The U.S. Supreme Court is considering whether Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) can continue to be enforced when redistricting plans dilute minority voting power but correlate with partisan advantage. The case stems from Louisiana’s congressional maps after the 2020 Census, where Black voters—about one-third of the population—were initially represented by only one majority-Black district. Federal courts initially required a remedial second majority-Black district, but that led to lawsuits from white voters claiming unconstitutional racial gerrymandering.

During re-arguments, the Court appeared reluctant to strike down Section 2 entirely. Instead, it is exploring whether states can defend maps on partisan grounds even if racial disparities exist, echoing the logic of Rucho v. Common Cause, which barred federal courts from addressing partisan gerrymandering. Chief Justice John Roberts focused on maintaining continuity with precedent, including the Allen v. Milligan ruling, while Justices Kavanaugh and Alito discussed limits on race-based remedies and the challenges of separating race from political affiliation. Analysts suggest the Court may preserve Section 2 in principle but significantly narrow its practical application, making successful challenges by minority voters more difficult.

Voting rights groups warn that even a moderate narrowing could allow Republican-controlled legislatures to redraw dozens of congressional districts nationwide, potentially reshaping up to 27 House seats and affecting the 2026 midterms. Republican lawmakers argue that clarifying the law’s reach is necessary, while critics warn that weakening Section 2 would erode one of the last federal protections against minority vote dilution, especially after the Shelby County v. Holder decision removed preclearance requirements in 2013.