Last year saw many on the left celebrate after lawmakers in Louisiana redrew the boundaries on their state's congressional electoral map.

However, that move is being reviewed by the Supreme Court, something which could result in an unthinkable outcome for Democrats.

Challenge to constitutionality of Voting Rights Act provision

According to Politico, at issue is the decision by legislators to create a pair of majority African American congressional districts.

UCLA School of Law professor Rick Hasen explained in a blog post on Friday that their creation came about after a lower court rejected Louisiana's previous map.

It contained only one majority African American House district, something which was found to violate Section 2 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act (VRA) by diluting black votes.

However, the new map is now being challenged on constitutional grounds, with plaintiffs arguing that the VRA itself violates the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.

On Friday, America's highest judicial body called for briefs on whether the "intentional creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violates the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution."

Law professor: "The stakes here are enormous"

"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 noted.

#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

"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 maintained 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."

Three-judge panel already held map to be unconstitutional

Politico noted how a three-judge panel concluded last year that Louisiana's new map represented "an impermissible racial gerrymander in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."

"This challenge reflects the tension between Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the Equal Protection Clause," the judges acknowledged.

They went on to stress that "the Equal Protection Clause applies strict scrutiny to redistricting that is grounded predominately on race."