卡根在异议中警告，该裁决“让第2条几乎沦为废文”，危及少数族裔投票权保护
2026年4月29日 美国东部时间下午2:45 / 福克斯新闻频道
作者：阿什利·奥利弗
【NEW】你现在可以收听福克斯新闻的文章了！
收听本文
时长3分钟
最高法院大法官克拉伦斯·托马斯周三表示，最高法院应当在其最新的《选举权法案》裁决基础上更进一步，称该法案关键的反歧视条款具有分裂性，绝不应当适用于选区重划案件。
“正如我30多年前解释过的，我会更进一步，认定《选举权法案》第2条完全不监管选区划分，”与大法官尼尔·戈萨奇持相同立场的托马斯在协同意见书中写道。
托马斯此番言论是最高法院在“路易斯安那州诉卡莱”一案中以6票对3票作出裁决的一部分，该裁决维持了下级法院的认定：该州的一个非裔占多数的国会选区属于违宪的种族选区划分。
该裁决影响深远，缩小了《选举权法案》第2条的适用范围。这项民权时代的法律规定，投票政策不得基于种族进行歧视。该裁决已经加大了各州在绘制少数族裔占多数选区时以种族为由进行辩护的难度，但托马斯的协同意见书走得更远，称该法案在任何情况下都不应被用于选区重划案件。
芝加哥市长布兰登·约翰逊抨击克拉伦斯·托马斯，同时为该市的赔偿特别委员会辩护
美国最高法院大法官克拉伦斯·托马斯于2025年2月5日在华盛顿白宫椭圆形办公室，为帕姆·邦迪宣誓就任美国司法部长前亮相。（安德鲁·哈尼克/盖蒂图片社）
“今天的裁决应当大体终结 Voting Rights 判例法中的这场‘灾难性误判’，”托马斯援引自己1994年的协同意见书内容写道。
托马斯辩称，最高法院此前对《选举权法案》第2条的解释，鼓励了各州进行带有歧视性的基于种族的选区绘制。他表示，第2条的文本涵盖投票权和投票程序，而非各州如何划定选区边界，因此不应被用于有关选区地图的诉讼。
作为乔治·H·W·布什总统任命的大法官，托马斯长期以来一直主张废除《选举权法案》的该条款。这位美国历史上第二位非裔大法官（仅次于瑟古德·马歇尔大法官）在1994年的“霍尔诉霍尔案”中表示，那些利用该法案第2条声称重划选区稀释了少数族裔选票的人，对法条的解读是错误的。
“我们在选票稀释案件中所依据的假设，对于任何追求‘宪法色盲’理想的国家来说，都应当是令人反感的，”托马斯当时写道。
重温斯卡利亚大法官的同性婚姻异议：是先知先觉还是煽动性言论？
2025年10月15日，美国最高法院外，投票权维权人士举行抗议，当时法院正准备审理对路易斯安那州国会选区地图的质疑案。（比尔·克拉克/CQ-滚石公司/盖蒂图片社）
由大法官塞缪尔·阿利托撰写的多数派意见并未采纳托马斯的立场。阿利托写道，尽管遵守《选举权法案》有时可能涉及利用种族因素，但该法案并未要求路易斯安那州设立第二个非裔占多数的选区，这意味着该州的地图是违宪的。
“我们对基于种族的州政府行动的接受度之所以罕见，是有原因的，”阿利托写道，并称路易斯安那州“没有令人信服的利益”将非裔选民集中到一个选区。
这场持续多年的诉讼源于2020年人口普查后的路易斯安那州选区重划工作。当时下级法院根据《选举权法案》要求该州增设第二个非裔占多数的选区，路易斯安那州随后出台了新的选区地图，但该地图被认定为种族选区划分而遭否决，由此引发了这场上诉至最高法院的新诉讼。
最高法院大法官埃琳娜·卡根于2016年9月13日在华盛顿乔治华盛顿大学法学院参与一场讨论。（马克·威尔逊/盖蒂图片社）
点击此处下载福克斯新闻APP
由奥巴马任命的大法官埃琳娜·卡根撰写的异议书中，三位自由派大法官辩称，多数派的裁决以及托马斯更为严苛的观点，剥夺了针对稀释少数族裔选票的保护措施。
该裁决“让第2条几乎沦为废文”，卡根写道。
“根据法院对第2条的新解读，一个州可以系统性地稀释少数族裔公民的投票权，而不会承担任何法律后果，”她写道。
阿什利·奥利弗是福克斯新闻数字频道和福克斯商业频道的记者，负责报道司法部和法律事务。可将新闻线索发送至ashley.oliver@fox.com。
Thomas leaves nothing left unsaid on racial gerrymandering decision: ‘Go further’
Kagan’s dissent warns the decision ‘renders Section 2 all but dead letter’ for minority voting protections
April 29, 2026 2:45pm EDT / Fox News
By Ashley Oliver
NEW You can now listen to Fox News articles!
