Democrats are panicking over what just happened at the Supreme Court.
The stakes couldn’t be higher for control of Congress.
And the Supreme Court gave Democrats one nasty surprise that could hand Republicans 19 new House seats.
Conservative justices signal major shift on Voting Rights Act
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority sent Democrats scrambling after Wednesday’s oral arguments revealed what’s really coming down the pipeline.
Louisiana v. Callais isn’t just about one state’s congressional map.¹
This case could blow up decades of Democrat redistricting strategies across the entire South.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh just asked the question that has Democrats in full panic mode – whether race-based redistricting should "carry on indefinitely."²
That’s the same Kavanaugh who voted to uphold the Voting Rights Act just two years ago in the Alabama case.
Now he’s signaling he might flip.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that Alabama decision himself.³
But during Wednesday’s arguments, he downplayed his own precedent by noting it "took the existing precedent as a given."⁴
Translation: all bets are off.
The case centers on Louisiana’s 2024 congressional map that created a second majority-Black district after courts ruled the state violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.⁵
A group of white voters sued, claiming the new district amounted to unconstitutional racial gerrymandering.⁶
Louisiana initially defended the map but has now flipped positions entirely.
The state’s lawyers told the Supreme Court on Wednesday that all "race-based redistricting is unconstitutional."⁷
Democrats face potential wipeout across multiple states
Here’s what Democrats aren’t telling voters about what’s at stake.
If the Supreme Court guts Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, Republicans could redraw at least 19 more House districts in their favor before the 2026 midterms.⁸
That analysis comes from left-wing voting rights groups who are watching their entire strategy collapse in real time.
The states where Republicans stand to gain include Louisiana, Florida, Georgia, Missouri, North Carolina, and Texas.⁹
All have Republican-controlled legislatures and governors.
All have racially polarized voting patterns where Black voters lean Democrat and white voters lean Republican.
Without Section 2 gone, GOP mapmakers could carve up Democrat-held districts like a Thanksgiving turkey.
President Trump has already been pushing Texas Republicans to grab five more seats through mid-decade redistricting.¹⁰
Missouri is openly discussing eliminating Democrat Emanuel Cleaver’s Kansas City district.¹¹
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signaled he’s ready to move if the Supreme Court gives the green light.¹²
Democrats tried to counter with threats of their own redistricting in California, New York, and Illinois.¹³
But California requires a ballot initiative that voters could reject.¹⁴
New York’s constitution prohibits mid-decade redistricting without going through a multi-year process.¹⁵
Illinois and Maryland already have so few Republican seats that there’s barely anything left to gerrymander.¹⁶
The math is brutal for Democrats even in their best-case scenario.
Former Attorney General Eric Holder sounds the alarm
Even Obama’s former Attorney General Eric Holder admits Democrats are in serious trouble.
"The stakes of the case are only heightened by the backdrop of this national gerrymandering crisis," Holder told reporters before Wednesday’s arguments.¹⁷
Holder now leads Democrats’ main redistricting arm, the National Redistricting Foundation.¹⁸
He’s been in redistricting battles for years and knows exactly what a Supreme Court ruling against Section 2 would mean for his party’s House prospects.
"This absurd challenge to Louisiana’s fair map presents the same arguments as the anti-civil rights coalition did to prevent the enactment and reauthorizations of the Voting Rights Act a generation ago," Holder said in a statement.¹⁹
That’s Democrat-speak for "we’re about to lose and lose badly."
Louisiana Democrat Representative Cleo Fields, whose majority-Black district is at the center of the case, tried putting on a brave face.²⁰
"This case marks a pivotal moment in not only Louisiana’s ongoing fight to protect fair representation, but states all across this nation as well," Fields said.²¹
But even he admitted he was only "cautiously optimistic" after the hearing.²²
The liberal media went into overdrive with the panic mongering.
