Supreme Court Limits Voting Rights Act in Landmark Redistricting Ruling and Upholds Donor Privacy Rights

The U.S. Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions on June 26, 2024, reshaping key legal precedents in voting rights and First Amendment protections.

Supreme Court Invalidates Louisiana Congressional District Under Voting Rights Act

In Louisiana v. Callais, the Court ruled 6–3 along partisan lines to invalidate a majority-Black congressional district, deeming it an illegal racial gerrymander. The dispute began in 2022 when a group of voters challenged Louisiana’s congressional map, arguing it violated the Voting Rights Act’s ban on racial discrimination in voting. A federal judge agreed, prompting Louisiana to add a new majority-Black district to comply with the ruling. However, another group of voters then challenged this new district, arguing it constituted an illegal racial gerrymander.

Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito held that the lower court’s 2022 ruling misapplied the Voting Rights Act. He stated that the Act should only apply when there is “strong evidence” that states intentionally drew districts to reduce minority voting opportunities. Alito concluded that the original 2022 challenge failed to show “an objective likelihood of intentional discrimination based on the totality of circumstances.”

In dissent, Justice Elena Kagan argued that Congress, under its power to enforce the Fifteenth Amendment, can prohibit electoral schemes that dilute minority voting power, regardless of whether states offer race-neutral explanations. Kagan emphasized that even race-neutral actions could perpetuate racial discrimination.

The Court’s decision significantly limits the Voting Rights Act’s role in future redistricting cases, requiring proof of intentional discrimination rather than discriminatory effects.

Supreme Court Protects Donor Privacy Rights in First Amendment Case

In a unanimous ruling in First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Davenport, the Court held that a religious nonprofit can challenge a state subpoena seeking its donors’ identities, protecting First Amendment rights.

The case stemmed from a 2023 subpoena issued by New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, demanding the financial donor records of First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, a religious nonprofit providing anti-abortion pregnancy counseling. First Choice argued that the subpoena would deter donors, violating its First Amendment right to free association.

A federal district court dismissed the case, ruling that the subpoena alone did not constitute a legal injury sufficient for standing. However, writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Neil Gorsuch rejected that reasoning. Gorsuch wrote,

“An injury in fact does not arise only when a defendant causes a tangible harm to a plaintiff, like a physical injury or monetary loss.”