美国最高法院削弱《选举权法案》关键条款

US Supreme Court guts key provision of Voting Rights Act

2026-04-29T14:14:43.181Z / Reuters

By John Kruzel and Andrew Chung

April 29, 2026 2:14 PM UTC Updated 4 mins ago

Item 1 of 2 People protest on the day the U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments regarding the composition of Louisiana electoral districts, in Washington, D.C., U.S., October 15, 2025. REUTERS/Elizabeth Frantz

[1/2]People protest on the day the U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments regarding the composition of Louisiana electoral districts, in Washington, D.C., U.S., October 15, 2025. REUTERS/Elizabeth Frantz Purchase Licensing Rights, opens new tab

• Summary
• Companies

• Ruling is a win for Trump and Louisiana Republicans
• Case was latest US fight over racial issues in voting maps
• Louisiana map increased Black-majority US House districts

WASHINGTON, April 29 (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday gutted a key provision of the Voting Rights Act – making it harder for minorities to challenge electoral maps as racially discriminatory under the landmark civil rights law – in a victory for Louisiana Republicans and President Donald Trump’s administration.

The justices, in a 6-3 ruling powered ​by the court’s conservative members, blocked an electoral map that had given the state a second Black-majority congressional district. The court’s three liberals and legal experts denounced the decision as hollowing out Section 2 of the Voting ‌Rights Act, which Congress enacted to bar electoral maps that would result in diluting the clout of minority voters.

The Reuters Iran Briefing newsletter keeps you informed with the latest developments and analysis of the Iran war. Sign up here.

Advertisement · Scroll to continue

The full impact of the ruling on November’s midterms was not immediately clear, though legal experts said it is possible states may try to enact new maps as a result of the decision. Louisiana has a primary election set for May 16.

The Supreme Court has a 6-3 conservative majority. The ruling was authored by Justice Samuel Alito and joined by his five fellow conservative justices. The three liberal justices dissented.

The Louisiana case involved a central element of the Voting Rights Act. The law’s Section 2 was passed by ​Congress to prohibit electoral maps that would result in undermining the clout of minority voters, even without direct proof of racist intent.

Advertisement · Scroll to continue

Alito wrote that the focus of Section 2 must now be to enforce the Constitution’s prohibition on intentional racial ​discrimination under the 15th Amendment.

“Only when understood this way does (Section 2) of the Voting Rights Act properly fit within Congress’s Fifteenth Amendment enforcement power,” Alito wrote.

Interpreting Section 2 to “outlaw a map solely because ⁠it fails to provide a sufficient number of majority-minority districts would create a right that the Amendment does not protect,” Alito added.

REDISTRICTING BATTLES

The ruling was issued amid a battle unfolding in Republican-governed and Democratic-led states around the country involving the redrawing of electoral maps to ​change the composition of congressional districts for partisan advantage ahead of the November congressional elections.

Trump’s party is aiming in the elections to retain the now razor-thin Republican majorities in the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate.

This provision gained greater significance as a bulwark against racial discrimination ​in voting after the Supreme Court, in a 2013 ruling authored by conservative Chief Justice John Roberts, gutted a different part of the same law.

Justice Elena Kagan, in a dissent joined by the two other liberal justices, said that the ruling will have major consequences.

“Under the court’s new view of Section 2, a state can, without legal consequence, systematically dilute minority citizens’ voting power. Of course, the majority does not announce today’s holding that way. Its opinion is understated, even antiseptic. The majority claims only to be ‘updating’ our Section 2 law, as though through a few technical tweaks,” Kagan said.

“But in fact, those ‘updates’ eviscerate ​the law, so that it will not remedy even the classic example of vote dilution given above,” she added.

The Trump administration backed the challenge made in the Louisiana case to the Voting Rights Act, advocating for raising the bar for proving a Section 2 violation.

Harvard ​Law School Professor Nicholas Stephanopoulos, who filed a brief in the case defending the Voting Rights Act, called the ruling “a complete gutting of Section 2.”

“It’s still there, in theory, but no one will be able to win a claim under the provision,” Stephanopoulos said. “States can freely dismantle minority-opportunity districts ‌as long as ⁠they make clear they’re doing so for partisan or other political reasons.”

NAACP President Derrick Johnson called the decision a “devastating blow” to the Voting Rights Act. Johnson said the civil rights organization plans to respond by turning out voters in the midterm elections, adding that “our best defense and offense is the ballot box.”

ANOTHER VOTING RIGHTS ROLLBACK

Louisiana, where Black people make up roughly a third of the population, has six U.S. House of Representatives districts. Black voters tend to support Democratic candidates.

In a process called redistricting, the boundaries of legislative districts across the United States are reconfigured to reflect population changes as measured by the national census conducted every 10 years. Redistricting typically has been carried out by state legislatures once per decade.

After Louisiana’s Republican-controlled legislature adopted a map that included just one Black-majority district following the 2020 census, a group ​of Black Louisiana voters sued. A federal judge then ruled in ​favor of the plaintiffs, deciding that the map likely harmed ⁠Black voters in violation of Section 2.

The state legislature responded by drawing a new map that added a second Black-majority district. This map prompted a separate lawsuit by 12 Louisiana voters who described themselves in court papers as “non-African American.” They argued that the second Black-majority district unlawfully reduced the influence of non-Black voters like them. White people make up a majority of Louisiana’s population.

The redrawn map relied too ​heavily on race in violation of the equal protection principle, a three-judge panel found in a 2-1 ruling, prompting the appeal to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court has rolled back protections under ​the Voting Rights Act. Its 2013 ⁠ruling in a case involving Alabama’s Shelby County gutted a Voting Rights Act provision that had required states and locales with a history of racial discrimination to get federal approval to change voting laws.

The court, however, ruled 5-4 in 2023 that a Republican-drawn electoral map in Alabama violated Section 2, siding with Black voters who had challenged the map and had sought an additional Black-majority congressional district. Roberts and fellow conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the court’s three liberals to form a majority in that decision.

The Supreme Court heard arguments in the Louisiana case in October 2025. ⁠It previously had ​heard arguments in the case in March 2025, but sidestepped a decision and ordered another round of arguments.

Louisiana initially had appealed the three-judge panel’s ruling and argued ​in March on the same side as the Black voters. But the Republican-led state subsequently reversed its stance.

Public views are nuanced on the role of race in drawing election boundaries. A Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted this month showed 75% of Americans – including 65% of Black Americans – thought race should not be considered when drawing congressional maps. But ​about five in 10 respondents in the poll – and six in 10 Black respondents – said they thought communities that share characteristics including race should be represented in the same congressional district.

Reporting by John Kruzel; Additional reporting by Joseph Ax and Jason Lange; Editing by Will Dunham

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles., opens new tab