Judicial Watch Statement Supreme Court Decision to Restrict Race-Based Gerrymandering

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton responded today to the Supreme Court 6-3 decision to effectively prohibit the use of racial preferences to create “majority-minority” congressional districts:

This is a great decision for democracy that affirms that the U.S. Constitution requires the government to be color-blind in its decision-making. The decision effectively ends the egregious racial segregation of voters. Judicial Watch is prepared to enforce this decision to try to end any racial gerrymandering that treats voters as cogs in a racial spoils system.

Most Americans would agree with the court’s conclusion that “allowing race to play any part in government decision-making represents a departure from the constitutional rule that applies in almost every other context.”

In January 2025, Judicial Watch and AEF filed an initial amici brief (friends of the court) in this case, asking the court to affirm a lower court ruling that Louisiana violated the constitution when it crowded minority voters into congressional districts. Judicial Watch and AEF filed a supplemental amici curiae brief in September 2025.  

Judicial Watch and AEF argued:

This Court has compared race-based districting to segregation of “public parks, … buses, … and schools,” and warned that we “should not be carving electorates into racial blocs.” … That is because “[c]lassifications of citizens solely on the basis of race ‘are by their very nature odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality.’” … Racial gerrymandering, like all “[r]acial classifications of any sort” cause “lasting harm to our society” because “[t]hey reinforce the belief, held by too many for too much of our history, that individuals should be judged by the color of their skin.” …

There should be no question that race-based division of citizens for purposes of compliance with § 2 and Gingles is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause, the “central purpose” of which “is to prevent the States from purposefully discriminating between individuals on the basis of race.”… The same may be said of the Voting Rights Act.

In his concurring opinion, Justice Thomas agreed, denouncing the practice where:

“Blacks [we]re drawn into ‘black districts’ and given ‘black representatives’; Hispanics [we]re drawn into Hispanic districts and given ‘Hispanic representatives’; and so on.” . . . That interpretation rendered §2 “repugnant to any nation that strives for the ideal of a color-blind Constitution.” . . . Today’s decision should largely put an end to this “disastrous misadventure” in voting-rights jurisprudence.

AEF is a charitable and educational foundation dedicated to improving the quality of life through education. In furtherance of that goal, the Foundation has engaged in a number of projects, which include, but are not limited to, educational and health conferences domestically and abroad. AEF has partnered frequently with Judicial Watch to fight government and judicial corruption and to promote a return to ethics and morality in the nation’s public life.

Judicial Watch is a national leader in election integrity and voting rights litigation, with a record of successful lawsuits enforcing constitutional redistricting standards and cleaning voter rolls nationwide. 

Judicial Watch pointed out earlier this year that Maryland’s Democrat-proposed 2026 congressional redistricting plan is in key respects identical to the unconstitutional gerrymander struck down in a prior Judicial Watch lawsuit—but is even more partisan and less compact than the invalidated 2021 map.

Judicial Watch’s lawsuits and legal actions have caused the removal of six million ineligible names from voter lists nationwide.

A recent settlement with Oregon in a federal lawsuit confirms 800,000 ineligible voter names are slated for review and removal from voter registration lists. The settlement requires state officials to produce detailed data and enforce federal voter roll clean-up procedures under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA). Under NVRA, states must take reasonable steps to remove ineligible voters—such as those who have died, moved, or become otherwise inactive.

In March 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States held oral argument in a landmark election integrity case over whether the federal Election Day laws prohibit the counting of mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day. Judicial Watch brought the underlying lawsuit on behalf of the Libertarian Party of Mississippi.

In January 2026, in a historic case filed by Judicial Watch, the Supreme Court decided 7-2 in favor of Congressman Mike Bost and two presidential electors who were before the court to vindicate their standing to challenge an Illinois law allowing the counting of ballots received up to 14 days after Election Day.

###