Scotus Hears Case That Could Gut The Voting Rights Act by Zach Montellaro and Andrew Howard

Supreme Court hears case challenging Voting Rights Act

This morning, the Supreme Court is hearing arguments on a case that could gut a key provision of the landmark Voting Rights Act. The justices will consider whether states are barred from considering race when they draw new legislative districts. MSNBC Capitol Hill Reporter Kevin Frey has more on the impact it could have in the midterms. Loyola Law School Professor of Law Justin Levitt joins Erielle Reshef to explain more about the case.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday will hear arguments in a case that could gut the Voting Rights Act by barring states from considering the racial makeup of voting populations when drawing district lines — an outcome that stands to change the course of next year’s midterm elections.

In adopting that approach, the justices could upend decades of court decisions holding that states may — and sometimes must — use race-conscious redistricting to protect the voting power of minorities.

Some conservatives argue that any consideration of race in drawing district lines is cynical, discriminatory and unconstitutional. Advocates for minority voters warn a “colorblind” interpretation of the Voting Rights Act would erode Black, brown and Asian representation in American politics and kick off another round of redistricting amid an already chaotic cycle of mid-decade redraws ahead of 2026.

President Donald Trump has been pushing red states across the country to redesign their congressional maps as Democrats fight to retake control over the House, leading California to counter with its own push that voters will decide on next month. Yet another potential redistricting resulting from this court case would be a political bonanza for Republicans in next year’s congressional elections, according to an analysis from two liberal groups.

The case, Louisiana v. Callais, is the culmination of a long-running battle in the state over Black voters’ representation in Congress. The Supreme Court heard the case in March, but the justices failed to issue a ruling and made the unusual decision to hear it again. And this time, the high court has signaled its particular interest in the argument that a core tenet of the Voting Rights Act may violate the Constitution.

Under Chief Justice John Roberts, the court has already curtailed many of the protections within the 60-year-old civil rights law. Weakening it further has long been a goal of some Republican litigators, who have argued it gives Democrats an unfair partisan advantage.

“It is time for the Supreme Court to finally eliminate this government-mandated business of divvying Americans up by race through redistricting and reaffirm our colorblind Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection under the law,” Adam Kincaid, president of the National Republican Redistricting Trust, said in a statement. His group has previously been involved in similar cases but isn’t representing any party in this one.

If the court again restricts the law in Callais, advocates warn of diminished political power of minority voters in federal, state and local elections.

The case “could have profound implications for the Voting Rights Act and fair representation for voters nationwide,” said Sophia Lin Lakin, the director of the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project and one of the attorneys defending the Louisiana map being challenged in the case. “The stakes are incredibly high: The outcome of the case will not only determine the next steps for Louisiana’s congressional map, but may also shape the future of redistricting cases nationwide and forecast the resilience of our nation’s democratic values.” To read more go to the link below:

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/10/15/supreme-court-voting-rights-act-argument-00608340