Trump Hails High Court Voting Rights Ruling on La. Map

President Donald Trump on Wednesday praised the Supreme Court for striking down a Louisiana congressional map it determined was the product of unconstitutional racial gerrymandering.

The 6-3 decision narrows a Voting Rights Act provision governing how congressional maps affect minority voters. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion.

"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," Trump wrote on Truth Social. "Thank you to brilliant Justice Samuel Alito for authoring this important and appropriate Opinion. Congratulations!"

The case was originally argued before the high court in March 2025. In an unorthodox move, the justices later asked attorneys to reargue it, focusing specifically on Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, a provision aimed at ensuring minority voters have equal opportunity in the redistricting process.

The first map Louisiana adopted in 2022 had one majority-Black district out of six. A group of Black voters went to federal court, alleging the map violated Section 2.

A federal judge agreed, and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that ruling, instructing Louisiana to draw a new map by January 2024 or risk having the court adopt one for it.

The 2024 map created a second majority-Black district, prompting the lawsuit that led to Wednesday's decision.

Writing for the majority, Alito said, "The Constitution almost never permits the Federal Government or a State to discriminate on the basis of race."

The question before the court, he said, is "whether compliance with the Voting Rights Act should be added to our very short list of compelling interests that can justify racial discrimination."

Alito acknowledged that the Black voters "offered evidence that black and white voters consistently supported different candidates, but their analysis did not control for partisan preference … and none of the historical evidence presented by plaintiffs came close to showing an objective likelihood that the State's challenged map was the result of intentional racial discrimination."

"In sum," Alito concluded, "because the Voting Rights Act did not require Louisiana to create an additional majority-minority district, no compelling interest justified the State's use of race in creating [the new district].

"That map is an unconstitutional gerrymander, and its use would violate the plaintiffs' constitutional rights."

• NRCC Hails Supreme Court Decision Striking Louisiana Map
• Supreme Court Voids Majority-Black La. District