As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to hear a pivotal case on October 15, 2025, the future of the Voting Rights Act—and the integrity of American democracy—hangs in the balance. The case, Louisiana v. Callais, could fundamentally alter the protections afforded to minority voters, potentially reshaping congressional power and the rules that have governed fair elections for decades.
Maryland, along with 22 other states and the District of Columbia, filed a forceful brief on October 6, urging the Supreme Court to reverse a controversial May decision by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. That ruling barred private individuals from challenging election laws and redistricting efforts under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965—a provision that has long served as a bulwark against racial discrimination in voting.
According to the brief filed by the coalition of states, the 8th Circuit’s finding that only state and local governments can bring such challenges “takes away an essential tool in protecting voting rights.” The states argue that the ruling is not only an outlier but also undermines the effectiveness of the Voting Rights Act at a time when federal enforcement has waned and millions of voters face new threats to their rights. “The Eighth Circuit’s departure from decades of practice comes at exactly the wrong time – when federal enforcement has diminished and when millions of voters need protection heading into upcoming elections,” Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown said in a prepared statement, as reported by Maryland Matters.
The stakes are high. From 1982 to 2024, about 91% of all Section 2 challenges were filed by private plaintiffs, with only 7.5% coming from attorneys general, according to the states’ brief. The ability of private citizens and organizations to bring these lawsuits has been central to enforcing the law and ensuring that minority communities are not disenfranchised through manipulative redistricting or restrictive voting policies.
The case that triggered this legal battle, Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians v. Howe, originated in North Dakota. There, tribes and individual voters alleged that the state’s redistricting plan diluted Native American voting power in violation of Section 2. The Supreme Court, responding to urgent appeals, put the 8th Circuit ruling on hold over the summer, allowing the case to proceed while a broader appeal is considered.
Yet, the controversy over who can enforce Section 2 is only one front in a much larger war over voting rights. The Supreme Court’s upcoming hearing in Louisiana v. Callais has drawn national attention from legal experts, politicians, and advocacy groups. As NPR’s Code Switch notes, this is happening just weeks before a major election, raising pressing questions about who will be able to vote—and whose votes will truly count.
After the 2020 census, Louisiana redrew its six congressional districts, initially creating only one district where Black voters had a real chance to elect their preferred candidate, despite Black residents making up about 35% of the state’s population. Black voters sued, arguing that Section 2 required the state to create a second majority-Black district. The courts agreed, and the Louisiana Legislature reluctantly complied—though the new map also protected many Republican incumbents, including Speaker of the House Mike Johnson.
But the creation of this second "Black opportunity district" sparked a new lawsuit—Callais—in which white voters claimed the district was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander, violating the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court first heard the case in March 2025 but took the unusual step of ordering a second round of arguments this October, asking the parties to address whether Section 2’s race-conscious remedies are themselves unconstitutional.
In a dramatic twist, Louisiana, joined by 16 other states and the U.S. Department of Justice, now argues that Section 2 is either unconstitutional or should be interpreted so narrowly as to lose its power to protect minority voters. This marks a stark departure from previous bipartisan support for the Act’s constitutionality, as highlighted by NBC News.
The implications of the Supreme Court’s decision could be enormous. According to a report shared with POLITICO by Fair Fight Action and Black Voters Matter Fund, if Section 2 is eliminated or severely weakened, Republicans could redraw up to 19 House seats in their favor—potentially guaranteeing control of Congress and crushing minority representation. “Doing so would ‘clear the path for a one-party system where power serves the powerful and silences the people,’” warned LaTosha Brown, co-founder of Black Voters Matter Fund.
The report estimates that up to 30% of the Congressional Black Caucus and 11% of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus could be drawn out of their seats. While Democrats might also seek to use any changes to the Voting Rights Act to their advantage by redrawing maps in heavily blue areas, the opportunities would be far fewer. As Fair Fight Action CEO Lauren Groh-Wargo put it, further weakening the Voting Rights Act would do “permanent” damage, calling for an “aggressive and immediate” response from Democrats to counter Republican redistricting efforts already underway.
Historically, Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act has been interpreted to require jurisdictions with racially polarized voting and significant minority populations to draw districts that provide minorities an equal opportunity to participate in the political process. The Supreme Court’s 1986 decision in Thornburg v. Gingles was a landmark, leading to the election of hundreds of minority-preferred candidates at all levels of government.
But the Act has already been battered. In the 2013 case Shelby County v. Holder, the Court—under Chief Justice John Roberts—struck down the Act’s pre-clearance provisions, which had required states with histories of discrimination to get federal approval before changing voting laws. At the time, Roberts assured Americans that “Section 2 is permanent, applies nationwide, and is not at issue in this case.” Now, as NBC News and POLITICO both report, the Court appears poised to reconsider even that assurance.
Former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, speaking at the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation conference in September, expressed deep concern about the Supreme Court’s direction. Referring to the Court’s 2023 decision in Allen v. Milligan, which upheld Section 2 in the context of Alabama’s congressional map, Holder asked, “How are you now going to say that two years later something has happened and you’re now going to find Section 2 unconstitutional?” He added, “Having said that, I worry about what the court is going to do, so we’ll have to see.”
The battle lines are drawn. Republicans argue that Section 2 gives Democrats an unfair partisan advantage and that its protections against racial gerrymandering are no longer necessary. Democrats and voting rights advocates counter that the law remains essential to ensuring fair representation and preventing the dilution of minority voting power. Both sides are preparing strategies to respond to whatever the Court decides—whether by redrawing maps, mobilizing voters, or pushing for new legislation.
As the Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments in Louisiana v. Callais, the outcome could reshape the rules of American democracy for years to come. The decision will determine not just the fate of Section 2, but also the ability of millions of voters—especially those from minority communities—to have a meaningful voice in their government.
