Trump's Supreme Court Is the Most Anti-Voting Rights Court in 70 Years

Key Takeaways

• Civil‑rights win rate fell to 44% since 2020
• Conservatives supported voting rights in 7% of cases
• Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act faces possible gutting
• Trump may add three justices if seats open
• Gallup shows 52% disapprove of the Court’s performance

Pulse Analysis

The Washington Post’s new study places the current Supreme Court in stark historical context, comparing its record to every bench since the New Deal. By examining 270 decisions from 2020‑2024, the analysis shows a dramatic swing: civil‑rights claims now lose a majority of the time, a reversal not seen since before the civil‑rights movement. This shift is driven largely by the three Trump‑appointed justices—Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett—who have consistently voted against expanding or even maintaining existing protections.

The most immediate flashpoint is Louisiana v. Callais, a case that could strip Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of its enforcement power. Section 2 remains the only federal tool to challenge racially discriminatory voting maps after the 2013 Shelby County decision eliminated pre‑clearance. If the Court narrows or eliminates this provision, analysts estimate that up to 30% of Black and 11% of Hispanic members of Congress could lose seats in states already pursuing aggressive redistricting. The ruling would set a cascade effect, emboldening state legislatures to adopt stricter ballot‑access rules and further marginalize minority voters.

Beyond the legal ramifications, the Court’s trajectory fuels a broader political calculus. With Justice Alito and Justice Thomas approaching retirement, President Trump has signaled readiness to fill up to three vacancies, potentially securing a super‑majority that could reshape constitutional interpretation for generations. Public trust is already eroding—Gallup reports a 52% disapproval rating for the Court—raising concerns about perceived legitimacy. For businesses, policymakers, and civic groups, the stakes are clear: a more partisan bench could alter regulatory environments, campaign‑finance rules, and the very foundation of democratic participation in the United States.