Supreme Court's liberal justices defend the Voting Rights Act in a major case that could weaken minority voting power

• The Supreme Court's liberal justices expressed support for the Voting Rights Act on Tuesday.
• The case concerns Alabama's redrawn congressional map, which a group of Black voters says diluted their voting power.

The Supreme Court's Democratic-appointed justices on Tuesday defended the Voting Rights Act as they heard a major case that could weaken the landmark 1965 legislation, which prohibits discrimination in voting.

The dispute concerns Alabama's Republican-led legislature's redrawn 2021 congressional map that created one majority-Black district out of the state's seven districts, while Black voters make up roughly 27% of the population.

A group of Black voters and activists sued, arguing the map diluted their voting power by packing Black Alabamans into one, rather than two, majority-minority districts.

Justice Elena Kagan led the Supreme Court's liberal wing in grilling Alabama's solicitor general, referencing a lower court's decision that ordered the state to draw a new map, ruling that the existing one likely violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which forbids practices that discriminate on the basis of race. After the lower court rejected the state's map, Alabama brought the challenge up to the Supreme Court, which agreed to review it.

"Under our precedents, it's kind of a slam dunk," Kagan said, questioning why the case is before the court.

During the two-hour-long arguments, Kagan also highlighted the Voting Rights Act as an "important statute" and "one of the great achievements of American democracy," before briefly reminding the public of the court's 2013 and 2021 rulings that chipped away at the law.

"Now, in recent years, this statute has fared not well in this court," Kagan said. "And you're asking us, essentially to cut back substantially on our 40 years of precedent ... So what's left?"

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the newest member and first Black woman on the bench, repeatedly questioned Alabama on its position that its map was drawn from a "race-neutral" standpoint.

"Why are you assuming it's a race-neutral plan?" Jackson asked, adding: "We are talking about a situation in which race has already infused the voting system."

At another point, Jackson dove into a history lesson as Alabama's solicitor general argued that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act should be interpreted through a race-neutral approach and that it conflicts with the 14th Amendment, which establishes equal protections for all citizens of the United States.

The framers behind the 14th Amendment were "trying to ensure that people who had been discriminated against, the freedmen during the Reconstruction Period, were actually brought equal to everyone else in society," Jackson said. "That's not a race-neutral or race-blind idea."

Justice Sonia Sotomayor later built on her liberal colleagues' points, stating: "There's no such thing as racial neutrality in Section 2. It's explicitly saying that a protected group must be given equal participation."

Some of the court's conservative members also appeared skeptical of Alabama's broader claims, with Justice Samuel Alito calling them "quite far-reaching."

Though the Republican-appointed justices seemed more open to one of Alabama's narrower arguments that there should be less consideration of race when drawing congressional districts.

Supporters of the Voting Rights Act say the court's decision, expected by next June, could deal another blow to the law and diminish minority-voting power, making it harder for voters to challenge racial gerrymandering.