2026-02-14T14:30:47.077Z / CNN
路易斯安那州总检察长莉兹·默里尔（Liz Murrill）于1月9日上午10点前不久抵达最高法院，在带有廊柱的法庭旁听席就座。几分钟后，特朗普政府的最高法庭律师、美国副检察长约翰·绍尔（John Sauer）走进法庭，他穿过房间热情地向她打招呼。
默里尔正在等待一个重新划分选区案件的判决，该判决可能会削弱1965年《选举权法》对黑人和拉丁裔的保护。这一判决可能同时增加共和党今年在美国众议院的胜选机会。
在特朗普政府和其他几个共和党控制的州的支持下，路易斯安那州将目光投向即将到来的中期选举，并告诉大法官们希望在1月初前做出判决，因为该州试图用新的选举地图取代目前包含两个法院命令设立的多数黑人选区的国会选区地图。
但在大法官们登上审判席后不久，法槌就落下了。路易斯安那诉卡莱案（Louisiana v. Callais）没有立即做出判决，此后也没有。
对该案件及其对选民和美国众议院控制权的影响的猜测不断增加，共和党在众议院仅占微弱优势。（大法官们周五宣布，他们将在本月晚些时候发布更多意见。）
此案考验的是《选举权法》第2条，该条禁止种族歧视，以及法官在发现地图稀释了黑人和西班牙裔选民的投票权时通常要求的补救措施。这种“少数族裔占多数的选区”旨在让他们有机会选举自己选择的候选人。
各州一直在密切关注最高法院的行动，一些州预计有机会摆脱早期法院命令的限制，并在11月中期选举前重新划分选区。然而，每过一周，一些地方就越难考虑这样的选择。在路易斯安那州，去年为了可能利用最高法院的裁决而推迟了初选截止日期，现在截止日期正在逼近。
无论当前周期的结果如何，最高法院最终的判决肯定会在2028年及以后的选举中为各州提供更多自由度。因为在过去二十年里，保守派法院一直在稳步削弱《选举权法》中的种族补救措施，并将权力下放给州立法机构。
到目前为止，法院在路易斯安那争议中的行动表明，多数派将使提起第2条主张更加困难。唯一的问题是程度如何。在最极端的情况下，法院可能会彻底废除第2条对少数族裔在重新划分选区过程中的保护。
在之前的一次法庭听证会后，大法官们突然安排了第二次听证会，并扩大了对《选举权法》的审查范围。根据去年10月举行的第二轮辩论，大法官们似乎准备进一步限制这项被视为美国民权时代典范法律的保护措施。《选举权法》是在1965年3月7日“血腥星期日”阿拉巴马州埃德蒙·佩特斯桥（Edmund Pettus Bridge）上的抗议者遭到袭击后通过的。
然而，法院多数派可能更倾向于采纳特朗普政府关于缩减覆盖范围的论点，而不是接受路易斯安那州完全废除旨在防止种族歧视的《选举权法》条款的请求。然而，即使是这种做法也可能减少黑人在公共事务中的代表性。
大法官们在过去的投票权争议中分歧极大，此案可能会产生来自多数派和少数派阵营的一系列不同意见。最终裁决可能要到春季晚些时候才能做出。
在首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨（John Roberts）领导下的法院与特朗普政府在反对基于种族的措施和解除联邦选举法规方面立场一致。特朗普去年上任后几天内，其律师撤回了拜登司法部在路易斯安那案中的辩护状，该辩护状试图维护《选举权法》。
早在特朗普首次上任之前，罗伯茨法院就已开始削减《选举权法》的效力。
威廉与玛丽学院法学院选举法专家丽贝卡·格林（Rebecca Green）教授将这种模式归因于当前多数派的“色盲”方法，试图全面消除种族补救措施。这一点在其2023年禁止高校在招生中考虑学生种族的裁决中可见一斑。
在重新划分选区的背景下，一些大法官同样试图不让种族成为划分立法选区的因素。但格林表示：“国会已经禁止少数族裔投票权被稀释。事实上，如果不考虑种族，就无法遵守《选举权法》或为违法行为提供补救措施。”
格林还指出，法院“加倍强调州立法机构是出于善意行事”，例如在其12月的命令中，允许一个被质疑为种族操纵选区的新得克萨斯州国会地图维持现状。
该地图可能包含五个新的共和党席位，这源于唐纳德·特朗普总统2025年推动的非大选年重新划分选区，以增加共和党在众议院的席位数量；加利福尼亚州则回应以新地图，可能增加五个额外的民主党席位。最高法院最近也允许该地图继续生效。
在最高法院更倾向于支持州和地方政府的重要模式中，罗伯茨首席大法官在2013年领导法院以5-4的裁决（谢尔比县诉霍尔德案，Shelby County v. Holder），削弱了《选举权法》中一项关键条款（第5条），该条款要求有歧视历史的州在进行选举变更前必须获得美国司法部的批准。
随后在2021年，多数派缩小了第2条对某些州做法挑战的适用范围。亚利桑那州案（Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee）涉及将投错选区的选票作废，并将第三方收集缺席选票（如该州偏远部落地区有时使用的做法）定为犯罪。
