Supreme Court hollows out a landmark law that had protected minority voting rights
Law School News
President Lyndon B. Johnson knew the legislation he was about to sign was momentous, one that took courage for certain members of Congress to pass since the vote could cost them their seats.
To honor that, he took the unusual step of leaving the Oval Office and going to Capitol Hill for the signing ceremony. It was Aug. 6, 1965, five months after the "Bloody Sunday" attack on civil rights marchers in Selma, Alabama, gave momentum to the bill that became known as the Voting Rights Act.
In the six decades since, it became one of the most consequential laws in the nation's history, preventing discrimination against minorities at the ballot box and helping to elect thousands of Black and Hispanic representatives at all levels of government.
On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court knocked out a major pillar of the law that had protected against racial discrimination in voting and representation. It was a decision that came more than a decade after the court undermined another key tenet of the law and led to restrictive voting laws in a number of states.
Voting and civil rights advocates were left fearful of what lies ahead for minority communities. "It means that you have entire communities that can go without having representation," said Cliff Albright, a co-founder of the group Black Voters Matter. "It is literally throwing us back to the Jim Crow era unapologetically, and that's not exaggeration."
Kareem Crayton, vice president of the Brennan Center for Justice's Washington office, said the court's steady work to erode the Voting Rights Act, culminating in Wednesday's decision, amounted to "burying it without the funeral."
The Supreme Court's ruling came in a congressional redistricting case out of Louisiana after the state created a district that gave the state its second Black representative to Congress.
It found that map to be an unconstitutional gerrymander because it took race into account to draw the lines. In an opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito, the court's conservative majority said the provision of the Voting Rights Act in question, called Section 2, was designed to protect voters from intentional discrimination.
Related listings
-
A Canadian man facing 14 murder charges will plead guilty to aiding suicide
Law School News 04/19/2026A Canadian man facing murder charges for allegedly selling lethal substances online to people at risk of self-harm has agreed to plead guilty to 14 counts of counseling or aiding suicide, his lawyer said on Saturday.In turn, Canadian prosecutors will...
-
Alleged white supremacist pleads guilty in fire at Tennessee center
Law School News 04/11/2026A man linked to white supremacist movements pleaded guilty on Monday to setting a fire that destroyed an office at a historic social justice center in Tennessee, a court document shows.Regan Prater also pleaded guilty to attempting to aid a foreign t...
-
White House urges Congress to take a light touch on AI regulations
Law School News 03/22/2026The White House said Friday that Congress should "preempt state AI laws" that it views as too burdensome, laying out a broad framework for how it wants Congress to address concerns about artificial intelligence without curbing growth or innovation in...
Chicago Business Fraud Attorney
Business Fraud can take many forms. In the broadest terms, a fraud occurs when someone intentionally deceives others for personal gain. Many times business fraud is harmful and recovery is necessary. Losing your personal or business’s assets can devastate your entire life. Contact Roth Law Groupto receive help on restoring your business to normalcy before you were victimized with fraud. Business fraud cases can involve multiple people and complicated schemes aimed at deceiving the public, auditors, investigators, or others. Whether you are dealing with corporate fraud or commercial fraud, we can step in and fight back to receive compensation that you deserve.
At Roth Law Group we are devoted to prosecuting and defending the legal rights of individuals and small businesses, as either plaintiff or defendant. Proving fraud can be extremely difficult. To have a successful business fraud case, one must prove that the defendant purposefully set out to defraud the victim. Fraud cases are being investigated more aggressively than ever. With increasing federal regulation and scrutiny of corporate practises, many individuals and businesses find themselves the subject of business fraud investigations.
