Power Grab/Fire anyone who can stop him
The Supreme Court rules 6-3 that Louisiana’s second majority-Black district was an unconstitutional gerrymander and narrows the Voting Rights Act
In Louisiana v. Callais, Justice Alito wrote that Section 2 reaches only maps drawn with a strong inference of intent to disadvantage minority voters, and does not restrict districting for partisan advantage.
What happened
On April 29, 2026, the Supreme Court held 6-3 that Louisiana’s congressional map SB8 was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. A federal court had found the earlier map likely violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, and Louisiana drew SB8 to add a second majority-Black district. The Court said the Act did not require that district.
Justice Alito wrote that Section 2 imposes liability only when evidence supports a strong inference that a state intentionally drew districts to give minority voters less opportunity because of race. He added that the Act does not restrict districting for partisan advantage. The Court said it was updating the 1986 Gingles framework, not abandoning it.
Justice Kagan dissented, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson. The case had been argued twice, in 2024-25 and again on October 15, 2025, so the ruling came after two rounds of argument over whether the Act required the district at all.
Who benefited
State legislatures, especially in the South, can now take apart majority-minority districts and defend the new maps as partisan rather than racial. The Republican Party gained the prospect of additional House seats from maps redrawn in Louisiana and other states before the 2026 midterms.
Who wanted something
Louisiana’s Republican officials appealed to keep a map that gave Democrats fewer seats, and the Justice Department supported narrowing Section 2. The ruling arrived while the White House was pressing Republican-led states to redraw congressional maps in the middle of the decade.
Who lost out
Black voters in Louisiana lost a district that a court had found the law required. Minority voters nationwide can no longer win a Section 2 claim on evidence of discriminatory effect alone. Maps drawn over decades to comply with the Act are now open to challenge.
Why it matters
Section 2 was the last broadly enforceable provision of the Voting Rights Act after Shelby County, and it now requires proof of intent. A partisan motive is a permitted one. The ruling fed the mid-decade map fights that followed, including the Missouri and Alabama stay orders later in 2026.
Sources Supreme Court of the United States (primary)Supreme Court of the United States (primary)