-conscious remedies under Section 2 might require temporal limits. He referenced prior cases involving race-based policies in education and contracting, where the Court has emphasized that such measures must be temporary and subject to periodic reassessment. The suggestion of a “sunset” principle for Section 2 remedies introduces another layer of complexity: even if race-conscious districting is permitted to remedy proven discrimination, how long can such measures persist before they risk becoming constitutionally suspect? This line of questioning signals that at least some justices are searching for a middle path — one that avoids outright invalidation of Section 2 while narrowing its reach.

Civil rights organizations view the stakes as extraordinarily high. Groups such as Fair Fight Action and Black Voters Matter Fund warn that limiting Section 2 could dramatically shift the balance of power in Congress. They point to research identifying as many as 27 congressional seats nationwide that could potentially be redrawn in ways favorable to Republicans if current legal constraints were loosened. Of those, 19 are directly linked to jurisdictions where Section 2 challenges have either succeeded or could plausibly succeed under existing law. In closely divided chambers like the U.S. House of Representatives, changes affecting even a handful of districts could determine majority control for years. Advocates argue that weakening Section 2 would not merely affect abstract legal doctrine but would reshape the political landscape in tangible and lasting ways.

At the same time, proponents of a narrower interpretation contend that Section 2, as currently applied, pressures states to engage in racial line-drawing that may itself conflict with constitutional principles of equal protection. They argue that modern politics complicates the racial vote dilution analysis because partisan affiliation is often a more accurate predictor of voting behavior than race alone. If courts require states to draw districts based heavily on race to ensure minority electoral opportunity, critics say, that risks entrenching racial categories in political life. The Court has repeatedly emphasized that racial classifications are inherently suspect and must be subjected to strict scrutiny. The challenge is reconciling that doctrine with a statute designed explicitly to address racial discrimination in voting.

The Louisiana litigation also reflects shifting political positions within the state itself. After initially defending its 2022 map, Louisiana later shifted course and supported a more restrictive interpretation of Section 2. This change underscored how redistricting disputes often intertwine legal arguments with partisan strategy. Black voters who initiated the original Section 2 challenge continue to defend the remedial map, asserting that it corrects documented dilution of their voting strength and complies with established precedent. They argue that failing to provide a second majority-Black district in a state with one-third Black population effectively denies minority voters an equal opportunity to elect representatives of their choice.

Beyond Louisiana, the case carries national implications because Section 2 remains the primary enforcement mechanism of the Voting Rights Act after the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder. In Shelby County, the Court invalidated the Act’s coverage formula for preclearance under Section 5, which had required certain states with histories of discrimination to obtain federal approval before changing voting laws. Since that ruling, Section 2 lawsuits have become the central tool for challenging discriminatory voting practices. If the Court now narrows Section 2 as well, voting rights advocates fear that federal oversight of discriminatory redistricting could be significantly weakened.

Anticipating possible federal retrenchment, some states have begun exploring their own voting rights protections. In Mississippi, for example, Democratic lawmakers Zakiya Summers and Johnny DuPree have introduced proposals to establish a state-level Voting Rights Act. Their legislation would create a Mississippi voting rights commission with authority to review and approve changes to election policies in certain areas, echoing aspects of the former federal preclearance regime. The proposals also include provisions to protect voters with limited English proficiency and to strengthen safeguards against discriminatory practices. Similar state-level initiatives have emerged in other jurisdictions in recent years, reflecting a broader trend toward localized protections in response to evolving federal doctrine.

As the nation awaits the Supreme Court’s ruling, legal scholars are debating how far the justices will go. A complete invalidation of Section 2 appears unlikely given the questioning during re-argument, but a narrowing of the Gingles framework or a heightened evidentiary burden for plaintiffs could meaningfully constrain future challenges. Even modest doctrinal adjustments could tilt the balance in close cases, particularly where race and partisanship are deeply entangled. The Court’s decision will likely attempt to navigate between preserving statutory protections against racial discrimination and avoiding what some justices view as constitutionally problematic race-conscious mandates.

Ultimately, the outcome of Louisiana v. Callais will shape the trajectory of voting rights litigation for years to come. It will determine how courts interpret the delicate balance between preventing racial discrimination and respecting constitutional limits on race-based decision-making. For lawmakers, activists, and voters alike, the ruling will either reaffirm Section 2 as a robust safeguard of minority political opportunity or redefine its boundaries in ways that significantly alter the electoral landscape. In an era of razor-thin political margins and intense debate over the health of American democracy, the Court’s forthcoming decision stands poised to become one of the most consequential voting rights rulings of the modern era.