As CBS News reported in August, America's highest judicial body announced in August that it wanted additional briefs in a case concerning Section 2 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act (VRA).

The case has massive electoral implications, with Democrats panicking that the Supreme Court could gut the law.  

Decision could result in Republicans gaining 19 new seats

That's according to The Guardian, which noted that Section 2 of the VRA "has been the tool that minority voters and voting rights advocates have frequently turned to challenge redistricting plans."

Sophia Lin Lakin serves as director of the voting rights project at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and she told the newspaper, "The stakes are potentially quite large."

"The outcome of the case will not only determine the next steps for Louisiana’s congressional map, but may also shape the future of redistricting cases nationwide,"' Lakin added.

Meanwhile, Politico observed that should Section 2 be overturned, then Republican state lawmakers could create as many as 19 new safe GOP seats via redistricting.

Plaintiffs argue that Section 2 is unconstitutional

UCLA School of Law professor Rick Hasen explained in an August blog post that the case in question concerns  Louisiana’s congressional map, which currently includes two House districts with African American majorities.

The Louisiana legislature had attempted to redraw the map to include only one majority black district, a move that was found to violate Section 2 by diluting the influence of African American voters.

#ELB: Breaking: Supreme Court, in Order Asking for Additional Briefing in Louisiana Voting Case, Appears to Put the Constitutionality of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act into Question https://t.co/ccjrLpxuuk

— Election Law Blog (@ElectionLawBlog) August 1, 2025

However, a group of non-African American plaintiffs has since challenged Section 2 itself, maintaining that it is unconstitutional.

Specifically, they argue that taking race into account when drawing electoral boundaries violates the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.

Justices considering if law "violates a colorblind understanding of the Constitution"

"Louisiana had to create that second majority-minority district in order to comply with the Voting Rights Act, as it had been found to face Section 2 VRA liability for not creating that district," Hasen wrote.

"What the Court seems to be asking, without directly saying it, is whether Section 2 of the VRA, at least as to how it has been applied to require the creation of majority-minority districts in some circumstances, violates a colorblind understanding of the Constitution," he continued.

Hasen asserted that "the stakes here are enormous" before adding, "I was worried the Court would put the VRA’s constitutionality into question when there was this great delay in the Court ordering supplemental briefing."