Listen to this article
3 min
Justice Clarence Thomas said Wednesday the Supreme Court should go further than its latest Voting Rights Act ruling, arguing the law’s key anti-discrimination provision was divisive and should never apply to redistricting cases.
“As I explained more than 30 years ago, I would go further and hold that [section two] of the Voting Rights Act does not regulate districting at all,” Thomas, who was joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, wrote in a concurrence.
Thomas’ remarks came as part of the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision in Louisiana v. Callais, which upheld a finding that one of the state’s majority-Black congressional districts was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.
The decision had broad implications, serving to narrow section two of the Voting Rights Act, a civil rights-era law making it illegal for voting policies to discriminate based on race. The ruling already makes it more difficult for states to justify using race when drawing majority-minority districts, but Thomas’ concurrence went further, saying the statute should not be used for redistricting under any circumstances.
CHICAGO MAYOR BRANDON JOHNSON TAKES JAB AT CLARENCE THOMAS WHILE DEFENDING CITY’S REPARATIONS TASK FORCE
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas appears before swearing in Pam Bondi as U.S. attorney general in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, D.C., on Feb. 5, 2025.(Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)
“Today’s decision should largely put an end to this ‘disastrous misadventure’ in voting-rights jurisprudence,” Thomas wrote, quoting himself from a 1994 concurrence.
Thomas argued the high court’s prior interpretations of section two of the Voting Rights Act have encouraged states to engage in discriminatory race-based map drawing. He said the text of section two covers access to ballots and voting procedures, not how states draw district lines, and that it should therefore not be used in lawsuits about maps.
Thomas, an appointee of President George H. W. Bush, has long advocated gutting the Voting Rights Act provision. The conservative justice, the second Black justice in history after Justice Thurgood Marshall, said in the 1994 case, Holder v. Hall, that people who use section two of the law to claim redrawn districts have diluted racial minorities’ votes are reading it incorrectly.
“The assumptions upon which our vote dilution decisions have been based should be repugnant to any nation that strives for the ideal of a color blind Constitution,” Thomas wrote at the time.
REVISITING JUSTICE SCALIA’S SAME-SEX MARRIAGE DISSENT: PROPHETIC OR INFLAMMATORY?
Voting rights activists protest outside the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington on Oct. 15, 2025, as the court prepares to hear arguments challenging Louisiana’s congressional map.(Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc/Getty Images)
The majority opinion, authored by Justice Samuel Alito, stopped short of Thomas’ position. Alito wrote that while compliance with the Voting Rights Act could sometimes involve the use of race, the law did not require Louisiana to create a second majority-Black district, meaning its map was unconstitutional.
“‘Our acceptance of race-based state action has been rare for a reason,’” Alito wrote, saying Louisiana had “no compelling interest” in packing Black voters into the district.
The yearslong case arose from Louisiana’s redistricting efforts after the 2020 census, during which the state added a second majority-Black district after a lower court said the Voting Rights Act required it. That new map was then struck down as a racial gerrymander, setting up the new lawsuit that rose to the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan participates in a discussion at George Washington University Law School in Washington, D.C., on Sept. 13, 2016.(Mark Wilson/Getty Images)
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
The three liberal justices argued in a dissent, authored by Justice Elena Kagan, an Obama appointee, that the majority’s decision, and Thomas’ more stringent view, stripped protections against diluting racial minorities’ votes.
The decision “renders Section 2 all but dead letter,” Kagan wrote.
“Under the Court’s new view of Section 2, a State can, without legal consequence, systematically dilute minority citizens’ voting power,” she wrote.
Ashley Oliver is a reporter for Fox News Digital and FOX Business, covering the Justice Department and legal affairs. Email story tips to ashley.oliver@fox.com.
发表回复