The Supreme Court dropped a landmark ruling on Wednesday with a 6-3 decision voiding a majority-Black Congressional district in Louisiana.

“We just got a major decision from the Supreme Court on redistricting. Let’s go to Lisa Rubin, MS NOW senior legal reporter. Lisa, bring us up to speed,” began anchor Ana Cabrera as the news broke on her network.

“Well, Ana, this decision is one of the most eagerly anticipated of this Supreme Court term. This is a decision coming out of Louisiana, which the court was deciding whether or not the creation of a second majority-minority voting district for its congressional races was constitutional or not, and whether it was in compliance with the Voting Rights Act. Here, the court is deciding by a 6-3 vote, in a decision authored by Justice Alito, that the map that Louisiana created in order to comply with the Voting Rights Act is not a map that can stand,” Rubin replied, adding:

The court is saying that the Voting Rights Act sometimes justifies racially based decision-making consistent with the Constitution, but here, while the state’s efforts to comply were laudatory, this particular district is a racial gerrymander that cannot stand. That means that it will go back down to the lower courts for further decision-making about the composition of congressional maps in Louisiana. But this could have reverberations beyond Louisiana as well, Ana.

After a momentary audio issue, Cabrera followed up, “Lisa, as far as the implications go on this — the Voting Rights Act, we know, is important here, and the population in Louisiana is about a third Black. So will their voices and their votes be heard? I think that’s the big question people are asking, given the map was drawn in response to a previous ruling that they needed to have more representation, this population.”

“Yes. And what the court is holding here, Ana, is that this was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. So you have to ask: are the lines going to be drawn in a way that disperses the votes of African Americans in the state of Louisiana such that their voices will not be heard in the way that we have traditionally understood the Voting Rights Act to support?” Rubin replied, adding:

That’s a legitimate question on the table now — how the state is going to redraw these maps in a way that both complies with the Voting Rights Act but also comports with this court’s decision today. An unambiguous decision where you have all six of the court’s conservatives in the majority and you have three of the court’s liberals in dissent. I have yet to read the dissent; we’ve got 92 pages of decisions here.

But this is one that we expected could have larger reverberations across the country. And I just want to situate this in the context of these larger redistricting fights that are happening across the country. We are seeing a number of states try to redistrict for political reasons to gain a political advantage. And while we see whether or not, for example, the Virginia maps are going to hold, or whether Florida is going to redistrict, this adds a whole new variable into those House maps for the 2026 election. Are states going to now reconsider some of their maps in light of today’s decision, in ways that could even further throw the balance of power of the House of Representatives into disarray?

Watch the clip above via MS NOW.

New: The Mediaite One-Sheet "Newsletter of Newsletters"
Your daily summary and analysis of what the many, many media newsletters are saying and reporting. Subscribe now!