The Supreme Court killed Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act a few months ago.
Posted by Strict Scrutiny, Checked
- Sources
- 1 contradict3 support2 context
- Said
- 1 time·
- Confidence
- 60%
Strict ScrutinySep 15, 2026
The Supreme Court's April 29, 2026 ruling in Louisiana v. Callais sharply narrowed Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, and sources describe it as 'gutting' the law, so the 'a few months ago' timing and the substance of a major gutting are supported.
A detail. The sources confirm the gist; the verdict faults a detail such as a date, number or wording.
A guest makes this claim. Listeners heard it, so it counts against the post, and on the guest's own record.
What was said
… Shorter Leah: do not give the Supreme Court credit for finally deciding to crack open their copies of the Constitution and read the Elections Clause. Okay, just to remind you all, the other reason you ought not congratulate the Supreme Court is because this is the same Court that just a few months ago killed Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and cleared the way for a little unprecedented, completely unorthodox, mid-cycling redistricting, where Republicans are authorized and indeed encouraged to cheat democracy and erase the political power of Democratic voters and Black voters in particular. …
Strict Scrutiny · · from the transcriptPost →What we found
Contradicts. The Texas Tribune reports the Court 'weakened but did not eliminate' Section 2 and stopped short of a widely anticipated full strikedown, which conflicts with the literal claim that the Court killed the provision.[3]
Supports. Reuters reports that in a 6-3 ruling on April 30, 2026 (dated Wednesday April 29), the Court 'gutted' what scholars called the last remaining pillar of the VRA, with the ruling specifically concerning Section 2.[1]
Supports. The Congressional Research Service states the Court on April 29, 2026 in Louisiana v. Callais significantly narrowed the circumstances under which a racial vote dilution challenge can be made under Section 2, requiring a strong inference of intentional discrimination.[2][4]
Context. AFRO quotes an analyst saying the opinion 'technically leaves the Voting Rights Act in place' while dismantling its enforcement mechanism, and Kagan's dissent called Section 2 'all but a dead letter,' so 'killed' is a figurative characterization of a sharp narrowing rather than a formal repeal.[3][6]
Context. The ruling was about 4.5 months before the September 15, 2026 post, which fits 'a few months ago.'[1][5]
Sources
6 sources: 1 fact-checker, 1 primary, 3 not rated, 1 tier 2
- 1US Supreme Court under Roberts takes 'wrecking ball' to ...reuters.com · fact-checker · cited for: supports, context
- 2Congressional Redistricting: High Court Narrows Voting Rights Act in Louisiana v. Callaiscongress.gov · primary source · cited for: supports
- 3Supreme Court weakens cornerstone of Voting Rights Acttexastribune.org · not rated · cited for: contradicts, context
- 4Louisiana v. Callais | 608 U.S. ___ (2026)supreme.justia.com · not rated · cited for: supports
- 5Podcast: Is the Voting Rights Act dead?npr.org · tier 2 · cited for: context
- 6SCOTUS Voting Rights decision is 'almost as bad as it gets'afro.com · not rated · cited for: context
Where this claim was made
Said in 1 published post