The Supreme Court of the United States appears poised to significantly reshape enforcement of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, one of the last remaining robust tools for challenging racially discriminatory voting practices. Section 2 prohibits voting procedures that discriminate on the basis of race and has long served as the primary mechanism for contesting congressional and legislative maps that dilute minority voting strength. Strengthened by Congress in 1982, the provision allows plaintiffs to challenge districting plans that, while not explicitly discriminatory, produce unequal political opportunity for minority voters. Now, in a Louisiana case, the Court’s conservative majority has signaled openness to narrowing how Section 2 applies, particularly where race and partisanship overlap — a defining feature of modern Southern politics. Civil rights advocates warn that such a shift could have sweeping consequences for congressional representation nationwide.

The case, Louisiana v. Callais, arises from Louisiana’s congressional redistricting following the 2020 census. Black residents comprise roughly one-third of the state’s population, yet the 2022 congressional map included 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. Under the framework established in Thornburg v. Gingles, plaintiffs must show that a minority group is sufficiently large and geographically compact to form a majority in an additional district, that it is politically cohesive, and that the white majority votes as a bloc to usually defeat the minority’s preferred candidates. Applying that test, the lower court concluded Louisiana likely needed a second majority-Black district.

In response, Louisiana adopted a revised congressional map in 2024 adding a second majority-Black district. That remedy, however, prompted a new lawsuit from white voters who argued the revised plan amounted to an unconstitutional racial gerrymander in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. A federal judge sided with those challengers, bringing the issue before the Supreme Court. During re-argument, several conservative justices expressed concern about the tension between Section 2’s requirement that states consider race to prevent vote dilution and the Constitution’s prohibition against race-based classifications. This tension has long shaped redistricting jurisprudence: while federal law may require race-conscious remedies, the Court has repeatedly held that race cannot predominate in drawing district lines unless narrowly tailored to comply with compelling governmental interests.

The Court’s deliberations build on prior decisions that have narrowed federal oversight of election laws. In Rucho v. Common Cause, the Court ruled that partisan gerrymandering claims are nonjusticiable political questions, effectively removing federal courts from policing extreme partisan map-drawing. Voting rights advocates now fear that if states can characterize redistricting decisions as partisan rather than racial — even where race and party affiliation are closely aligned — Section 2 challenges may become far harder to win. Chief Justice John Roberts, who authored the majority opinion in Allen v. Milligan requiring Alabama to create a second majority-Black district, appeared cautious about overturning precedent outright but interested in refining the legal standard. Justice Brett Kavanaugh raised the possibility that race-conscious remedies might require temporal limits, suggesting such measures should not persist indefinitely without reassessment.

Civil rights groups argue that weakening Section 2 could alter the balance of power in Congress. They point to multiple districts nationwide where minority voters have successfully challenged maps under current doctrine or could plausibly do so. Even modest doctrinal shifts could affect competitive districts, particularly in Southern states where Black voters overwhelmingly support Democratic candidates. In a closely divided U.S. House of Representatives, changes to even a handful of districts could determine majority control. At the same time, proponents of narrowing Section 2 contend that current enforcement pressures states to draw districts with race as a predominant factor, potentially entrenching racial categories in political life. They argue that partisan affiliation — not race — often best explains voting patterns, and that courts should not assume racial discrimination where partisan motivations are evident.

The stakes are heightened because Section 2 has become the central enforcement tool of the Voting Rights Act since Shelby County v. Holder invalidated the Act’s preclearance coverage formula under Section 5. Without preclearance, jurisdictions with histories of discrimination no longer need federal approval before altering voting laws, leaving Section 2 litigation as the primary federal safeguard. If the Court now narrows Section 2’s scope or raises the evidentiary burden for plaintiffs, federal oversight of discriminatory redistricting could diminish significantly. While a complete invalidation of Section 2 appears unlikely, even incremental changes to the Gingles framework could reshape voting rights litigation for years. The Court’s forthcoming decision in Louisiana v. Callais will likely define how the judiciary balances preventing racial vote dilution with constitutional limits on race-based decision-making — a ruling that could profoundly influence the structure of American democracy in an era of razor-thin political margins.