Introduction: A Glimmer, or a Mirage?
The recent close of the Supreme Court’s 2025-2026 term, as often, leaves progressives in a state of watchful alarm. While some observers, like The Atlantic’s David A. Graham, might point to a specific “Supreme Court Decision That Might Improve Politics”, the broader landscape of judicial rulings paints a far more foreboding picture. Indeed, in a term punctuated by further erosions of voting rights and challenges to democratic fairness, the notion of “improvement” must be critically examined. While the 2023 ruling in Moore v. Harper offered a foundational rejection of the dangerous Independent State Legislature Theory, its positive reverberations are increasingly drowned out by the conservative supermajority’s relentless chipping away at the very fabric of our electoral system in more recent decisions.
The Current Reality: Stays, Stays, and Further Disenfranchisement
The 2025-2026 Supreme Court term has delivered blows that make any talk of political improvement feel, at best, premature, and at worst, willfully naive. Just last month, on June 2, 2026, the Court granted Alabama a stay in the ongoing voting rights case, Milligan v. Allen (formerly Merrill v. Milligan), effectively allowing Alabama to utilize its racially discriminatory 2023 congressional map for the upcoming 2026 midterm elections. This decision came despite a three-judge district court finding that the Alabama Legislature had “intentionally discriminated against Black voters” in drawing the map. Davin Rosborough, deputy director of the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project, sharply criticized the ruling, stating it “cannot be squared with the Constitution or Voting Rights Act” and “delays relief for voters who have already spent years fighting for an equal opportunity to elect candidates of their choice”.
This setback in Alabama follows closely on the heels of the Supreme Court’s deeply concerning 2026 decision in Louisiana v. Callais. This ruling, described by some as “one of the most antidemocratic rulings in decades,” partially overturned Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which previously required the creation of majority-minority districts to ensure fair representation. The Callais decision, a 6-3 split, held that Louisiana’s 2024 congressional map constituted a racial gerrymander, fundamentally narrowing the interpretation of the VRA and making it “far harder for voters to challenge future maps for racial discrimination”. Experts predict this ruling will empower southern states to dismantle existing majority-minority districts, potentially allowing Republicans to gain multiple seats by 2028. This actively undercuts the principle of equal representation that is paramount to a healthy democracy.
While not a direct decision from the 2025-2026 term, the landmark Moore v. Harper decision from June 2023 remains a critical reference point. In that case, the Court rejected the extreme “independent state legislature theory,” which would have granted state legislatures unchecked power over federal elections, free from state judicial review. This rejection was hailed as a significant victory for democratic checks and balances. Yet, the current reality, as demonstrated by Callais and Milligan, is that while the most extreme theoretical threat was averted, practical threats to voting rights are being aggressively advanced and, unfortunately, often validated by the current Court.
A Progressive Critique: The Court’s Retreat from Equity
From a progressive perspective, the Supreme Court’s recent actions, particularly in the 2025-2026 term, represent a profound retreat from the principles of equity and inclusive democracy. The decision in Louisiana v. Callais is not merely an interpretation of law; it is a direct assault on the Voting Rights Act, a cornerstone of civil rights legislation. By limiting the ability to create districts where minority voters can elect their preferred candidates, the Court has given a green light to sophisticated forms of racial gerrymandering that effectively silence marginalized communities.
The subsequent stay in Milligan v. Allen for Alabama reinforces this alarming trend. Despite clear findings of intentional discrimination by lower courts, the Supreme Court has prioritized a state’s desire to use a discriminatory map over the fundamental right of Black Alabamians to fair representation. This fosters an environment where states feel emboldened to engage in voter suppression tactics, knowing that the highest court may ultimately side with their efforts, even in the face of demonstrable discriminatory intent. This judicial activism, disguised as judicial restraint, actively undermines the foundational promise of “one person, one vote.”
The very idea that these rulings “improve politics” is a dangerous fallacy. They exacerbate political polarization by ensuring that legislative districts are less representative of their populations, leading to more extreme candidates and less incentive for compromise. They deepen distrust in democratic institutions, particularly among communities of color who have fought tirelessly for their franchise. This is not improvement; it is systemic entrenchment of partisan and racial power imbalances.
The Path Forward: Reclaiming Our Democracy
To counter this aggressive judicial rollback, progressives must commit to a multi-pronged approach that extends far beyond the courtroom. First, immediate and sustained advocacy is required to pressure Congress to strengthen, rather than merely defend, the Voting Rights Act. The loopholes created and exploited by the Court must be explicitly closed through federal legislation that unequivocally protects the right to fair and equal representation.
Second, grassroots organizing and community action are more vital than ever. As states move to redraw maps in the wake of Louisiana v. Callais, activists must mobilize to challenge discriminatory practices at every level, from state legislatures to local election boards. Educating voters about their rights and the impact of these decisions is paramount to building collective power.
Finally, we must critically examine the structure and composition of the Supreme Court itself. The increasing politicization of the judiciary, evident in the partisan alignment of these rulings, demands a broader conversation about judicial reform, including potential expansion of the Court, term limits for justices, or other mechanisms to restore balance and accountability. While a single “decision that might improve politics” might offer a momentary respite, true improvement demands systemic changes that ensure our democracy serves all its people, not just a powerful few.