Supreme Court Appears Poised to Gut Voting Rights Act

Why it matters to Black and Brown Americans

The U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative majority appears ready to weaken one of the most powerful civil rights protections in American history — the Voting Rights Act of 1965 — a move that could once again reshape political power across the South and diminish representation for millions of Black and Brown voters.

During recent oral arguments in Louisiana v. Callais, the justices questioned whether the law should still require the creation of majority-Black congressional districts. Conservative members of the Court — including Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch — suggested that such race-conscious measures, once seen as vital remedies against discrimination, should have “an end point.”

The case centers on whether Louisiana must maintain two majority-Black congressional districts. Black residents make up roughly one-third of the state’s population, yet only one of its six districts currently allows Black voters to elect a candidate of their choice. A lower court ruled that the map violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits voting practices that dilute minority voting power.

But if the Supreme Court limits or strikes down Section 2, experts warn that the impact could be seismic. States with histories of racial gerrymandering — particularly in the Deep South — could redraw maps to eliminate majority-minority districts, reducing Black and Latino representation in Congress and state legislatures for a generation.

A hard-won protection

The Voting Rights Act was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson in August 1965, following the “Bloody Sunday” march in Selma, Alabama, where peaceful demonstrators were brutally beaten by police as they tried to cross the Edmund Pettus Bridge. The images of that day shocked the nation and pushed Congress to act.

At its heart, the VRA outlawed literacy tests, poll taxes, and other barriers that had long suppressed Black voters. Section 5 required jurisdictions with a history of discrimination — mostly in the South — to obtain federal approval before changing election laws, a process known as “preclearance.” Section 2 banned racial discrimination in voting more broadly, giving the Justice Department and private citizens power to challenge discriminatory maps and practices in court.

For decades, these provisions worked. Voter registration among African Americans surged, and the number of Black elected officials increased dramatically, from fewer than 500 nationwide in 1965 to more than 10,000 by the early 2000s.

The slow dismantling

That progress began to unravel in 2013, when the Supreme Court, in Shelby County v. Holder, struck down the preclearance formula in Section 5. The Court argued that the nation had changed and that the extraordinary federal oversight of Southern states was no longer justified.

Within hours of that ruling, several states moved to enact restrictive voting laws, including voter ID requirements, polling-place closures, and purges of voter rolls — all of which disproportionately affected Black and Latino voters.

Now, with the Court signaling it may curtail Section 2 as well, civil rights advocates fear the Voting Rights Act could be left toothless.

“This would be the final blow,” said Janai Nelson, president of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. “Without Section 2, communities of color will once again have to fight for fair maps district by district, state by state, often after the damage has already been done.”

Why it matters to Black and Brown communities

Majority-minority districts have been one of the few guarantees that voters of color can elect candidates who reflect their lived experiences and policy priorities. If these protections vanish, states could redraw maps that scatter minority populations across multiple districts — a tactic known as cracking — or pack them into a single district to minimize their influence elsewhere.

The result would be fewer Black and Latino voices in Congress, statehouses, and local councils — and a political landscape less responsive to issues such as voting access, criminal justice reform, healthcare equity, and economic opportunity.

Analysts estimate that eliminating Section 2’s safeguards could lead to the loss of six to eight majority-Black congressional districts nationwide, potentially shifting control of the U.S. House of Representatives.

A decision with echoes of the past

Civil rights veterans see parallels between today’s legal challenges and the old Jim Crow tactics of suppression. “We’ve been here before,” said Rev. Al Sharpton. “Every time Black and Brown people make progress toward equality, there’s a counter-movement to pull the rug out from under us.”

The Court’s decision, expected next summer, could come just months before new redistricting battles begin ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. If the conservative majority rules as expected, the decision could mark the most significant rollback of voting protections in more than half a century.

For millions of voters whose ancestors marched, bled, and died for the right to cast a ballot, the implications are clear: The struggle for fair representation — a struggle thought to have been settled in 1965 — may have to be fought all over again.