Skip to main content

October 15, 2025

19 congressional seats at stake as Supreme Court weighs gutting Voting Rights Act

lailluminator.com
American Civil Liberties Union
www.democracydocket.com
NPR
MS NOW
+5

Court asks whether Louisiana creating second majority-Black district violates the Constitution

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Oct. 15, 2025, in Louisiana v. Callais (No. 24-109). The case challenges Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which for 39 years has required states to create districts where large, cohesive minority groups can elect candidates of their choice.

Louisiana population is 31 percent Black. A 2022 redistricting plan created only one majority-Black congressional district out of six. A federal court ordered Louisiana to redraw the map. In Jan. 2024, Louisiana legislature passed Senate Bill 8 creating a second majority-Black district.

Both majority-Black districts elected Democrats in 2024. Cleo Fields won Louisiana 6th District. A group of white voters then sued, arguing the map violates the 14th and 15th Amendments by considering race.

Louisiana switched sides. Governor Jeff Landry and Attorney General Liz Murrill now argue against their own map. The Trump Justice Department filed a brief supporting Louisiana, arguing for a narrower Section 2 requiring proof of intentional discrimination rather than just discriminatory effects.

Justice Brett KavanaughJustice Brett Kavanaugh, who upheld Section 2 just two years ago, asked during oral arguments whether race-based remedies should have a time limit. Three conservative justices—Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch—suggested race-conscious redistricting violates the Constitution unconditionally.

Chief Justice Roberts, who wrote the 2023 opinion upholding Section 2, sounded skeptical. He asked whether Louisiana map was not predominantly based on race when it runs like a snake from one end of the state to the other.

Thornburg v. Gingles (1986) established that Section 2 prohibits redistricting diluting minority voting power even without proof of intentional discrimination. The ruling requires showing three conditions: minority group is large and compact enough to form a voting majority, votes cohesively, and majority racial group votes as a bloc to defeat the minority preferred candidate.

If the Supreme Court overturns Gingles, the Trump administration framework would require plaintiffs to prove intentional discrimination. Voting rights advocates say this would make Section 2 nearly impossible to enforce.

Republican strategists estimate overturning Section 2 would allow 12 to 19 new GOP House seats. States including Louisiana, Florida, Georgia, Missouri, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Mississippi, and Alabama could eliminate majority-minority districts.

The Court likely will rule by Jun. 2026. If it rules quickly, Republican states could redraw districts before the 2026 midterm elections.

👨‍⚖️Judicial ReviewCivil Rights

People, bills, and sources

Justice Brett Kavanaugh

Justice Brett Kavanaugh

Conservative swing justice

Chief Justice John Roberts

Chief Justice John Roberts

Conservative chief justice

Governor Jeff Landry

Louisiana governor

Representative Cleo Fields

Democratic congressman from Louisiana 6th District

What you can do

1

tracking

Track Louisiana v. Callais ruling at Supreme Court website

Visit supremecourt.gov and search the opinions page. Case number is 24-109. The ruling will come by Jun. 2026. Read the majority and dissenting opinions to understand the new Section 2 standard.

2

civic action

Research your representative voting record on voting rights

Visit congress.gov. Search for voting rights legislation like the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. Find your representative and senator voting records. Call them through house.gov or senate.gov to demand voting rights restoration.

3

tracking

Get real-time case updates from voting rights organizations

Follow NAACP Legal Defense Fund at naacpldf.org for case updates and press releases. Subscribe to ACLU voting rights alerts at aclu.org. The Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights also publishes analysis at lawyerscommittee.org.

4

learning more

Understand Thornburg v. Gingles—the precedent at stake

The full Thornburg v. Gingles decision (1986) is available at supremecourt.gov. Read it to understand the three-part test: minority group large and geographically compact enough to form a voting majority, votes cohesively, and majority votes as a bloc to defeat them.

5

civic action

Join rapid-response advocacy networks

Contact Democracy Docket (democracydocket.org), Voting Rights Lab (votingrights.org), and Common Cause (commoncause.org) for rapid response alerts if the Court rules against Section 2. Sign up for email alerts to mobilize quickly.

6

understanding

Check redistricting tracker by state

Ballotpedia.org maintains an ongoing state redistricting tracker. Search your state to see current district maps, demographics, and any planned redistricting for 2026. This shows which districts are at risk if Section 2 is weakened.