A former official from President Donald Trump’s first term says he has been informed by reliable sources that the U.S. Supreme Court has decided a case that could dramatically alter congressional maps throughout the South in a way that heavily benefits Republicans.
Sean Spicer, who served as Trump’s first press secretary, said on “The Huddle” podcast that the opinion is finished, but justices in the minority are “slow-walking” their dissents so that states cannot redistrict ahead of the 2026 midterms – a statement suggesting that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act allowing for racially gerrymandered congressional districts are going to be found unconstitutional.
“I have been told by reliable sources that the decision is done and the minority is slow walking the dissent so that states do not have time to redistrict,” Spicer told the hosts regarding the case, Louisiana v. Callais.
In February, Conservative Brief reported that the high court seemed poised to impose stricter controls on the enforcement of Section 2 of the VRA by federal courts, which could protect state lawmakers from challenges that mix race and partisanship in the redistricting process.
The impending decision carries immense weight, with two prominent voting rights organizations cautioning that the removal or restriction of Section 2 could empower Republican-led legislatures to change the boundaries of as many as 19 congressional districts to their advantage.
In the re-arguments of Louisiana v. Callais, a conservative majority expressed a willingness to consider an approach supported by the Trump Justice Department.
This could complicate the ability of plaintiffs to succeed in claims of racial vote dilution in areas where voting patterns closely mirror party affiliations—a defining characteristic of contemporary Southern politics.
WATCH:
.@seanspicer Reporting on SCOTUS decision on voting rights: “I have been told by reliable sources that that decision is done and the minority is slow walking the dissent so that states do not have time to redistrict.” pic.twitter.com/K81LzH9W8E
— The Huddle (@theDChuddle) April 16, 2026
The situation arises from Louisiana’s 2022 congressional map, which a federal district court has found likely to violate Section 2 by funneling Black voters—who represent approximately one-third of the state’s population—into a single majority-Black district out of a total of six.
In 2024, lawmakers took action by adopting a remedial plan that established a second district of this kind. However, white voters took legal action, claiming that the adjustments constituted an unconstitutional racial gerrymander, and a district judge ruled in their favor.
The case, initially presented last March, has returned, as the justices have requested new briefs regarding the constitutionality of Section 2.
Last summer, Louisiana changed its position, now advocating for the Court to restrict or abolish race-conscious districting. Black voters who launched the initial challenge stood by the remedial map, asserting that it effectively addresses the documented dilution of minority voting power.
Conservative justices displayed hesitation to completely overturn Section 2, a provision established in 1965 and reinforced in 1982 to prevent practices that deny minorities equal access to the electoral process.
In reference to the 2019 Rucho v. Common Cause decision, which prevented federal courts from intervening in partisan gerrymandering, Mooppan contended that states could justify their maps by citing valid partisan objectives, even when these objectives intersect with racial demographics.
This would enable mapmakers to emphasize Republican strengths, for example, without violating Section 2, provided the intent isn’t solely racial.
Chief Justice John Roberts, the author of the 2023 Allen v. Milligan ruling that requires the establishment of a second majority-Black district in Alabama, examined whether this framework is consistent with Allen and the Court’s Thornburg v. Gingles criteria.
The test mandates that plaintiffs demonstrate a minority group is not only sizable and cohesive but also experiences majority bloc voting that undermines their electoral candidates. Roberts appeared focused on aligning the proposal with established norms, steering clear of a complete transformation.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, an influential voice in the Allen case alongside Roberts and the liberal justices, raised the possibility of a “sunset” clause for Section 2 remedies, referencing precedents that restrict race-based policies to temporary solutions.
This article may contain commentary which reflects the author's opinion.
