Where the Supreme Court Draws its Line on Gerrymandering

Written by Misha Mehrfar

Edited by Rebecca Oxtot and Francesca Howard

Graphic under Public Domain

Though it is only June, the November midterm elections are looming large and have continued to influence American politics. This year, all members of the House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate are up for reelection, posing many potential changes to the United States government. 

Currently, there is a Republican majority in both houses of Congress, initially providing President Donald Trump with an advantage. He was originally able to easily promote his agenda, passing legislation like the Big Beautiful Bill with the help of his allies in Congress, but as his time in office grew, the Make America Great Again coalition in Congress has weakened. The 2026 midterm elections could potentially flip the current congressional makeup, further weakening Trump’s position. The Republicans have already suffered some political losses as well. Last November, Republicans lost in multiple state elections, most notably the gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia and the New York City mayoral race. 

Due to the friction between Republicans in Congress and with Trump, 16 G.O.P. Representatives have opted not to seek reelection or have resigned entirely. For instance, Marjorie Taylor Greene, a representative for Georgia’s 14th Congressional District, is among those who have resigned over tensions with President Donald Trump. Trump’s administration also has a high turnover rate, with 20 government officials or nominees either being fired, stepping down or having their nomination removed.

With Republicans vying to hold and grow their slimming majority in Congress, Democrats are trying to retake both houses, leading to redistricting within the states. 

The Constitution mandates that following the “one person, one vote” policy, every decade after the census states must alter their voting districts to equally and fairly represent their population. States, however, often try to create partisan districts, bettering the given party’s chances of winning an election. This process, called gerrymandering, is currently being used by blue and red states alike in an attempt to impact the midterm’s outcome. Racial gerrymandering is unconstitutional, though states often find loopholes to take advantage of certain racial or ethnic minority groups in advance of elections. Partisan gerrymandering, which uses political parties as opposed to race as a metric for drawing the maps, is legal under federal law but considered a political question that is outside of federal court control. Overall, the use of this political tactic has shrouded the new voting maps in controversy.

Louisiana is one of the plethora of states that decided to redistrict. In a previous map, critics argued that the black vote was diluted, so the state tried to mitigate the problem by creating a second majority-minority district. Opponents, however, claimed that the new district violated the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause as the district was based on race. On April 29th,  the Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that the district violated the Equal Protection Clause, striking a major blow to the Democratic Party.

Justice Samuel Alito's majority opinion in Louisiana v. Callais held that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act could not justify Louisiana's race-based redistricting plan. Although the Court did not invalidate Section 2, it adopted a narrower interpretation of the statute, making Voting Rights Act challenges to district maps more difficult. 

“The racial gap in voter registration and turnout had largely disappeared, with minorities registering and voting at levels that sometimes surpassed the majority,” Justice Alito said. Proponents of the Louisiana map argued that ruling against the district would completely nullify the VRA, an important piece of civil rights legislation that helps prevent discrimination at the polls. Specifically, Section Two of the law prohibits state legislatures from diluting minority votes through gerrymandering. Democrats emphasize that the ruling essentially “guts” Section 2 while Republicans have applauded the decision.  

The decision correlates with an older case, Shaw v. Reno, a case regarding a North Carolina all-Black district that was created to have a Black representative elected. The Court ruled that majority-minority districts violated the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause on the grounds that redistricting cannot occur based on race. In her majority opinion, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote that it is inherently racist to assume that Black people would vote for a Black candidate. 

“[The decision marks] a day of loss of any remnant or modicum of credibility of this Supreme Court to rise above partisan politics,” Jami S. Nelson, president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People Legal Defense Fund, said “Today’s 6-3 Supreme Court decision in the Callais case is a BIG WIN for Equal Protection under the Law, as it returns the Voting Rights Act to its Original intent, which was to protect against intentional Racial discrimination," President Trump said on Truth Social following the decision. In a further setback for Democrats, the Supreme Court declined Virginia’s appeal to evaluate their voting map after it was struck down by the State Supreme Court. The state’s new map would have added as many as four House seats for the Democrats. On the other side of the political spectrum, President Trump has urged other right-leaning states to redistrict, especially larger ones like Texas. 

As midterm elections quickly approach, states are racing to redistrict, knowing very well that the outcome of the election will impact America for the next two years.