Posted on April 30, 2026

Supreme Court Strikes Down Race-Based Redistricting Map in Louisiana

Jack Birle and Kaelan Deese, Washington Examiner, April 29, 2026

The Supreme Court dealt a blow to race-based redistricting on Wednesday, finding that Louisiana’s second black-majority congressional district was created in violation of the Constitution and the scope of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

The 6-3 ruling means states that have been forced by courts or litigation threats to draw districts based on race now have significantly more freedom to redraw those maps without prioritizing racial outcomes, as the high court raised the bar for when the Voting Rights Act actually requires race-based line drawing.

{snip}

The dispute stems from a challenge by a group of voters who identified as “non-African American” to a 2024 redistricting map adopted after a federal court invalidated the prior map for violating the VRA. While the state’s revised map added a second majority-black district to address those concerns, the Supreme Court ultimately found that the configuration crossed the line, ruling that the new map constituted an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.

Alito, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, added that “[c]ompliance with Section 2 thus could not justify the State’s use of race-based redistricting here.” His opinion was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts along with justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, the latter three appointed by President Donald Trump.

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act has long been interpreted by courts to prohibit not just outright discrimination in redistricting, but also any redistricting efforts that dilute minority voting strength, regardless of the state’s intent. That often required states, under the Supreme Court’s Gingles framework, to create majority-minority districts.

{snip}

In a separate concurrence, Thomas, an appointee of former President George H.W. Bush, agreed with the court’s 6-3 ruling but argued the justices should have gone further, reiterating his long-standing view that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act does not apply to redistricting at all. {snip}

{snip}