Axios ran a morning headline screaming that the case "could gut Voting Rights Act."²³
CNN warned its audience that "Republicans are able to gain plus seven House seats" and that doesn’t even account for "the potential gutting of the VRA before the Supreme Court."²⁴
Stuart Naifeh of the NAACP’s Legal Defense Fund told Axios the ruling "could leave many places in the country without a remedy, even in extreme cases of racial discrimination and racial vote dilution."²⁵
Trump Administration backs Louisiana’s position
The Trump Administration isn’t sitting on the sidelines in this fight.
The Department of Justice sided with Louisiana and against the Black voters who sued to keep the second majority-Black district.²⁶
Principal Deputy Solicitor General Michael Mooppan, who served in Trump’s first administration, argued the government’s position before the Supreme Court.²⁷
Justice Kavanaugh "repeatedly signaled an interest in the Trump administration’s approach to the case," according to CNN’s analysis of the oral arguments.²⁸
The Trump team’s position is slightly less far-reaching than Louisiana’s all-out ban on race-based redistricting.
But it would still dramatically limit when states can create majority-minority districts.
Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill summed up the state’s frustration with the current system.
"We’ve been in redistricting battles for a very long time," Murrill told Just The News earlier this week.²⁹
"Most recently, we drew a map that the courts basically directed us to draw, reluctantly. We had been saying we didn’t think we could do this in a constitutional way. And they said, ‘Do it anyway.’"³⁰
The Louisiana Legislature created the second majority-Black district during a 2024 special session specifically to comply with court orders.³¹
State Senator Glen Womack, who authored the new map, admitted his real objective was protecting Republican power players.³²
He wanted to shield House Speaker Mike Johnson, Majority Leader Steve Scalise, and Representative Julia Letlow – all Republicans with significant committee assignments.³³
Now Louisiana is arguing the courts forced them into an unconstitutional racial gerrymander by ordering them to create that second Black district in the first place.
Conservative justices draw parallels to affirmative action ruling
The conservative justices made clear they see this case through the lens of their 2023 decision striking down race-based affirmative action in college admissions.
Justice Kavanaugh explicitly "likened it to the Court’s 2023 affirmative action ban, suggesting perpetual racial considerations undermine equal protection."³⁴
That’s a huge tell about where he’s leaning.
The 2023 affirmative action case ruled that racial preferences couldn’t continue indefinitely without an end date.
If the Court applies that same logic to redistricting, Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act effectively becomes unenforceable.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor tried pushing back during arguments, stressing that "race has traditionally been used lawfully in the redistricting process."³⁵
"Race is a part of redistricting always… Race is always a part of these decisions," Sotomayor told Louisiana’s lawyer.³⁶
She pointed out that "every congressional member who is Black was elected from a VRA opportunity district" and that "we only have the diversity that we see across the South, for example, because of litigation that forced the creation of opportunity districts under the Voting Rights Act."³⁷
But the conservative majority wasn’t buying it.
Justice Samuel Alito questioned whether Louisiana’s redistricting was really about race at all.
"If the objective is simply to maximize the number of representatives of a particular party, that’s seeking a partisan advantage; it is not seeking a racial advantage, isn’t that right?" Alito asked.³⁸
That line of questioning suggests the conservative justices might rule that Louisiana engaged in permissible partisan gerrymandering rather than impermissible racial gerrymandering.
Which would open the floodgates for other Republican-controlled states to do the same thing.
Timeline puts Democrats in impossible position before midterms
Louisiana Secretary of State Nancy Landry asked the Supreme Court to rule by early January 2026 to avoid disrupting the state’s election schedule.³⁹
The state’s primary is scheduled for April 18, 2026.⁴⁰
A quick ruling in Louisiana’s favor would give Republican-controlled states plenty of time to redraw their maps before the midterms.
