The Supreme Court nullified the Voting Rights Act.

Posted by Strict Scrutiny, Sep 15, 2026Checked Nov 2, 2026

Polygraph verdictMixed

Sources: 3 contradict3 support1 context
Said: 1 time·
Confidence: 60%

Strict ScrutinySep 15, 2026

The Supreme Court did gut or effectively nullify key VRA provisions: Section 2 in its April 29, 2026 Louisiana v. Callais ruling, and preclearance under Section 4/5 in 2013. But Reuters describes a gutting of a key provision, not repeal of the whole Act, so the literal claim that it nullified the Voting Rights Act overstates what the sources report.

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

… This is a less than subtle attack on Justice Jackson, if you haven't picked up on this. There are stories in the right wing media suggesting that Justice Jackson caused some delay because she deigned to put pen to paper and write a dissent in a footnote to the order announcing that the court would immediately put into effect its ruling nullifying the Voting Rights Act, which then set off the last minute redistricting, even in places where primaries were underway. Justice Alito also suggested that that was Justice Jackson's fault because she had dissented from the order, and Justice Alito responded that the, quote, …

Strict Scrutiny · Sep 15, 2026· from the transcriptPost →

What we found

Contradicts. Reuters frames the 2026 decision as gutting one key provision (Section 2), and the 2013 rulings struck down the Section 4 formula and effectively invalidated Section 5 preclearance; no source reports the entire Voting Rights Act being nullified.[1][3][4]

Supports. Reuters (April 29, 2026) reports the Court's 6-3 ruling 'gutted a key provision of the Voting Rights Act,' making it harder to challenge electoral maps as racially discriminatory.[1]

Supports. Brennan Center and New Yorker commentary describe the 2026 ruling as destroying or reading out of existence what remained of the Act's Section 2 protections, and LA Times says the Court 'effectively nullified' the 1982 statute.[5][6][7]

Context. The 2013 Shelby County decision is described as ending the preclearance requirement, and the Act's other provisions remain part of the law per the AP's 2025 coverage.[2][3]