In a rare decision this week, the U.S. Supreme Court postponed ruling on a Louisiana congressional redistricting case that could have implications on legal protections for the rights of minority voters across the country.

The high court’s order on Friday did not explain why the court wants to hear oral arguments again in Louisiana v. Callais during its next term that is expected to start in October, although it signaled there may be details in a follow-up order coming in “due course.”

“This is on the surface a fairly easy case factually to decide,” says Michael Li, a redistricting expert at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law. “The Supreme Court almost never holds over cases for argument. And the fact that it’s doing so in this case is puzzling.”

Some legal experts are watching to see if the court’s ruling ends up joining a string of decisions since 2013 by the court’s conservative majority that have limited the scope of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and its protections against racial discrimination in elections.

“Voting Rights Act watchers have been predicting a major shift around the Voting Rights Act for over a decade,” says Atiba Ellis, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University. “The fact that the Court is rearguing Louisiana v. Callais may mean there is deep debate and a potential major decision upholding — or striking down — the Voting Rights Act.”

The Louisiana case also centers on the role of politics when redrawing maps of voting districts, notes Justin Levitt, a Loyola Law School professor. The court’s punting this week “may mean more justices want to think a little bit more about the interaction of race and politics and the Voting Rights Act than I would have thought, but that’s not sort of prejudging the outcome of that consideration,” adds Levitt, who served as a White House adviser on voting rights during former President Joe Biden’s administration.

Levitt also points to the court’s 2023 ruling for a similar redistricting case out of Alabama as a sign that the Voting Rights Act may end up unscathed by the court’s ultimate ruling in this long-running redistricting battle. In that decision, the court upheld its previous rulings on the same part of the Voting Rights Act that many of its advocates fear could be weakened in the Louisiana case.

As the Voting Rights Act’s supporters prepare to mark the 60th anniversary of the law’s passage this August, Levitt, however, does note that its critics are setting up potential future showdowns at the Supreme Court.

Here’s what to know about where Voting Rights Act protections currently stand in the Louisiana case and the key lawsuits that could weaken them next:

The Louisiana ruling could make it harder to claim that a voting map dilutes minority voters’ collective power

To comply with what’s known as Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, state lawmakers in Louisiana — where voting is racially polarized and nearly 1 in 3 people are Black — are under a federal court order to pass a map with two out of six districts where Black voters have a realistic opportunity of electing their preferred candidates.

But a group of self-described “non-Black” voters challenged the map that the state’s legislature said it passed to get in line with Section 2. Those challengers argue that one of the districts the lawmakers drew is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.

Civil rights advocates hold signs saying “LOUISIANA DESERVES FAIR MAPS!” outside the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., in March on the first day of oral arguments in the Louisiana congressional redistricting case.

Jemal Countess/Getty Images

Advertisement

hide caption

toggle caption

Jemal Countess/Getty Images

Advertisement

During oral arguments in March, however, Louisiana state Solicitor General Benjamin Aguiñaga said the Republican-led legislature made a “politically rational decision” to draw a map with a pair of majority-Black districts in a way that protects the seats of three top Louisiana Republicans — U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise and Rep. Julia Letlow, a House Appropriations Committee member.

With a candidate filing deadline for the state’s 2026 primary election coming up this December, a Supreme Court order from last year keeps the congressional map with two majority-Black districts in effect at least for now.

But voting rights advocates are keeping watch for any ruling by the high court that strikes down the map and potentially further limits how race can factor into redistricting around the country. That could make it harder to enforce Section 2 protections against maps of voting districts that dilute minority voters’ collective power in areas where voting is racially polarized.

Alabama wants to again argue against race-based redistricting before the Supreme Court

Republican state officials in Alabama are, once again, appealing another long-running congressional redistricting case to the Supreme Court.

This time, they’ve teed up an argument that it is unconstitutional for Congress to allow race-based redistricting to continue without an end date under the Voting Rights Act.

Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas raised that point when the high court ruled on Alabama’s congressional map in 2023, when Kavanaugh also noted: “Alabama did not raise that temporal argument in this Court, and I therefore would not consider it at this time.”

In that ruling, Kavanaugh joined Chief Justice John Roberts, a fellow conservative, and the court’s three liberal justices to uphold the Supreme Court’s past rulings on Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

But some voting rights advocates are watching to see if Republican Alabama officials can sway Kavanaugh this round and ultimately undo Section 2 protections against the dilution of minority voters’ collective power in redistricting.

GOP state officials in Louisiana have raised the same constitutional argument against Section 2 protections in a state legislative redistricting case, which is currently waiting for a ruling by a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

A North Dakota case could end a key tool for enforcing minority voters’ rights

Last month, a North Dakota state legislative redistricting case moved a step closer to the Supreme Court, where a potential ruling could eliminate a key tool for protecting the rights of minority voters.

For decades, private individuals and groups have brought most of the lawsuits focused on enforcing Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. But a pair of decisions out of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has found that private individuals and groups are not allowed to sue because they are not explicitly named in the words of the Voting Rights Act. Only the head of the Justice Department, these 8th Circuit panel decisions say, can file these types of lawsuits.

Native American voters led by the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians are asking the full 8th Circuit to review the latest decision.

In the meantime, the rulings apply to seven mainly Midwestern states — Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota — as the Justice Department under the Trump administration steps away from Section 2 lawsuits it previously brought when Biden was in office.

Some voting rights advocates fear that if the North Dakota case is ultimately appealed to the Supreme Court, the high court could make it harder to enforce Section 2 protections across the country. Justice Neil Gorsuch signaled his interest in this issue with a single-paragraph opinion in 2021.

Edited by Benjamin Swasey