The Supreme Court issued a major redistricting ruling on Wednesday morning.
In a 6-3 decision, the court struck down Louisiana’s new congressional map.
The majority found the map amounted to what it called unconstitutional “racial gerrymandering.”
According to Shawn Fleetwood of The Federalist, the majority opinion was written by Associate Justice Samuel Alito.
Fleetwood reported the decision in a post on X.
“In a 6-3 decision, SCOTUS rules that Louisiana’s creation of a second black-majority district is ‘an unconstitutional racial gerrymander,’” Fleetwood wrote. “Majority opinion by Alito.”
BREAKING: In a 6-3 decision, SCOTUS rules that Louisiana’s creation of a second black-majority district is “an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.” Majority opinion by Alito. pic.twitter.com/27QwLMd2nQ
— Shawn Fleetwood (@ShawnFleetwood) April 29, 2026
Alito wrote, “Another problem stemmed from the long-unresolved question whether compliance with the Voting Rights Act provides a compelling reason that may justify the intentional use of race in drawing legislative districts.”
The ruling was widely celebrated by conservatives:
The U.S. Constitution doesn’t prohibit political gerrymandering
It does, however, prohibit racial gerrymandering https://t.co/7tsVdGq76e pic.twitter.com/56AOh39m35
— Mike Lee (@BasedMikeLee) April 29, 2026
🚨 BOOM! SUPREME COURT DROPS A MASSIVE 6-3 BOMB ON RACIAL GERRYMANDERING IN LOUISIANA!
The U.S. Supreme Court just ruled — non-minority voters WIN.
Louisiana drew up a second majority-minority congressional district to boost Black voters. Non-Black plaintiffs sued, saying it… pic.twitter.com/1FzdYIMv6P
— Gunther Eagleman™ (@GuntherEagleman) April 29, 2026
While many speculated that the court might nuke the Voting Rights Act, it appears as though the court has nuked the concept of racial gerrymandering as an unconstitutional violation of the equal protection clause, while leaving the larger Voting Rights Act intact. The VRA was… https://t.co/9beyC1r7Ag
— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) April 29, 2026
Justice Clarence Thomas separately stated, “Today’s decision should largely put an end to this ‘disastrous misadventure’ in voting-rights jurisprudence.”
NEW: SCOTUS Justice Clarence Thomas issues a separate concurrence agreeing with the majority 6-3 decision on racial gerrymandering, but says he would have gone further:
“Today’s decision should largely put an end to this “disastrous misadventure” in voting-rights jurisprudence.…
— Bill Melugin (@BillMelugin_) April 29, 2026
The ruling comes a week after Virginia Democrats successfully passed an initiative to disenfranchise 45 percent of voters with a 10-1 congressional map that favored their party.
Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.
Submit a Correction →
