Justice Alito is cowardly for gutting the Voting Rights Act through technical manipulation rather than direct overturning
Source: Richard L. Hasen. "Supreme Court analysis: Samuel Alito is a coward in his Callais opinion.." April 30, 2026. slate.com
The Gist
The author argues that Justice Alito has essentially killed the Voting Rights Act by making it impossible to win voting rights cases, but he's doing it sneakily through technical legal changes rather than honestly saying what he's doing. This makes him a coward because he won't own up to the radical nature of his decisions.
Conclusion
Justice Samuel Alito is a coward for effectively destroying Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act through deceptive technical changes rather than honestly overturning it directly
Premises
- Alito's opinions in Brnovich (2021) and Callais (2026) have made it practically impossible for plaintiffs to win Section 2 voting rights cases
- Since Brnovich, no plaintiffs have successfully brought Section 2 suits challenging vote suppression laws
- Alito claims to merely 'update' existing frameworks while actually imposing multiple insurmountable barriers for voting rights plaintiffs
- Alito contradicts Congressional intent by reintroducing an 'intent' standard despite Congress explicitly adopting an 'effects' standard in 1982
- Alito uses technical minutiae and doublespeak to disguise radical changes rather than making them transparently
Assumptions
- Judicial honesty requires openly acknowledging when making major legal changes
- The Voting Rights Act should be interpreted according to Congressional intent to protect minority voting rights
- Cowardice in judicial decision-making involves hiding behind technicalities to avoid accountability for controversial rulings
- The practical effect of legal decisions matters more than their formal characterization