The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down a race-based redistricting map in Louisiana, ruling that the state’s second black-majority district violates the Constitution.

The conservative majority ruled 6-3 that the map “is an unconstitutional gerrymander,” but stopped short of scrapping Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. 

“Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was designed to enforce the Constitution — not collide with it. Unfortunately, lower courts have sometimes applied this Court’s §2 precedents in a way that forces States to engage in the very race-based discrimination that the Constitution forbids,” Justice Alito wrote for the majority.

“This tension between §2 and the Constitution came to a head when Louisiana redrew its congressional districts after the 2020 census. In 2022, a federal judge in the Middle District of Louisiana held that the map adopted by the state legislature likely violated §2 because it did not include an additional majority-black district,” he continued. “But when the State drew a new map that contained such a district, its new map was challenged as a racial gerrymander. A three-judge court in the Western District of Louisiana held that the new map violated the Equal Protection Clause, and the State appealed to this Court.” 

The Supreme Court heard arguments in Louisiana v. Callais on October 15. The court heard arguments in the last term in June but agreed to hear another round and ultimately considered whether race or politics was the state’s motivation and whether compliance with the Voting Rights Act justifies the intentional use of race in drawing legislative districts. 

“For over 30 years, we have assumed for the sake of argument that the answer is yes. And we have gone further and assumed that it is enough if a State ‘ha[s] a strong basis in evidence’ for thinking that the Voting Rights Act requires race-based conduct,” Alito wrote. “But allowing race to play any part in government decision-making represents a departure from the constitutional rule that applies in almost every other context. These and other problems convinced us that the time had come to resolve whether compliance with the Voting Rights Act can indeed provide a compelling reason for race-based districting.” 

“We now answer that question: Compliance with §2, as properly construed, can provide such a reason. Correctly understood, §2 does not impose liability at odds with the Constitution, and it should not have imposed liability on Louisiana for its 2022 map” he wrote. “Compliance with §2 thus could not justify the State’s use of race-based redistricting here. The State’s attempt to satisfy the Middle District’s ruling, although understandable, was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander, and we therefore affirm the decision below.”

Justice Elena Kagan wrote a dissent for the three liberal-leaning justices, calling the consequences of the decision “likely to be far-reaching and grave.” 

“Today’s decision renders Section 2 all but a dead letter,” Kagan wrote.

The case could massively impact midterm elections and the 2028 elections. Analyses by the New York Times and a left-wing group called Fair Fight Action found that between 12 and 19 Democratic congressional districts could be redrawn into GOP ones.

The case is Louisiana v. Callais, No. 24–109 in the Supreme Court of the United States. 

Katherine Hamilton is a political reporter for Breitbart News. You can follow her on X @thekat_hamilton.