Democrats need to net just three seats to win back control of the House in 2026.⁴¹
Republicans currently hold a 220-215 majority.⁴²
If Republicans successfully redraw 19 districts in their favor as the voting rights groups predict, Democrats would need an unprecedented wave election just to stay competitive.
The Trump Administration’s aggressive push for mid-decade redistricting is already bearing fruit.
Texas Republicans proposed a new map that would flip five currently Democratic seats to Republican.⁴³
Missouri is targeting its two Democratic seats.⁴⁴
Ohio is constitutionally required to redraw its map and could make three currently safe Democratic seats lean Republican.⁴⁵
Even without a Supreme Court ruling gutting the Voting Rights Act, Republicans are already positioned to pick up between 5 and 12 House seats through redistricting alone.⁴⁶
Add 19 more seats from a favorable Supreme Court ruling, and Democrats are looking at a structural disadvantage that could last for years.
The conservative legal movement has been working toward this moment for decades.
Justice Clarence Thomas has long argued that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional.⁴⁷
He was the lone dissenter when the Court decided to hold this case over for reargument instead of ruling last term.⁴⁸
Now he’s got the votes to potentially strike down the provision he’s been fighting against for years.
Democrats’ redistricting counteroffensive falls flat
California Governor Gavin Newsom promised to "wipe out" five Republican seats if Texas moves forward with its redistricting plan.⁴⁹
But Newsom’s proposal requires a ballot initiative that California voters could reject in November.⁵⁰
Former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, both Republicans, are already organizing opposition.⁵¹
Independent redistricting remains popular with California voters who overwhelmingly approved the current system.⁵²
Illinois Governor JB Pritzker told Stephen Colbert his state could match California’s threat.⁵³
But Illinois already has only three Republican House seats out of 17.⁵⁴
There’s not much left to gerrymander without creating obviously unconstitutional districts.
New York Governor Kathy Hochul floated redistricting threats of her own.⁵⁵
But New York’s constitution prohibits partisan gerrymandering and mid-decade redistricting except by court order.⁵⁶
Any Democratic effort to change that would require amending the state constitution through a process that couldn’t be completed until 2027 at the earliest.⁵⁷
By then, the 2026 midterms will be long over and the 2030 Census redistricting cycle will be approaching.
Maryland Democrats looked at redrawing their lone Republican seat but a previous effort failed in court.⁵⁸
The Supreme Court’s 2019 ruling that partisan gerrymandering is not reviewable by federal courts removed one potential check on aggressive redistricting.⁵⁹
Now if the Court removes Voting Rights Act protections, the redistricting wars will become a true "free-for-all," according to election law experts.⁶⁰
Democrats built much of their House strategy over the past decade around creating and defending majority-minority districts under the Voting Rights Act.
That entire approach could evaporate with one Supreme Court decision.
The Court won’t say when it will issue its ruling in Louisiana v. Callais.⁶¹
But with state redistricting deadlines approaching and the 2026 midterms just over a year away, a decision could come as early as December or January.⁶²
If the conservative majority rules as Wednesday’s oral arguments suggest they will, Democrats will face the worst redistricting environment they’ve seen in modern political history.
Republicans won’t just have the advantage of controlling more state legislatures.
They’ll have the green light from the Supreme Court to redraw districts purely for partisan gain without worrying about Voting Rights Act constraints.
And there won’t be a thing Democrats can do about it before voters head to the polls in November 2026.
¹ Amy Howe, "Supreme Court to hear arguments in pivotal case on the Voting Rights Act," SCOTUSblog, October 13, 2025.
² Ariane de Vogue, "A point central to the case is whether redistricting that takes race into account should be allowed to carry on indefinitely," CNN Politics, October 14, 2025.
³ Ariane de Vogue, "Supreme Court tees up Louisiana redistricting case that could undercut Voting Rights Act," CNN Politics, August 1, 2025.
⁴ Amanda Head, "Democrats panic over redistricting numbers with pivotal SCOTUS decision looming," Just The News, October 15, 2025.
