On Wednesday, October 15, 2025, the United States Supreme Court found itself at the heart of a legal and political storm with potentially seismic consequences for American democracy. The court heard oral arguments in Callais v. Louisiana, a case that challenges the very foundation of the Voting Rights Act’s Section 2—one of the last remaining bulwarks protecting minority voting power in the South. The stakes, as legal scholars and advocates warn, could not be higher: the decision could reshape congressional maps across the South, shift the balance of power in Congress, and redefine what equality means under the Constitution.
The origins of this case are rooted in Louisiana’s recent efforts to redraw its congressional districts. After the 2020 census, Republican lawmakers in Louisiana crafted a map that packed Black voters—who make up roughly one-third of the state’s population—into a single district, leaving the remaining five districts with white majorities. According to Slate, this maneuver gave Black Louisianans a meaningful opportunity to elect their candidate of choice in just one district, effectively diluting their political influence elsewhere. A federal court ruled in 2022 that this map violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires that minority populations have a fair shot to elect representatives of their choice. The legislature responded by creating a second majority-Black district.
But the story didn’t end there. A group of white voters challenged the new map, claiming it amounted to unconstitutional racial discrimination. In a twist emblematic of the case’s complexity, Louisiana’s Republican officials—who had previously defended the map as compliant with the Voting Rights Act—reversed course. They argued that any race-based redistricting, even to remedy historic discrimination, violated the Constitution. As BBC reported, the Trump administration joined Louisiana in asking the court to do away with the law’s requirements for majority-Black districts entirely.
When the Supreme Court convened to hear the case, the justices’ questions revealed deep divisions and a willingness among the conservative majority to reconsider decades of precedent. The oral arguments, scheduled for just an hour, stretched over two, reflecting the gravity of the moment. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, seen as a potential swing vote, pressed on whether the minority-district requirements should have an expiration date. He declared, “race-based remedies are permissible for a period of time but should not be indefinite and should have an end point.” This echoed the court’s recent stance in striking down affirmative action in college admissions, signaling a broader skepticism toward race-conscious policies.
Chief Justice John Roberts, who authored the 2013 decision that struck down a different provision of the Voting Rights Act, was notably reserved but hinted at a readiness to revisit precedent. According to Slate, Roberts noted that in the past, the court “took existing precedent as a given,” but now both the court and Louisiana had put that precedent in the crosshairs. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch also appeared likely to support a dramatic narrowing of the law. Gorsuch, in particular, asserted during oral arguments that deliberately creating a majority-Black district “intentionally discriminates on the basis of race.”
For those defending the Voting Rights Act, the stakes are existential. Janai Nelson, President and Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, warned during arguments that abandoning these protections would be “pretty catastrophic.” She argued, “We only have the diversity we see across the South because of litigation that forced the creation of opportunity districts under the Voting Rights Act. It is an intervention that has been crucial to diversifying leadership and providing an ability of minority voters to have an equal opportunity to participate in the process.”
Louisiana’s Solicitor General, J Benjamin Aguiñaga, dismissed these warnings as “sky is falling” rhetoric. He argued that considering race in districting was itself a form of unacceptable discrimination, stating, “The constitution does not tolerate this system of government-mandated racial balancing.” This line of reasoning, as BBC pointed out, mirrors the conservative majority’s approach in other landmark cases, where the court has prioritized a “colorblind” interpretation of the Constitution.
The potential consequences of a ruling against Section 2 are staggering. Legal experts cited by Slate estimate that Republicans could gain at least 15 to 19 seats in the House of Representatives if Southern states are freed to gerrymander Black communities without federal oversight. Such a shift could make it nearly impossible for Democrats to win a House majority outside of landslide elections and could eliminate up to 30 percent of the Congressional Black Caucus. UCLA law Professor Rick Hansen described the prospect as an “earthquake in the American political system.”
But the debate is not just about partisanship. At its core, Callais v. Louisiana asks whether efforts to remedy racial discrimination through race-conscious districting are themselves a form of unconstitutional discrimination. The conservative justices seemed to embrace the argument that the Constitution’s guarantees of equality now require the government to ignore race altogether—even if doing so perpetuates historic inequities. Justice Sonia Sotomayor captured the tension when she remarked, “You can use [race] to help yourself achieve goals that reduce a particular [racial] group’s electoral participation, but you can’t use it to remedy that situation. That’s what you want us to hold.”
The liberal justices pushed back, emphasizing that Congress explicitly empowered itself, through the 14th and 15th Amendments, to enact laws like the Voting Rights Act to combat racial subjugation. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, however, questioned whether Section 2’s prohibition on discriminatory effects—rather than just intent—was a proper exercise of congressional authority. This line of questioning, as Slate noted, reflects a broader skepticism about the reach of federal civil rights laws.
The implications extend far beyond Louisiana. If the Supreme Court rules against the current interpretation of Section 2, states across the South could quickly redraw their congressional maps, carving up minority communities and cementing partisan advantages. The rush to redraw lines could begin as soon as the decision is handed down in the coming months, just ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. As history shows, changes to voting laws and district maps can have immediate and profound effects: after the court’s 2013 decision weakening the Voting Rights Act, several Southern states enacted new voting restrictions within hours.
For decades, the Voting Rights Act has served as a check on efforts to dilute minority voting power in the name of partisan advantage. Now, with the court poised to potentially gut its protections, the future of multiracial democracy in America hangs in the balance. The outcome of Callais v. Louisiana may well determine not only who gets to draw the maps, but who gets to have a voice in the halls of power for generations to come.
