Preview: The Worst Voting Rights Decision Since Jim Crow

Summary

Episode Overview

Podcast: Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick | Law, justice, and the courts
Episode Title: Preview: The Worst Voting Rights Decision Since Jim Crow
Date: April 29, 2026
Host: Dahlia Lithwick
Guest: Janai Nelson, President and Director-Counsel, Legal Defense Fund (LDF)

This episode centers on the Supreme Court's landmark and contentious ruling in Louisiana v. Calais. By a 6–3 majority, the Court dramatically weakened Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, making it much harder to challenge racially discriminatory voting maps. Dahlia Lithwick speaks with Janai Nelson—who argued the case before the Court—about the immediate and far-reaching consequences for multiracial democracy, the legal reasoning (or lack thereof) in the majority opinion, and what comes next for those fighting for voting rights.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

The Supreme Court’s Decision: A Devastating Blow to Voting Rights

• Nelson’s Characterization of the Ruling

  • Nelson calls the decision “an abomination” and “a day of infamy for the Supreme Court. It is a day of devastation for our democracy” ([02:14]-[03:27]).
  • She points out that the Court didn’t technically overturn Section 2, but in practice, "has effectively debilitated us from being able to enforce it in most contexts... There may be some theoretical academic application, but... we have lost the most important tool to protect our democracy from race discrimination and voting outside of the 15th Amendment" ([02:14]-[03:10]).

• Comparison to Past Cases

  • Lithwick notes the result is a “180 degree flip” from the Alabama redistricting case (Allen v. Milligan) decided just three years before ([00:24]-[00:52]).
  • Nelson echoes that Roberts’ prior language about the importance of racial remedies in the 15th Amendment is now a “mere parchment promise” ([02:55]).

• Expert Endorsement

  • Election law expert Rick Hasen is quoted calling this “one of the most pernicious and damaging Supreme Court decisions of the last six decades” ([01:45]).

---

The Louisiana Map: Demographics and Disenfranchisement

• Population Numbers & Map Controversy

  • African Americans: ~33% of Louisiana's population
  • 2022 Congressional Map: Only 1 out of 6 districts was majority-Black ([03:46]-[04:10]).
  • The case was about creating a second majority-Black district to reflect the population ratio.

• How “Reverse Discrimination” Hijacked the Conversation

  • Nelson: The challenge to the remedial map by white residents was based on claims of “discrimination against white voters,” an argument that ultimately prevailed at the Supreme Court ([04:33]-[06:20]).
  • "We get here... when you think about the challenges to affirmative action... where a white applicant is able to claim... discrimination because a few seats are going to qualified Black applicants who are woefully underrepresented. We get here because there's this false concept of reverse discrimination when there is no such thing." ([04:53])
  • The Supreme Court, she says, “rubber stamped this concept of white grievance” ([06:16]).

---

Erosion of Civil Rights and Multiracial Democracy

• From the Civil Rights Movement to Present

  • Nelson outlines the historic struggle for voting rights: from violence and legal barriers, through the passage of the Voting Rights Act, to contemporary rollbacks ([04:50]-[05:20]).
  • She underscores the ongoing effort by opponents to undermine civil rights gains from as early as the act’s passing: “The Voting Rights Act was challenged right after it was passed... Black people had the right to vote in name only and were intimidated with violence, with voter suppression tactics... until the Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965.” ([04:45])

• The Supreme Court’s Major Logical Leap

  • The majority “invents” new constitutional dilemmas, suggesting remedying disenfranchisement is itself a racial harm: “What the Supreme Court did today was rubber stamp this concept of white grievance... as a zero sum calculus, and not understanding the more important investment that we need to make...” ([06:11])

• Consequences

  • Decision signals "a sea change in redistricting law," with likely impacts on upcoming elections and the “fundamental reshaping” of voting rights ([00:49]-[01:03]).

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “This decision is truly an abomination, not just because we don’t like the outcome, but because of all the principles that the Court had to violate to get to that outcome.” — Janai Nelson ([00:11])
• “It has effectively debilitated us from being able to enforce [Section 2] in most contexts that we’ve used it... We have lost the most important tool to protect our democracy from race discrimination and voting outside of the 15th Amendment.” — Janai Nelson ([02:14])
• “This is a day of infamy for the Supreme Court. It is a day of devastation for our democracy.” — Janai Nelson ([03:27])
• “The Supreme Court...rubber stamped this concept of white grievance. It rubber stamped this false notion that you can will race away by ignoring it.” — Janai Nelson ([06:11])

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• [00:11] – Nelson condemns the ruling as an “abomination”
• [01:45] – Lithwick cites Rick Hasen’s assessment of the case
• [02:14] – Nelson explains the practical effects on Section 2 enforcement
• [03:46] – Lithwick sets up Louisiana’s demographics and the case’s stakes
• [04:33] – Nelson traces legal strategies around “reverse discrimination”
• [06:09] – Nelson critiques the court’s acceptance of white grievance as legal harm

---

Tone & Language

Throughout the conversation, both speakers maintain a tone of deep concern, urgency, and clarity. The language is forthright, impassioned, and strives to translate the legal stakes into direct consequences for American democracy.