⁵ "Louisiana v. Callais FAQ," NAACP Legal Defense Fund, February 24, 2025.
⁶ Ibid.
⁷ "Louisiana v. Callais," Brennan Center for Justice.
⁸ Hansi Lo Wang, "A Supreme Court ruling on voting rights could boost Republicans’ redistricting efforts," NPR, October 15, 2025.
⁹ Ibid.
¹⁰ Zach Montellaro, "Analysis: 12 new GOP seats out of thin air? Republicans are halfway there," CNN Politics, September 19, 2025.
¹¹ "Redistricting wars: Map shows how many seats could change before midterms," Newsweek, August 13, 2025.
¹² Ibid.
¹³ Zach Montellaro, CNN Politics, September 19, 2025.
¹⁴ Ibid.
¹⁵ Caroline Linton, "As Texas pushes redistricting plan to add 5 GOP House seats before 2026 elections, other states may follow," CBS News, August 7, 2025.
¹⁶ Ibid.
¹⁷ Amanda Head, Just The News, October 15, 2025.
¹⁸ Ibid.
¹⁹ "Eric Holder Calls on SCOTUS to Reinstate Louisiana’s Voting Rights Act-Compliant Congressional Map," National Redistricting Foundation, October 14, 2025.
²⁰ Amanda Head, Just The News, October 15, 2025.
²¹ Ibid.
²² Ibid.
²³ Ibid.
²⁴ Ibid.
²⁵ Ibid.
²⁶ Ariane de Vogue, CNN Politics, October 14, 2025.
²⁷ Ibid.
²⁸ Ibid.
²⁹ Amanda Head, Just The News, October 15, 2025.
³⁰ Ibid.
³¹ "Louisiana v. Callais," NAACP Legal Defense Fund.
³² Julia O’Donoghue, "Supreme Court raises stakes on Louisiana redistricting case that could undermine Voting Rights Act," Louisiana Illuminator, August 3, 2025.
³³ Ibid.
³⁴ Amanda Head, Just The News, October 15, 2025.
³⁵ Ariane de Vogue, CNN Politics, October 14, 2025.
³⁶ Ibid.
³⁷ Ibid.
³⁸ Pete Williams, "Supreme Court leans toward further weakening landmark Voting Rights Act," NBC News, October 15, 2025.
³⁹ Hansi Lo Wang, NPR, October 15, 2025.
⁴⁰ Amy Howe, SCOTUSblog, October 13, 2025.
⁴¹ "United States House of Representatives elections, 2026," Ballotpedia.
⁴² Ibid.
⁴³ Zach Montellaro, CNN Politics, September 19, 2025.
⁴⁴ "Redistricting wars: Map shows how many seats could change before midterms," Newsweek, August 13, 2025.
⁴⁵ Ibid.
⁴⁶ Zach Montellaro, CNN Politics, September 19, 2025.
⁴⁷ Nina Totenberg, "Supreme Court hears racial challenge to Louisiana redistricting," NPR, October 15, 2025.
⁴⁸ Amy Howe, "Court asks for new briefs in Louisiana redistricting case," SCOTUSblog, August 1, 2025.
⁴⁹ Zach Montellaro, CNN Politics, September 19, 2025.
⁵⁰ Ibid.
⁵¹ Ibid.
⁵² Ibid.
⁵³ "Redistricting wars: Map shows how many seats could change before midterms," Newsweek, August 13, 2025.
⁵⁴ Caroline Linton, CBS News, August 7, 2025.
⁵⁵ Ibid.
⁵⁶ Ibid.
⁵⁷ Ibid.
⁵⁸ Ibid.
⁵⁹ Hansi Lo Wang, NPR, October 15, 2025.
⁶⁰ Ibid.
⁶¹ Amy Howe, SCOTUSblog, October 13, 2025.
⁶² Hansi Lo Wang, NPR, October 15, 2025.
