The U.S. Supreme Court appears prepared to tighten the standards governing how federal courts enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, a move that could shield state lawmakers from legal challenges involving the overlap of race and political affiliation in redistricting.

The stakes are high. Two major voting rights groups warn that limiting—or eliminating—Section 2 could allow Republican-controlled legislatures to redraw up to 19 congressional districts in ways that favor their party.

During renewed arguments in Louisiana v. Callais, the Court’s conservative majority signaled openness to an approach once backed by the Trump administration’s Justice Department. That framework would make it harder for plaintiffs to prove racial vote dilution in regions where race and party preference strongly align—a common reality in much of the modern South.

The dispute centers on Louisiana’s 2022 congressional map. A federal trial court previously found the map likely violated Section 2 because it concentrated Black voters—who make up about one-third of the state’s population—into just one majority-Black district out of six.

In response, lawmakers approved a revised map in 2024 that added a second majority-Black district. However, white voters challenged the change, arguing it amounted to unconstitutional racial gerrymandering. A district judge agreed, striking down the revised plan.

The case has now returned to the Supreme Court after the justices requested additional briefing on whether Section 2 itself is constitutional. Louisiana has since reversed its stance, urging the Court to restrict or even eliminate race-conscious districting. Meanwhile, Black voters who brought the original lawsuit continue to support the revised map, arguing it properly corrects long-standing dilution of minority voting power.

While conservative justices appeared reluctant to completely overturn Section 2—a provision enacted in 1965 and strengthened in 1982 to prevent discriminatory voting practices—they also showed interest in narrowing its reach.

Citing the Court’s 2019 ruling on partisan gerrymandering, one argument suggests states should be allowed to defend district maps based on legitimate political goals, even when those goals closely track racial demographics. Under this reasoning, mapmakers could prioritize partisan advantage without violating Section 2, as long as race is not the sole motivating factor.

Chief Justice John Roberts questioned whether such an approach could be reconciled with the Court’s 2023 decision requiring a second majority-Black district in Alabama, as well as with the long-standing legal test used to evaluate vote-dilution claims. That test requires proof that a minority group is sufficiently large and cohesive and that majority voting blocs consistently defeat the group’s preferred candidates. Roberts appeared focused on preserving continuity with existing legal standards rather than radically reshaping them.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh raised another possibility: placing a time limit on Section 2 remedies. He referenced prior cases suggesting that race-based legal measures should function as temporary solutions rather than permanent fixtures.

Voting rights organizations aligned with Democrats are already sounding alarms. Groups such as Fair Fight Action and the Black Voters Matter Fund argue that weakening Section 2 could significantly increase the likelihood that Republicans retain control of the U.S. House of Representatives for years to come.

Research indicates that 27 congressional seats nationwide could potentially be redrawn to benefit Republicans under current conditions, with 19 of those changes directly linked to the possible loss of Section 2 protections.

As the country awaits the Court’s decision, some states are moving to create their own safeguards. In Mississippi, Democratic lawmakers have introduced legislation to establish a state-level version of the Voting Rights Act. The proposal would form a voting rights commission empowered to approve certain election-related changes, provide protections for voters with limited English proficiency, and add additional oversight mechanisms.

The outcome of the Supreme Court’s ruling could reshape not only federal voting protections but also how states approach election law in the years ahead.