During a high-stakes session on October 16, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court found itself at the heart of a contentious debate over the future of the Voting Rights Act and the role of race in shaping congressional districts. The case, which centers on the state of Louisiana’s congressional map, has reignited national conversations about fairness, discrimination, and the boundaries of legislative remedies for inequality.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, one of the Court’s liberal justices, drew a striking comparison between the current legal battle over voting rights and the historic passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in 1990. According to The Post, Jackson asked pointedly, “The idea in Section 2 [of the Voting Rights Act] is that we are responding to current-day manifestations of past and present decisions that disadvantage minorities and make it so that they don’t have equal access to the voting system, right?” Her analogy likened minority voters in Louisiana to people with disabilities before the ADA, arguing that the law was designed to correct systemic barriers regardless of intent.
“They’re disabled,” Jackson said of minority voters in the state, referencing language used in a 2023 Supreme Court ruling about Alabama’s redistricting. In that case, the Court found Alabama had unlawfully diluted Black voters’ power by drawing districts that failed to reflect the state’s demographics. Jackson pointed out, “The majority opinion in a 2023 Supreme Court ruling — which found Alabama unlawfully diluted the voting power of black people in the state — ‘used the word ‘disabled’’ to describe voters subject to ‘processes [that] are not equally open.’”
Louisiana’s original congressional map, drawn after the 2020 Census, contained just one majority-Black district, despite the fact that roughly one-third of the state’s residents are Black. Lower courts intervened, ordering the state to redraw its boundaries to create a second majority-Black district. This move was intended to bring Louisiana into compliance with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits voting practices or procedures that discriminate on the basis of race or color. As The Post reported, both of Louisiana’s Democratic members of Congress represent the majority-Black districts, underscoring the political stakes of the dispute.
Justice Jackson’s analogy to the ADA was more than rhetorical flourish. She explained, “Congress passed the Americans with Disabilities Act against the backdrop of a world that was generally not accessible to people with disabilities, and so it was discriminatory in effect because these folks were not able to access these buildings. And it didn’t matter whether the person who built the building or the person who owned the building intended for them to be exclusionary. That’s irrelevant. Congress said the facilities have to be made equally open to people with disabilities if readily possible.” Jackson pressed, “I guess I don’t understand why that’s not what’s happening here.”
But Edward Greim, the attorney representing Louisiana voters who challenged the court-ordered map, pushed back forcefully. He argued that, unlike the ADA, the remedy in this case was explicitly race-based and risked perpetuating stereotypes about minority voters. “The difference is that the remedy under the ADA and other antidiscrimination laws is not stereotyping,” Greim responded. “It’s not race-based. I take your point. I take your point.” He continued, “But you’re saying then that if the problem of no access is about race, it’s just too bad because you can’t have a remedy that relates to race.”
Jackson acknowledged the distinction but pressed further. Greim insisted, “Absolutely not … It’s whether the remedy that relates to race involves stereotyping voters and making assumptions about their politics and their views and their thoughts based on their race. And that’s the problem. It doesn’t exist in those other civil rights statutes.” His argument reflects a broader concern among critics of race-conscious remedies, who worry that such measures may entrench racial divisions or violate the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection.
The oral arguments revealed a stark ideological divide on the bench. According to The Post, the Supreme Court’s six conservative justices signaled their inclination to limit the use of race as a factor in drawing congressional districts. This could mark a significant shift in how courts interpret the Voting Rights Act, especially Section 2, which has long been a tool for challenging discriminatory electoral practices. The conservative bloc’s questions suggested skepticism toward remedies that explicitly account for race, even when intended to address historical and ongoing disparities.
For decades, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 has stood as a cornerstone of American civil rights law, credited with dismantling barriers that once excluded Black Americans and other minorities from the ballot box. Section 2, in particular, has been a lifeline for minority voters seeking fair representation. Yet, the law has faced repeated challenges and reinterpretations, especially in recent years. The 2023 Alabama case cited by Jackson was seen by many as a reaffirmation of the Act’s protections, but the current Louisiana dispute raises questions about how far those protections extend—and at what cost.
The stakes are high, not just for Louisiana but for the entire nation. With a decision expected by June 2026, the outcome could reshape the political landscape in states with significant minority populations. If the Court sides with the conservative argument, it may become harder for courts to order race-conscious remedies, even when evidence shows that minority voters are systematically disadvantaged. On the other hand, a ruling upholding the current approach would reinforce the use of race as a necessary factor in remedying past and present discrimination.
Legal scholars and civil rights advocates are watching closely. Many argue that ignoring the realities of racial discrimination in voting would undo decades of progress. Others, however, caution that overreliance on race could backfire, fueling resentment and undermining the principle of equal treatment. The debate is as much about the nation’s history as it is about its future—about how to reconcile a legacy of exclusion with the promise of democracy for all.
Meanwhile, the political implications are immediate. As The Post notes, Louisiana’s two Democratic representatives come from the state’s majority-Black districts, highlighting the direct impact of district boundaries on electoral outcomes. The case also arrives amid broader national debates over voting rights, gerrymandering, and the role of the federal courts in safeguarding democracy.
As the Supreme Court deliberates, one thing is clear: the outcome will reverberate far beyond the walls of the courtroom. Whether the justices choose to uphold or curtail the use of race in drawing congressional districts, their decision will shape not only the letter of the law but the lived experience of millions of Americans seeking a voice at the ballot box.
