In a rare decision this week, US Supreme Court Ruling ruling On the Louisiana Congress redistribution case, which may be implications on legal protection for the rights of minority voters across the country.

High court order On friday It did not say why the court wants to hear oral arguments again Louisiana v. Calis During his next term which is expected to begin in October, although it indicated that a follow -up order in the “fixed course” may have details.

“This is a fairly easy case to decide,” says Michael Lee, a revival expert at the New York University School of Law. “The Supreme Court almost never keeps cases for logic. And the fact that it is doing so in this case is surprising.”

Some legal experts are looking to see if they are joining the court verdict string Of Judgment since 2013 The orthodox majority of the court, which limited the scope of the 1965 Voting Rights Act and its protection against racial discrimination in elections.

“Voting Rights Act Watchrs have been predicting a major change around the Voting Rights Act for more than a decade,” says Atiba Alice, a law professor of a law of the case Western Reserve University. “The fact is that the court is rearging Louisiana v. Calis This may mean deep debate and a possible major decision – or the striking rights – Voting Rights Act. ,

The Louisiana case also focuses on the role of politics when re -voting maps, a Loyola Law School Professor Justin Levit, while re -voting. This week the court’s panting “may mean that the more justis wanted to think a little more about the interaction and politics of politics and the voting rights Act, but it is not biasing the outcome of that idea,” Levit said, who serves as a White House Advisor on the former President who Joe Biden’s administration.

Levitt also points to the court 2023 ruling As a sign for a uniform redistribution case out of Alabama that the Voting Rights Act may be unheard of the final verdict of the court in this long -standing redistribution battle. In that judgment, the court upheld its previous decisions on the same part of the Polling Rights Act that the fear of many of its advocates could be weakened in the Louisiana case.

As prepared to mark the supporter of the Voting Rights Act 60th anniversary of law passage This August, Levitt, however, note that its critics are establishing a possible future performance in the Supreme Court.

What do you know here that the Voting Rights Act Protection currently stands in the Louisiana case and the major cases that can weaken them next:

Louisiana ruling can make it difficult to claim that a voting map dilutes the collective power of minority voters

Known as Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, to follow it, state MPs in Louisiana – where voting is racially polarized and 3 out of 3 people are black – to pass a map with two of the six districts under a federal court order where black voters have a realistic opportunity to choose their favorite candidates.

But a group of self-ensured “non-black” voters challenged the map that the state legislature said it had passed to be in line with Section 2. Those challenged argue that one of the districts that MPs have attracted is unconstitutional racist Germander.

Civil rights advocates indicated that “Louisiana is entitled to fair maps!” Outside the US Supreme Court in Washington, DC, the first day of oral arguments in the Louisiana Congress’s redistribution case in March.

Gemmal Countse/Getty Images

Hide caption

Togle caption

Gemmal Countse/Getty Images

during Oral argument in MarchHowever, Louisiana State Solicitor General Benjamin Agunaga Said The Republican-led legislature made a “politically rational decision” to attract a map with a pair of majority-black districts, which protects the seats of three top Louisiana Republican-American Speaker Mike Johnson, House Magority Leader Steve Sculpts and Rape Julia Latlo, a housemaker house.

A candidate for the state’s 2026 primary election with the filing time limit This is coming on DecemberA Supreme Court order from last year At least for now, the Congress maps with two majority-black districts.

But the voting rights advocates are monitoring any decision by the High Court that drops the map down and potentially limits the front boundary of how the race can be a factor in redistribution across the country. This can make it difficult to implement the safety of section 2 against the map of the polling districts that dilute the collective power of minority voters in areas where the voting is racially polarized.

Alabama wants to debate again against the race-based redistribution before the Supreme Court

Alabama is an official of the Republican state, once again, Appeal Another long -running Congress redistribution case in the Supreme Court.

This time, they have a teed one logic It is unconstitutional for the Congress to allow them to continue the race-based redistribution without a last date under the Polling Rights Act.

Justice Brett Kawanugh and Clarence Thomas The point was raised when the High Court ruled on the Congress map of Alabama in 2023, when Kawanugh also noted: “Alabama did not raise that cosmic argument in this court, and so I will not consider it at this time.”

In that judgment, Kawanugh Chief Justice John Roberts, a fellow conservative, and three liberals of the court joined the court. Maintain the previous decisions of the Supreme Court on Section 2 Of Voting Rights Act.

But some polling rights advocates are looking to see if the Republican Alabama officials can run Kawanugh in this era and eventually provide Section 2 against the weakening of the weakening of the mass strength of minority voters.

GOP state officials have done in Louisiana Raised the same constitutional argument Against the security of Section 2 in a state assembly redistribution case, which is currently waiting for the verdict by the three-judge panel of the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeal.

A North Dakota case can eliminate an important tool to implement the rights of minority voters

Last month, A North dakota state redistribution case A step of the Supreme Court took, where a possible decision can eliminate an important tool to protect the rights of minority voters.

For decades, private individuals and groups have focused on implementing most cases Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. But one of the 8th US Circuit Court of appeals found that private individuals and groups are not allowed to sue as they have not been clearly nominated in the words of the Voting Rights Act. Only the head of the Department of Justice, these 8th circuit panel decisions, they can record such cases.

The original American voters led by the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippeva Indians are asking the full 8th circuit to review the latest decision.

Meanwhile, the ruling seven mainly apply to midwestern states – Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota – as the Department of Justice under Trump Administration step It was brought earlier from the cases of Section 2 when the biden was in the office.

Some voting rights advocate that if the North Dakota case is eventually appealed to the Supreme Court, the High Court can make it difficult to implement the security of Section 2 across the country. Justice Neil Gorasch indicated his interest in the issue Solo In 2021.

edited by Benjamin Swasi