According to former White House press secretary Sean Spicer, leftist justices on the U.S. Supreme Court are reportedly ‘slow-walking’ a significant Voting Rights Act case that could have major implications for the 2026 midterm elections.
Spicer noted, “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,” during a recent episode of “The Huddle.”
The Supreme Court traditionally concludes its opinions on argued cases by late June or early July. Following reargument in October 2025 and with no ruling yet by mid-April 2026, a decision might be anticipated soon or by the end of the current term.
Given that candidate filing deadlines for the 2026 elections in states like Louisiana are nearing or already passed, any ruling issued post-spring 2026 would be too late for new maps to be implemented, meaning existing maps would remain unchanged for those elections, with substantial revisions likely applicable to future cycles.
.@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 justices are expected to elaborate on a Louisiana-based case already pending, considering whether the 1965 Voting Rights Act still justifies the creation of majority Black or Hispanic districts. This ruling may also affect state and local legislative maps.
In the 2022 midterm elections, the U.S. House had 11 majority Black and 31 majority Hispanic districts. Ahead of the 2024 election cycle, the Supreme Court ruled on Allen v. Milligan, addressing a situation where Alabama’s Republican-led legislature crafted a congressional map that left only one majority Black district.
Civil rights advocates, including the Alabama State Conference of the NAACP, challenged this map, claiming it breached Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by concentrating Black voters into one district and diluting their influence across others.
In a narrow 5-4 decision, the Court supported a lower court’s finding that Alabama’s map likely contravened the VRA, necessitating the creation of a second majority Black district and subsequently leading to a Democrat gain in 2024.
This ruling also impacted a related case in Louisiana, prompting the state’s legislature to establish a second majority Black district, replicating the outcome seen in Alabama.
On March 24, 2025, additional arguments were heard in Louisiana v. Callais, focused on whether fulfilling VRA requirements by creating a second majority-Black district infringes on the 14th or 15th Amendments due to its racial prioritization. Conservative justices like Roberts and Kavanaugh, who backed the Milligan decision, exhibited skepticism regarding the new map’s compactness.
Last August, the Court indicated further potential shifts by requesting more briefing about the constitutionality of racially-based district drawing, hinting at a broader evaluation that could undermine Section 2 protections. Expect additional arguments this coming fall.
A ruling that restricts the formation of majority-minority districts under the VRA could diminish Section 2 protections nationwide, impacting redistricting efforts in many states. The conservative majority on the Supreme Court has often shown apprehension towards race-based policies, and Justice Clarence Thomas has openly questioned the constitutionality of Section 2 in redistricting.
Depending on the details of a ruling concerning race-based districts, significant ramifications for the 2026 midterm elections and Congressional control for years may ensue.
