We're worried': Experts fear Supreme Court will follow tariff case with huge Trump gift

Source: Raw Story · Bias: Far Left

Summary

If the U.S. Supreme Court issues a decision in a high-profile redistricting case within the next few weeks — likely weakening the Voting Rights Act, as experts anticipate — Republicans are poised to gerrymander as many as eight House seats in their favor ahead of November’s midterms, a nonpartisan political reform group warns in a new report.Long-term effects could be more drastic, resulting in 15 or more districts gerrymandered to benefit the GOP in 2028, if the Supreme Court weakens Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965 in its decision in Louisiana v. Callais, according to Issue One.The Court heard oral arguments in the case involving racial gerrymandering in Louisiana late last year and could issue a decision anytime between now and June. The timing of the decision will determine how aggressive redistricting might be, which could “dramatically decrease minority representation” and “spur another gerrymandering war,” Michael McNulty, Issue One policy director and a report co-author, told Raw Story.McNulty called Louisiana v. Callais “the most important redistricting case” since Rucho v. Common Cause, a 2019 ruling that determined federal courts cannot address alleged cases of partisan gerrymandering, of the sort now pursued by Republican- and Democratic-held states alike.“We're worried that [the Supreme Court] could eliminate the last meaningful federal check on discriminatory maps,” McNulty said.“If the Supreme Court does weaken or dismantle Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, it would basically leave … no real federal-level guardrails against diluting racial votes.” ‘The precipice’Experts have expressed concern for months that the Court will issue a 6-3 conservative majority decision to weaken or even declare unconstitutional Section 2 of the VRA, which prohibits racial discrimination against voters.In this scenario, conservatives led by Chief Justice John Roberts would affirm a district court ruling that a Louisiana congressional map redrawn in 2024 to create a second Black-majority district is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.That’s despite the fact that the map was redrawn to ensure Black representation after a federal court determined redistricting based on the 2020 census was likely in violation of federal law. In that map, only one of Louisiana’s six districts represented a majority of Black voters, though one-third of the state’s population is Black.“I'm concerned based on the oral arguments in that case and the way this Roberts Court has been playing a pretty ruthless game of chess against our voting rights and fair representation, that the Roberts Court is poised to decimate the protections … to prevent the dilution of Black votes and Black and brown voting in America,” said Lisa Graves, executive director of public policy watchdog group True North Research and co-founder of Court Accountability, a nonprofit.Graves, who last year published the book Without Precedent: How Chief Justice Roberts and His Accomplices Rewrote the Constitution and Dismantled Our Rights, said Roberts started his legal career “attacking” Section 2 of the VRA and was questioned during nomination hearings over his “mean-spirited view” of the law.“John Roberts sits at the precipice of potentially winning what he could not win as a Justice Department lawyer by using the Court to advance his long-standing partisan goal of basically protecting his party at any cost and the cost of our voting rights,” Graves said.‘Immediate and severe’The Issue One report argues that consequences would be “immediate and severe” if the Supreme Court hampers or eliminates states’ ability “to use race-conscious remedies to comply with federal voting rights law,” the outcome of siding with the challenger in Louisiana v. Callais.“Black voters would likely lose a significant amount of representation in Congress,” McNulty said. “We're very concerned about the impact of any gerrymandering, but this in particular has a double negative impact because it's taking away from representation, and it's specifically from minority representation, if it were to happen.”If the Court issued such a decision in late February or early March, aggressive redistricting could lead to gerrymandering five to eight House seats to benefit Republicans in the midterms and reduce Black representation in states including Florida, Georgia, Missouri, South Carolina and Tennessee, the report says.The Court issued another much-anticipated decision on Friday, striking down President Donald Trump’s global tariffs.An April or May ruling on Louisiana v.

Related Coverage

More Headlines From February 23, 2026

arallaxNews.io
We're worried': Experts fear Supreme Court will follow tariff case with huge Trump gift
Raw Story

We're worried': Experts fear Supreme Court will follow tariff case with huge Trump gift

Far Left

If the U.S. Supreme Court issues a decision in a high-profile redistricting case within the next few weeks — likely weakening the Voting Rights Act, as experts anticipate — Republicans are poised to gerrymander as many as eight House seats in their favor ahead of November’s midterms, a nonpartisan political reform group warns in a new report.Long-term effects could be more drastic, resulting in 15 or more districts gerrymandered to benefit the GOP in 2028, if the Supreme Court weakens Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965 in its decision in Louisiana v. Callais, according to Issue One.The Court heard oral arguments in the case involving racial gerrymandering in Louisiana late last year and could issue a decision anytime between now and June. The timing of the decision will determine how aggressive redistricting might be, which could “dramatically decrease minority representation” and “spur another gerrymandering war,” Michael McNulty, Issue One policy director and a report co-author, told Raw Story.McNulty called Louisiana v. Callais “the most important redistricting case” since Rucho v. Common Cause, a 2019 ruling that determined federal courts cannot address alleged cases of partisan gerrymandering, of the sort now pursued by Republican- and Democratic-held states alike.“We're worried that [the Supreme Court] could eliminate the last meaningful federal check on discriminatory maps,” McNulty said.“If the Supreme Court does weaken or dismantle Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, it would basically leave … no real federal-level guardrails against diluting racial votes.” ‘The precipice’Experts have expressed concern for months that the Court will issue a 6-3 conservative majority decision to weaken or even declare unconstitutional Section 2 of the VRA, which prohibits racial discrimination against voters.In this scenario, conservatives led by Chief Justice John Roberts would affirm a district court ruling that a Louisiana congressional map redrawn in 2024 to create a second Black-majority district is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.That’s despite the fact that the map was redrawn to ensure Black representation after a federal court determined redistricting based on the 2020 census was likely in violation of federal law. In that map, only one of Louisiana’s six districts represented a majority of Black voters, though one-third of the state’s population is Black.“I'm concerned based on the oral arguments in that case and the way this Roberts Court has been playing a pretty ruthless game of chess against our voting rights and fair representation, that the Roberts Court is poised to decimate the protections … to prevent the dilution of Black votes and Black and brown voting in America,” said Lisa Graves, executive director of public policy watchdog group True North Research and co-founder of Court Accountability, a nonprofit.Graves, who last year published the book Without Precedent: How Chief Justice Roberts and His Accomplices Rewrote the Constitution and Dismantled Our Rights, said Roberts started his legal career “attacking” Section 2 of the VRA and was questioned during nomination hearings over his “mean-spirited view” of the law.“John Roberts sits at the precipice of potentially winning what he could not win as a Justice Department lawyer by using the Court to advance his long-standing partisan goal of basically protecting his party at any cost and the cost of our voting rights,” Graves said.‘Immediate and severe’The Issue One report argues that consequences would be “immediate and severe” if the Supreme Court hampers or eliminates states’ ability “to use race-conscious remedies to comply with federal voting rights law,” the outcome of siding with the challenger in Louisiana v. Callais.“Black voters would likely lose a significant amount of representation in Congress,” McNulty said. “We're very concerned about the impact of any gerrymandering, but this in particular has a double negative impact because it's taking away from representation, and it's specifically from minority representation, if it were to happen.”If the Court issued such a decision in late February or early March, aggressive redistricting could lead to gerrymandering five to eight House seats to benefit Republicans in the midterms and reduce Black representation in states including Florida, Georgia, Missouri, South Carolina and Tennessee, the report says.The Court issued another much-anticipated decision on Friday, striking down President Donald Trump’s global tariffs.An April or May ruling on Louisiana v.

Read Full Story at Source