Case #24-109
U.S. Supreme Court – October 15, 2025
What’s At Stake
What is the case about?
This case arises from the redrawing of Louisiana’s congressional map. In 2024, the state legislature redrew the map to add a new black majority congressional district, based upon Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits voting practices that discriminate based on race. A group of non-minority voters sued, claiming the law was racial gerrymandering and that race was the predominant factor in redistricting, in clear violation of the Constitution. The district court agreed with the challengers, concluding the redrawn map was predominantly motivated by race. At issue is whether Louisiana’s intentional creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violates the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution.
Who is affected and how?
All 50 states will be affected by this decision. Should the Court uphold the Voting Rights Act Section 2 interpretation and allow race-based redistricting, claiming there is no violation of the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause, it will lead to the creation of more majority-minority districts. Advocates claim this is necessary to remedy historic discrimination.
If the Court holds that intentionally redistricting voters by race violates the Equal Protection Clause, it would affirm that the Constitution does not permit racial classifications and citizens must be treated as individuals, not as members of racial groups. Government-mandated racial discrimination is unconstitutional, regardless of its purpose.
Why does it matter?
The Constitution does not allow the government to use race as a factor in its policies. This is the argument used in the 2023 Supreme Court decision that ended race-based affirmative action in college admissions. This same principle must be applied to congressional redistricting to adhere to the Constitution’s mandate of racial neutrality and to ensure that all voters are treated equally under the law, without preference or penalty based on race.
Our Take
Independent Women believes the Court is poised to take a significant step toward ending race-based redistricting. The justices have increasingly shown discomfort with using race as a predominant factor in any area of public policy. In oral arguments, several justices expressed skepticism about whether race-based districting can ever be squared with the Equal Protection Clause. If the Court remains consistent in its reasoning, it will likely hold that drawing districts primarily based on race, even under the Voting Rights Act, is unconstitutional. We don’t expect the Court to strike down Section 2 of the VRA altogether, but do expect it to narrow its application significantly.
