Supreme Court’s Latest Order Signals End of Voting Rights Act Protection Against Racial Gerrymandering
Summary:
On August 4, 2025, Vox published an explosive analysis titled “The Supreme Court just revealed its plan to make gerrymandering even worse,” signaling a potential undoing of decades-old protections under the Voting Rights Act. The report centers on the Court’s handling of Louisiana v. Callais, a racial gerrymandering challenge nearly identical to the 2023 Allen v. Milligan case.
In Milligan, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, both conservative appointees, deviated from their ideological bloc to strike down Alabama’s map for violating the Voting Rights Act. They ordered the state to redraw maps to include a Black-majority district—seemingly upholding the Act’s racial protections.
However, the new Callais order suggests that Milligan was an outlier. The Court asked parties to brief whether applying the Voting Rights Act to racial gerrymandering violates the Constitution—a clear signal that justices may be preparing to overturn Thornburg v. Gingles (1986), a foundational precedent allowing plaintiffs to challenge racially gerrymandered districts.
If Gingles is struck down, that would effectively dismantle nearly all judicial avenues for proving racial intent or impact in redistricting. That would leave only a narrow pathway: challenging maps under disparate intent standards, without recourse to challenge discriminatory effects. Paired with the 2019 Rucho v. Common Cause decision, which barred federal courts from reviewing partisan gerrymandering, this would decimate federal oversight of electoral fairness.
The Vox analysis argues that Roberts and Kavanaugh’s votes in Milligan reflected strategic legal failures by Alabama’s lawyers—not a broader commitment to voting rights. The Callais order is interpreted as the conservative majority signaling a return to indifference toward such cases.
Why this matters legally:
Justice decisions to solicit briefing on Voting Rights Act constitutionality mark a reversal from Milligan and pose real risk to racial gerrymandering claims. If the Court revives a challenge in Callais or similar cases, it may issue a major ruling during the 2025–26 term that overturns Gingles and strips courts of a primary mechanism to block racial discrimination in district maps.
Policy and political impact:
Rescinding Gingles would likely embolden legislators to redraw districts without fear of federal consequences, particularly in states with majority-minority populations. Minority voters may lose critical representation, and challenges to district lines would face greater obstacles. With the electoral maps aside, this shift could reshape American electoral politics well into the next decade.
⚖️ Key Legal Outcomes
-
Supreme Court asked for briefing in Louisiana v. Callais, signaling review of Voting Rights Act’s application.
-
Strong hint Court may overturn Thornburg v. Gingles.
-
Milligan ruling may remain a one‑off, not precedent.
-
Ability to challenge racial gerrymandering under effect-based tests could be eliminated.
-
With Rucho and potential Gingles reversal, federal oversight of district maps narrows sharply.
💡 Why It Matters
-
May end federal courts’ capacity to block racially discriminatory map-making.
-
Weakens Voting Rights Act as a tool to secure fair electoral representation.
-
Marks a major shift in Supreme Court doctrine on race and voting rights.
-
Risks further politicization of redistricting with limited judicial review.
-
Could reshape elections and minority representation for years.
Outlet & Publication Date
Vox — Published August 4, 2025 VoxYahoo
Tags
supreme court, voting rights act, racial gerrymandering, gingles, callais, milligan, supreme court order, voting rights rollback