现在，第2条对重新划分选区做法的覆盖范围悬而未决。路易斯安那案中法官之间的分歧从一开始就很明显。该争议于2025年3月首次审理，但在6月，大法官们发出了不寻常的指令，要求重新辩论。
克拉伦斯·托马斯大法官对该指令表示异议，明确表示他希望法院尽快认定第2条因考虑选民种族而违反宪法。“我希望，”托马斯当时写道，“最高法院很快会意识到，其第2条判例法与宪法之间产生的冲突过于严重，不容忽视。”
托马斯尚未为其认为第2条与宪法平等保护保证相冲突的观点争取到多数支持。就在2023年阿拉巴马州的艾伦诉米利根案（Allen v. Milligan）中，大法官们表示，认识和使用种族不仅是允许的，而且可能是必要的，以弥补先前的地图，例如立法者通过“拆分”和“集中”技术（即分散或集中黑人到不同选区）造成的问题。
在阿拉巴马州案中担任关键第五票的布雷特·卡瓦诺（Brett Kavanaugh）大法官曾表示，在《选举权法》通过约60年后，基于种族的保障措施可能不再必要，并且正如法院在高等教育背景下发现的那样，这可能违反宪法的法律平等保护保证。卡瓦诺似乎在这一问题上处于决定性地位。
审理路易斯安那争议案的下级法院法官在发现州立法机构在种族极化投票的氛围中，通过将黑人选民分散到不同选区来稀释其选举权力后，下令设立第二个多数黑人选区。随后，一群主要是白人的居民提起诉讼，称修订后的地图是违宪的种族操纵选区。
该州最初为修订后的地图辩护，但总检察长默里尔和她的法律团队在大法官们重新考虑此案后辩称，“基于种族的选区划分从根本上违背了我们的宪法。”
美国副检察长办公室并未走得那么远，而是侧重于下级法院法官最初如何评估《选举权法》的违反情况，以及立法机构的地图是否可能受政治而非种族因素驱动。
“简而言之，”绍尔在联邦政府的辩护状中写道，“最高法院的第2条判例法应考虑到，如今，一个州未能创建一个紧凑的少数族裔占多数的选区，即使在人口统计学上可行，也更可能反映政治动机而非种族动机。”
卡瓦诺抓住了关于州“政治目标”的这一论点，称其为“真正的创新”。
根据美国副检察长的方法，试图在《选举权法》第2条主张中获胜的挑战者必须将政党与种族区分开来，并证明该州未能创建少数族裔占多数的选区反映了种族动机而非政治动机。
包括哈佛大学法学院教授尼古拉斯·斯特凡诺普洛斯（Nicholas Stephanopoulos）在内的批评者表示，这可能会使第2条主张无效，特别是在南方，那里黑人选民压倒性地投票支持民主党，而白人则压倒性地投票支持共和党。立法者可能会声称，所谓的歧视性地图是为了保护现任议员并维持党派平衡。
斯特凡诺普洛斯在谈到副检察长的立场时表示：“（副检察长的立场）将使第2条在南部司法管辖区成为一纸空文，而该条款在这些地区历来影响最大。”他指出，一个额外的少数族裔选区通常只能通过牺牲现有的共和党选区来绘制。“然而，用一个新的少数族裔机会选区取代一个旧的共和党选区，正是副检察长的提议所阻止的。”
在10月的口头辩论中，全国有色人种协进会法律辩护基金主任兼法律顾问贾奈·纳尔逊（Janai Nelson）告诉卡瓦诺，要求对党派偏见进行新的审查可能会削弱州“确保所有选民都有平等开放的选举过程”的责任。
“黑人选民可能与投票支持民主党相关，白人选民可能与投票支持共和党相关这一事实，并不否认存在种族极化投票的事实，”纳尔逊说，“以及所有情况的总和，包括在路易斯安那州多个公职中从未选出过黑人候选人这一事实，都是表明种族在路易斯安那州选举过程中发挥过大作用的额外迹象。”
与此同时，州立法机构推迟了中期选举的候选人报名截止日期，因为默里尔和其他路易斯安那州官员预计最高法院会做出裁决，并可能有机会改变目前包含两个黑人选区的地图。
但现在，候选人的普选报名期已经开始，报名截止日期为周五，而大法官们要到2月20日才会重返法庭。
States ready to seize Supreme Court redistricting decision amid countdown to midterm elections
2026-02-14T14:30:47.077Z / CNN
Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill arrived at the Supreme Court shortly before 10 a.m. on January 9 and took a seat in the spectator section of the columned courtroom. When US Solicitor General John Sauer, the Trump administration’s top courtroom lawyer, entered a few minutes later, he cut across the room to warmly greet her.