---

Conclusion

This episode delivers a sobering, detailed look at the Supreme Court’s decision in Louisiana v. Calais, dissecting its implications for voting rights, the philosophy behind the majority’s reasoning, and the historical context of ongoing struggles for racial justice in the United States. Listeners are left with an appreciation for the scale of the setback—and a call to remain vigilant and active in the defense of a multiracial democracy.

Transcript

[A]

This is Amicus Slate's podcast about the courts, the law and the Supreme Court. I'm Dahlia Lithwick.

[B]

This decision is truly an abomination, not just because we don't like the outcome, but because of all the principles that the Court had to violate to get to that outcome.

[A]

On Wednesday morning, in a wholly unsurprising and yet utterly shattered shattering moment for multiracial American democracy, the US Supreme Court by a 6 to 3 margin decided Louisiana versus Calais, tearing the heart out of section 2 of the Voting Rights act of 1965 without ever declaring openly that it was doing so. The majority opinion authored by Justice Samuel Alito, found that Louisiana's second majority black congressional district was an unconstitutional race based gerrymander. This is all a 180 degree degree flip from a case involving an Alabama redistricting map that was decided by the Supreme Court only three years ago. This is also going to signal a sea change in redistricting law, maybe possibly impacting the upcoming midterms, but certainly fundamentally reshaping voting rights in the years to come. Joining me to discuss the decision is Janae Nelson, President and Director Counsel of the Legal Defense Fund ldf, the nation's premier civil rights law organization. In October of 2025, Janay argued Louisiana vs Calais before the United States Supreme Court. We spoke to her back then. Janee, welcome back to Amicus.

[B]

Oh, thanks Dahlia, for having me.

[A]

Janee, when we spoke seven months ago, after arguments you described the significance of this case, the stakes and your decision to argue it. Election law expert Rick Hassan just described this as, quote, one of the most pernicious and damaging Supreme Court decisions of the last six century. And Slate, and before we dig into the details, can you just tell me how you would characterize the impact of this ruling? For the uninitiated, those are all good words.

[B]

I said an oral argument that it would be catastrophic for the Supreme Court to in any way narrow shrink Section two. And it has done far more than that. It has effectively debilitated us from being able to enforce it in most contexts that we've used it in in the past. There may be some theoretical academic application, but the reality on the ground is that we have lost the most important tool to protect our democracy from race discrimination and voting outside of the 15th Amendment, and that the 15th Amendment in Chief Justice Roberts words from the Allen vs. Milligan decision is now a mere parchment promise. It is lost on me how he could square those poetic words with the decision that he joined as part of the 6:3 majority in Louisiana versus Calais. This is a day of infamy for the Supreme Court. It is a day of devastation for our democracy. And it is also a call to action for every American who hopes to continue to live in a functioning democracy and one that is multiracial, multiethnic, and whose representatives reflect that.

[A]

Can we talk for a minute about that Louisiana map that's at issue? African Americans make up approximately 33% of the state's population. And despite their this, the 2022 congressional map included one majority black district out of six. African American voters were merely seeking to remedy that. And this takes us on the long journey that ends Wednesday morning. Can you just talk about how we got to the place where the objection to mass. Mass disenfranchisement of black voters in Louisiana turns into a conversation about how this is RA against white voters. How did we get here?

[B]

Yeah, you know, we get here, I think, quite predictably when we look at how race has been handled in this country from the very beginning, and even starting from the important moment of the civil rights movement where this type of legislation was passed and it was immediately challenged. The Voting Rights act was challenged right after it was passed, even though we know that black people had the right to vote in name only and were intimidated with violence, with voter suppression tactics and tools, with tests and devices that kept us from the ballot box and from realizing our political power until the Voting Rights act was passed in 1965. We get here when you think about the challenges to affirmative action dating back to the Bakke decision in 1978, where a white medical applicant is able to claim that he's discriminated against because a few seats are going to to qualified black applicants who are woefully underrepresented. We get here because there's this false concept of reverse discrimination when there is no such thing. It's either discriminatory or it's not. Certainly remedying my discrimination or discrimination against me or my communities is not necessarily the equivalent of discrimination against you or anyone else. The litigants in the Calais case who challenged the map that we won based on proving, with record evidence, overwhelming, voluminous record evidence that six federal judges agreed proved racial discrimination was somehow overcome by white residents of a new district that was drawn to remedy that discrimination, saying that they thought it was unfair. So what the Supreme Court did today was rubber stamp this concept of white grievance. It rubber stamped this false notion that you can will race away by ignoring it. And they rubber stamped so much of what has really eroded our civil rights framework. And that is seeing everything as a zero sum calculus and not understanding the more important investment that we need to make in ensuring that our multiracial democracy is one that's functional and representative of the people.

[A]

Janae, can you talk for a minute about the ways in which Justice Samuel Alito, in the majority opinion here, keeps insisting he's not overturning the framework that was laid out in the 1986 case Thornburg vs. Jingles. He is certainly not overturning Congress when it reauthorized the Voting Rights Act. Slate plus members can access this interview in full right now. Go to slate.comamicus+ to join us. And it is a great time to join because Kelly is just one of the many hugely consequential decisions the Supreme Court will be handing down over the next few weeks. That's right. We're heading into opinion Palooza season and we would love it if you would come along for the ride. Slate.comAmicusPlus you can also subscribe to Slate plus directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. We'll be back with your regularly scheduled Amicus episode on Saturday morning. Until then, take good care.