Supreme Court signals willingness to pare back Voting Rights Act

• Its ruling could open the door to a new wave of gerrymandering across red states, with the potential to eliminate a slew of House seats held by Democrats.

Catch up quick: The case started off as a narrow challenge to one congressional district in Louisiana, but it has mushroomed into a referendum on a hallmark of civil rights-era legislation.

• Louisiana's legislature drew a map after the 2020 Census that only included one majority-Black district. Black voters sued, challenging the map under the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits disenfranchisement on the basis of race.
• Courts agreed that the map likely violated the Voting Rights Act. So Louisiana drew a new one, adding a second district of primarily Black voters.
• But then a group of self-described "non-African American" voters sued, claiming that adding the second majority-minority district had watered down their voting rights.
• The non-African-American voters seem likely to win.

Some conservative justices have argued that the relevant part of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional because it allows for the use of race in policy decisions.

• Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined their liberal colleagues just a few years ago to save that part of the Voting Rights Act, but seemed more skeptical today.
• "This Court's cases, in a variety of contexts, have said that race-based remedies are permissible for a period of time — sometimes for a long period of time, decades in some cases — but that they should not be indefinite and should have a end point," Kavanaugh said during oral arguments.

What we're watching: A ruling is expected by this summer.