Supreme Court Rehears Louisiana Case on Second Majority-Black Congressional District

16 HOURS AGO·UPDATED 16 HOURS AGO

story

Above: A demonstrator holds a U.S. flag during a rally in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 15, 2025. Image copyright: Alex Wong/Getty Images

The Spin

Democratic narrative

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act remains essential to prevent racial discrimination in voting and ensure fair representation for communities of color. Without this protection, Republican-controlled states would have free rein to dilute minority voting power through discriminatory redistricting, effectively returning to Jim Crow-era tactics. Dismantling Section 2 would also likely guarantee Republican control of Congress by eliminating minority districts that currently provide equal electoral opportunities. The Supreme Court is playing a dangerous game that hopefully will not end protections under the Voting Rights Act.

Common Dreams The Conversation Youtube

Republican narrative

The Supreme Court finally has the chance to end the unconstitutional practice of sorting Americans into voting districts based on skin color. Louisiana's case exposes the glaring contradiction between the Voting Rights Act's race-based mandates and the Constitution's clear command of race neutrality. Race-based redistricting rests on offensive stereotypes that all minorities think alike and violates the Fourteenth Amendment's promise of equal treatment.

National Review The Federalist X

Establishment-critical narrative

Louisiana v. Callais exposes a growing flaw in American democracy: the Voting Rights Act assumes federal officials and judges will enforce fairness impartially, but today’s hyperpartisan judiciary cannot be trusted to do so. Its broad powers risk being selectively applied, undermining both the law’s intent and the integrity of elections. This raises serious questions about centralizing authority over voting in an increasingly politicized federal system.

Vox