Supreme Court's Racial Gerrymandering Ruling Upholds Constitutional Principles Over Discriminatory Practices
Source: M.D. Kittle. "SCOTUS Protects Rule of Law By Gutting Racial Gerrymandering." April 30, 2026. thefederalist.com
The Gist
The Supreme Court made the right decision by stopping the practice of drawing congressional districts based on race. The author argues this protects the Constitution's ban on racial discrimination and that critics are overreacting for political reasons.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court's 6-3 ruling in Louisiana v. Callais correctly protects the rule of law by ending the unconstitutional practice of racial gerrymandering disguised as Voting Rights Act compliance
Premises
- The Constitution prohibits racial discrimination and requires strict scrutiny for any race-based government action
- Courts have been misinterpreting Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act to justify the very racial discrimination the Constitution forbids
- Creating congressional districts based primarily on race constitutes unconstitutional racial gerrymandering, even when done to comply with lower court VRA interpretations
- Conditions have changed dramatically since 1965, with minority voter turnout and registration approaching parity and minority candidates holding office at unprecedented levels
- The left's hysterical reaction mirrors their unfounded predictions after Shelby County v. Holder, which proved incorrect
- Prominent Democrats like Obama have engaged in gerrymandering for political advantage while hypocritically criticizing the practice
Assumptions
- Original constitutional intent should take precedence over decades of judicial interpretation
- Race-neutral redistricting principles are sufficient to protect voting rights in the current era
- The Voting Rights Act was being abused rather than properly applied in redistricting cases
- Political motivations rather than genuine civil rights concerns drive opposition to this ruling