*This forecasting question is associated with the Verity controversy:* [*Will the U.S. Supreme Court overturn provisions of the Voting Rights Act as part of Louisiana v. Callais?*](https://www.verity.news/controversy/Will-the-US-Supreme-Court-overturn-provisions-in-the-Voting-Rights-Act-Louisiana-v-Callais) The [Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA)](https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/voting-rights-act) is a foundational U.S. civil rights law designed to prevent racial discrimination in voting. [Section 2 of the Act](https://www.justice.gov/crt/section-2-voting-rights-act) prohibits voting practices or districting plans that result in minority voters having less opportunity than others to elect representatives of their choice, regardless of the intent behind the law or map. Unlike the VRA’s preclearance regime, Section 2 applies nationwide and has remained the primary enforcement mechanism against discriminatory election maps following later court rulings. The Supreme Court has narrowed portions of the VRA over the past decade. In [*Shelby County v. Holder*](https://www.oyez.org/cases/2012/12-96) (2013), the Court invalidated the coverage formula that determined which jurisdictions were subject to federal preclearance, [effectively suspending Section 5 of the Act](https://www.justice.gov/crt/about-section-5-voting-rights-act). More recently, in [*Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee*](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-1257_g204.pdf) (2021), the Court adopted a more restrictive framework for evaluating Section 2 claims related to voting rules, emphasizing state interests and historical practice. However, the Court appeared to reaffirm Section 2’s application to redistricting in [*Allen v. Milligan*](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1086_1co6.pdf) (2023), holding that Alabama’s congressional map likely violated the VRA by failing to include an additional majority-Black district. The decision [rejected arguments that Section 2 requires a race-neutral approach and reaffirmed longstanding precedent allowing race to be considered when remedying vote dilution.](https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voting-rights-act-persists-so-do-its-adversaries#:~:text=But%20the%20Supreme%20Court%20stepped,protections%20for%20voters%20of%20color.) [*Louisiana v. Callais*](https://www.naacpldf.org/case-issue/louisiana-v-callais/) stems from [post-2020 census redistricting in Louisiana](https://ballotpedia.org/Redistricting_in_Louisiana_after_the_2020_census). After lower federal courts found that the state’s original congressional map likely violated Section 2 by containing only one majority-Black district despite the state's sizable Black population, Louisiana enacted a revised map creating a second such district. A group of voters then challenged the new map, arguing that it relied impermissibly on race and violated the Equal Protection Clause. The Supreme Court [agreed to hear the case](https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/louisiana-v-callais/), placing the continued scope of Section 2 squarely before the Court. [Legal analysts note that the case could clarify or significantly alter the balance between the VRA and constitutional limits on race-based districting](https://www.cnn.com/2025/10/15/politics/voting-rights-act-supreme-court-takeaways). Depending on how broadly the Court rules, the decision could [either reaffirm Section 2’s role in redistricting or substantially limit its future application nationwide](https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/10/court-appears-ready-to-curtail-major-provision-of-the-voting-rights-act/).