Fact check: Can the Supreme Court's decision in Cooper v. Harris be used to challenge racial gerrymandering?

Executive Summary

The core claim is that the Supreme Court’s decision in Cooper v. Harris remains a usable precedent to challenge racial gerrymandering because it affirmed that race cannot be the predominant factor in redistricting and reaffirmed the analytical framework for Section 2 Voting Rights Act claims ^[1]. At the same time, recent Supreme Court activity and lower-court rulings signal active pressure on the Voting Rights Act’s reach and on courts’ willingness to adjudicate gerrymandering, meaning the practical power of Cooper as a tool is in flux and depends on ongoing litigation over Section 2 and judicial posture ^{[2] [3]}.

1. Why Cooper v. Harris still matters — a doctrinal foothold for challengers

Cooper v. Harris created a clear legal principle: mapmakers may not make race the predominant factor in drawing districts, and courts must scrutinize whether race-based choices can be justified under strict scrutiny and the Voting Rights Act framework. That decision provides challengers a doctrinal pathway to argue that a district’s shape, race data use, and legislative intent violate constitutional equal protection if race predominated. Multiple contemporary analyses reiterate Cooper’s core holdings as the basis for Section 2 and racial-gerrymander litigation strategies, framing Cooper as a continuing precedent to attack maps where race appears determinative ^[1].

2. The immediate threat: cases putting Section 2 before the justices

The Supreme Court’s docket and recent news report that the Court is considering whether key aspects of Section 2 remain constitutional, and that those considerations could reshape remedies for racial vote dilution. If the Court narrows Section 2 or alters its application, Cooper’s practical impact could diminish because many Section 2 claims used Cooper’s approach to assess whether districts diluted minority voting strength. Reporting on October 15, 2025, emphasizes that the Court’s scrutiny of Section 2 could alter how Cooper-based challenges succeed or fail going forward ^[2].

3. How lower courts are splitting the terrain — mixed signs for challengers

State high-court decisions in 2025 show a mixed picture: some courts decline to police partisan or racially tainted maps as nonjusticiable political questions, while others have rejected continued use of gerrymandered maps. These divergent rulings illustrate that even with Cooper on the books, enforcement varies dramatically by forum and by judicial philosophy, meaning challengers may succeed in some states and face dead ends in others. The South Carolina dismissal (Sept. 17, 2025) and Utah’s rejection to extend maps (Sept. 15, 2025) exemplify that patchwork ^{[4] [5]}.

4. The conservative Court’s posture — does precedent survive headwinds?

Contemporary reporting indicates the Supreme Court’s conservative majority appears poised to further narrow or reinterpret Voting Rights Act protections, which could indirectly constrain Cooper’s practical force. Commentators in mid-October 2025 document justices questioning the scope of race-conscious remedies and suggesting limits on race-based districting requirements. If the Court curtails Section 2 or reframes when race-based considerations are permissible, Cooper’s analytical tools might be preserved in name but weakened in application ^{[3] [2]}.

5. How litigants currently deploy Cooper in active cases

Practitioners continue to cite Cooper to challenge maps alleged to dilute minority votes, using its tests for predominance, strict scrutiny application, and remedial balancing to press Section 2 claims. Recent case filings and analyses show Cooper being relied on in major Section 2 challenges — particularly where plaintiffs assert that race, not politics or neutral demographics, explains a map’s contours. Those uses underline that Cooper remains central to litigation strategy even as the statutory framework around it faces challenge ^{[2] [1]}.

6. Competing agendas shaping coverage and legal narratives

Coverage reflects partisan and institutional agendas: defenders of Section 2 frame Cooper as essential to preventing vote dilution, while critics and some conservative jurists argue that Section 2’s current reach forces race-aware districting beyond constitutional limits. Reports from October 15, 2025, show liberal justices defending Section 2’s role and conservative commentators advocating narrower interpretations. This divergence underscores that legal outcomes will turn on both doctrinal questions and broader political/legal philosophies ^{[2] [3]}.

7. Bottom line for challengers and next steps to watch

Legally, Cooper v. Harris remains a valid constitutional tool to challenge racial gerrymanders because it articulates the predominance test and the interplay with Section 2. Practically, its effectiveness depends on pending Supreme Court rulings about Section 2 and how state courts handle justiciability and map remedies; expect pivotal signals from rulings and opinions issued in October 2025. Observers should watch the Court’s forthcoming opinions and subsequent lower-court responses, as those decisions will determine whether Cooper’s doctrinal framework continues to be a robust enforcement mechanism or a more limited precedent ^{[1] [2] [3]}.