The Supreme Court is hearing a major case that could dismantle one of the last protections in the Voting Rights Act.

According to the Associated Press, the case comes from Louisiana, a state where one-third of the population is Black, but only one of six congressional districts was majority-Black. Civil rights groups sued, and a lower court ruled that the map violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits voting practices that leave minority voters with less opportunity to participate in the political process. Louisiana was ordered to add a second Black-majority district. However, a group of white voters challenged the new map, claiming it was unfair to them. The dispute has now reached the Supreme Court. The justices are now questioning whether creating a second Black-majority district could violate the Constitution, which raises the possibility that Section 2 could be struck down.

That possibility came into focus during today’s hearing, which stretched for more than two hours, the Associated Press reports. The conservative majority signaled they were open to limiting, if not eliminating, Section 2’s power. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, considered a potential swing vote, pressed the issue of whether race-conscious remedies can continue indefinitely. “What exactly do you think that endpoint should be?” he asked Janai Nelson, the attorney for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, one of the court’s liberal members, summarized what she believed conservatives were aiming for. “The bottom line is get rid of Section 2,” she said. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson pushed back on the idea that discrimination must be intentional, asking, “Is the standard for bringing a case that plaintiffs must prove intentional racial discrimination?” She emphasized that Section 2 focuses on results because “that’s the initial problem.” Justice Elena Kagan added that Section 2 “is about the effects of discrimination,” not abstract theories.

The Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965 to end decades of racial voter suppression in the South. It originally required states with histories of discrimination to get federal approval before changing voting rules. That protection was eliminated in the 2013 Shelby County v Holder decision. The Court claimed the country had changed, and soon after, Republican-led states passed new restrictions that disproportionately impacted Black, Latin, and Indigenous voters.

Since Shelby County, Section 2 has become the main tool for challenging discriminatory maps and voting laws. It allows lawsuits based on the results of a policy, not just intent. If Section 2 is gutted, states would have far more freedom to redraw districts in ways that reduce “minority” political power, with little chance for legal challenges. The Associated Press reports that eliminating majority-minority districts could shift as many as 19 congressional seats away from candidates supported by Black and Latin voters.

Louisiana officials argued the opposite, claiming Section 2 is unfair. Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill told the Court the map-drawing system is “broken” and said the state was “damned if we do and damned if we don’t.” Lawyers for Louisiana and the Trump administration argued that race-based districting “harms voters” by sorting them based on race. Hashim M. Mooppan, the deputy solicitor general, downplayed consequences, claiming that “even if you eliminated Section 2 entirely, fully 75% of Black congressmen are in districts not protected by Section 2.”

Voting rights lawyers warned of chaos. “Without Section 2, minority voters would continue to face extreme instances of discrimination,” attorneys for Black voters wrote. Nelson told reporters after the hearing that she was confident the law is on their side if the Court respects precedent and the 15th Amendment.

The outcome of this case, which will not come until June 2026, will determine whether the Voting Rights Act continues to protect equal representation or is stripped of its power after nearly 60 years. The legacy of the Voting Rights Act is not just legal, it is the result of generations of organizing, sacrifice, and advocacy. It was demanded in the streets by everyday Black citizens who faced literacy tests, poll taxes, intimidation, and violence just to vote.

If the Court sides with the challengers, it would signal a return to a pre-1965 reality where states can easily dilute or silence minority voters.