The Supreme Court eviscerated the last remaining sections of the Voting Rights Act in the Calais decision earlier this year.

Posted by Badlands Media, Sep 16, 2026Checked Nov 2, 2026

Polygraph verdictTrue

Sources: 7 support1 context
Said: 1 time·
Confidence: 70%

Badlands MediaSep 16, 2026

The Supreme Court's April 29, 2026 decision in Louisiana v. Callais significantly narrowed Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the last major provision of the law after Section 5 was gutted in 2013, and several sources describe it as gutting or hollowing out what remained.

What was said

… See, that's why. That's why we're doing him first, because he's gonna talk about it, and then we're gonna talk about. Supreme Court basically eviscerated the last remaining sections of the Voting Rights Act in their decision in the Calais decision earlier this year. We then had to worry about a Supreme Court case where the state's rights to allow receipt of ballots that had been legally cast on or before election Day was at issue in the Supreme Court, with many worrying that the Supreme Court was going to again overturn …

Badlands Media · Sep 16, 2026· from the transcriptPost →

What we found

Supports. Reuters reports that in April the court 'gutted a key provision of the Voting Rights Act,' making it harder for minorities to challenge electoral maps as racially discriminatory.[1]

Supports. AP says the Voting Rights Act 'has been hollowed out,' and that in April the court made it much harder for minority voters to challenge districts without proof of intentional discrimination.[2]

Supports. The Library of Congress CRS report says the Court on April 29, 2026 significantly narrowed Section 2 in Louisiana v. Callais, holding liability arises only with a strong inference of intentional discrimination.[3]

Supports. Common Dreams and The Regulatory Review describe Callais as effectively voiding the last remaining provision of Section 2, with Section 5 already gutted earlier, so the remaining sections were substantially eviscerated.[6][7]

Supports. Politico (tier 2) quotes critics saying the law is left on the books 'in name only' and its racial protections are 'effectively useless,' and NPR says the ruling 'weakens' Section 2.[4][5]

Context. Some sources, including the CRS report and the Justia syllabus, describe the ruling as narrowing rather than eliminating Section 2, and Politico notes some small protections remain. This makes 'eviscerated' a contested characterization rather than a factual contradiction.[3][4][8]