Murrill was waiting for ruling in a redistricting case that could unwind protections for Blacks and Latinos under the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The decision could simultaneously boost the GOP’s chances in the US House of Representatives this year.
Louisiana, backed by the Trump administration and several other Republican-controlled states, has its eye on the upcoming midterm elections and told the justices it wanted a decision by early January as it seeks to replace its current congressional map – which includes two court-ordered majority Black districts – with a new map for this year’s midterm elections.
Ad Feedback
But it did not take long after the justices ascended the bench that day for the gavel to fall. There was no decision in Louisiana v. Callais. Nor has one come since.
Speculation has only grown about the case and its consequences for voters and control of the US House, where the GOP holds a slim margin. (The justices announced on Friday that they will be issuing more opinions later this month.)
The case tests the Voting Rights Act’s Section 2, which prohibits race discrimination, and a remedy that judges have often required when they find that maps have diluted the voting power of Blacks or Hispanics. Such “majority-minority districts” are intended to give them a chance to elect a candidate of choice.
States have been closely watching for Supreme Court action, some of them anticipating an opportunity for relief from earlier court orders and a chance to redistrict before November’s midterm elections. Each week that passes, however, makes it harder for some places to consider such an option. In Louisiana, where primary deadlines were pushed back last year to potentially take advantage of a Supreme Court ruling, deadlines are closing.
Irrespective of what happens in the current cycle, the eventual Supreme Court decision is certain to give states more latitude for 2028 and future elections. That’s because over the past two decades the conservative court has been steadily erasing the racial remedies of the Voting Rights Act and deferring to state legislatures.
So far, the court’s actions in the Louisiana dispute suggest the majority will make it more difficult to bring Section 2 claims. The only question is to what degree. At the most extreme, the court could outright invalidate Section 2’s protection for minorities in the redistricting process.
After a round of oral arguments in an earlier court session, the justices suddenly scheduled a second hearing in Louisiana v. Callais and broadened their review of the Voting Rights Act. Based on that second round of arguments, held last October, the justices appear ready to further limit the protections of the law considered an exemplar of the nation’s civil rights era. The VRA was passed after the March 7, 1965, “Bloody Sunday” attack on marchers as they crossed the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Alabama.
Yet the court majority may be more apt to adopt the Trump administration’s argument for scaling back coverage, rather than accept Louisiana’s move for fully dismantling the VRA provision intended to protect against race discrimination. Even that approach, however, could diminish Black representation in public office.
The justices have splintered so deeply on past voting-rights controversies that the case may produce a series of separate writings, from both the majority and dissenting camps. The final ruling may not come until later in the spring.
The court under Chief Justice John Roberts and the Trump administration have aligned in their antagonism to race-based measures and interest in lifting federal election regulations. Within days of taking office last year, Trump’s lawyers retracted the Biden Justice Department brief in the Louisiana case that sought to preserve the Voting Rights Act.
Well before Trump first came to office, the Roberts Court had begun retrenching on the VRA.
William and Mary law professor Rebecca Green, an election-law expert, attributes its pattern to the current majority’s “colorblind” approach, attempting to eliminate racial remedies across the board. That was seen in its 2023 decision forbidding colleges and universities from considering students’ race in admissions.
In the context of redistricting, some justices similarly are trying to keep race from ever being a factor in drawing legislative lines. But, Green said, “Congress has prohibited minority vote dilution. And there’s really no way to comply with the Voting Rights Act or provide a remedy for a violation without taking race into account.”
Green also noted that the court has “doubled down on the idea that state legislatures are acting in good faith,” for example, with its December order to leave in place a new Texas congressional map challenged as a racial gerrymander.
The map, with potentially five new Republican seats, arose from President Donald Trump’s 2025 push for off-year redistricting to potentially increase the number of Republicans in the US House; California responded with a new map that could add five additional Democratic seats. The Supreme Court recently allowed that map to stand, too.
In the high court’s more consequential pattern favoring states and localities, Chief Justice Roberts in 2013 led the court to a 5-4 decision, in Shelby County v. Holder, that gutted a VRA provision (known as Section 5) requiring states with a history of discrimination to obtain approval from the US Justice Department before making electoral changes.
Then, in 2021, the majority diminished the reach of Section 2 for certain challenges to state practices. That Arizona case, Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, concerned requirements that ballots cast at the wrong precinct be discarded and criminalized the third-party collection of absentee ballots (such as were sometimes used in remote tribal areas of the state).
Now Section 2’s coverage for redistricting practices hangs in the balance. Conflicts among the justices in the Louisiana case were evident from the start. The dispute was first heard in March 2025, but then in June the justices issued the unusual order calling for re-argument.
Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from the order, making clear he wanted the court to avoid any delay in finding that Section 2 violates the Constitution as it takes voters’ race into account. “I am hopeful,” Thomas wrote then, “that this Court will soon realize that the conflict its Section 2 jurisprudence has sown with the Constitution is too severe to ignore.”
Thomas has yet to claim a majority for his view that Section 2 clashes with the constitutional guarantee of equal protection. And as recently as a 2023 case from Alabama, Allen v. Milligan, the justices said the awareness and use of race was not only permissible but might be required, to compensate for a prior map that, for example, was the result of legislative “cracking” and “packing” techniques – that is, dispersing or concentrating Blacks among districts.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who was the key fifth vote in that Alabama case, has suggested that Section 2’s race-based safeguard may no longer be needed some 60 years after passage of the VRA and that, as the court found in the context of higher education, it may violate the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection of the law. Kavanaugh appears positioned to be a decisive justice here.
Lower court judges who heard the Louisiana controversy had ordered the second majority-Black district after finding that the state legislature had, in an atmosphere of racially polarized voting, divided Black voters across districts in a way that diluted their electoral power. A group of mainly White residents subsequently sued, contending that the revised map was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.
The state initially defended the revised map, but Attorney General Murrill and her legal team argued more recently, once the justices reframed the case, that “race-based redistricting is fundamentally contrary to our Constitution.”
The US solicitor general’s office does not go that far. It instead focuses on how lower court judges assess a VRA violation in the first place and whether a legislature’s map might be driven by politics rather than by race.
“In short,” Sauer wrote in the federal government’s brief, “this Court’s Section 2 jurisprudence should account for the fact that, today, a State’s failure to create a compact majority-minority district, even where demographically possible, is far more likely to reflect political motives than racial ones.”
Kavanaugh latched on to the option regarding a state’s “political objectives.” He called it a “real innovation.”
Under the US solicitor general’s approach, challengers trying to succeed on a VRA Section 2 claim would have to separate party from race and show that the state’s failure to create a majority-minority district reflected racial motives rather than political ones.
Critics, including Harvard University law professor Nicholas Stephanopoulos, say that could extinguish Section 2 claims, particularly in the South, where Blacks overwhelmingly vote Democratic and Whites overwhelmingly vote Republican. Legislators could assert that arguably discriminatory maps protected incumbents and preserved a partisan balance.
“(T)he SG’s position would render Section 2 a dead letter in the southern jurisdictions where the provision has historically had its greatest impact,” Stephanopoulos said of the solicitor general’s position, noting that an additional minority district can usually be drawn only at the cost of an existing Republican district. “This swap of an old Republican district for a new minority-opportunity district, however, is exactly what the SG’s proposal would prevent.”
During October’s oral arguments, Janai Nelson, NAACP Legal Defense Fund director-counsel, told Kavanaugh that requiring new scrutiny of partisanship could undercut state responsibility “to ensure that all voters have an equally open electoral process.”
“The fact that Black voters may correlate with voting Democrat or White voters may correlate with voting Republican does not deny the fact that there is racially polarized voting,” Nelson said. “And the totality of the circumstances, including the inability to elect Black candidates in Louisiana on a statewide basis for a number of offices – there’s never been a Black person in Louisiana elected statewide – is additional indicia that race is playing an outsized role in the electoral process in Louisiana.”
The state legislature, meanwhile, postponed filing deadlines for the midterm elections, as Murrill and other Louisiana officials anticipated a high court ruling and possible opportunity to change the current map with two Black-majority districts.
But the filing period for the general primary now is upon candidates. A deadline was Friday, and the justices are not scheduled to return to their courtroom until February 20.
