SCOTUS Should Be Very Concerned If They Overturn Voting Rights

As we head into 2026, I am constantly hearing from folks who are deeply concerned with The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) and their next major ruling concerning voting rights and its effects on the midterms and 2028 presidential election.
Americans have lost faith this SCOTUS like no other before.

Distrust of this Supreme Court has skyrocketed:

• Public opinion: Recent surveys from organizations like Gallup, Pew Research Center, and the Annenberg Public Policy Center show public approval and favorable views of the Court are near historic lows.
• Ethical concerns: Public distrust has been fueled by reports on ethical issues, including justices’ alleged acceptance of gifts and vacations, as well as questions about recusal in cases with potential conflicts of interest.
• Political polarization: The Court’s rulings and the increasing political polarization surrounding it have contributed to the decline in public trust.

Why Are We At This Point?

It is almost unimaginable to understand some of their recent rulings. It simply cannot be squared with our constitution.
A refresh of recent SCOTUS rulings:

• The Dobbs Decision, effectively overturned Roe v. Wade, allowed states to do whatever they wish including creating very harmful legislation that puts women’s lives at risk.
• Presidential Immunity has given the presidency full professional immunity, akin what monarchies or authoritarians states provide their leader.
• Emergency Docket: The development of an unprecedented “emergency docket” has never been as often used as this administration or in this way before.
  • Emergency Docket - Trump Victories (which were not emergencies) in 2025:
    • Clearing the way for the administration to revoke Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan migrants.
    • Allowing federal agents to proceed with mass immigration enforcement operations.
    • Permitting the Trump administration’s Department of Government Efficiency

All of these rulings bring into question the fairness of this Court’s decisions and their clear potential to be violating the constitution. Effectively, they have made their clear bias transparent to all.
Many Americans are concerned that this highly-biased court will weaken or break down the Voting Rights Act. They are absolutely right to be concerned.
Marie Newman Studio Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Historical Context of the Voting Rights Act

The VRA was enacted in response to pervasive discrimination that disenfranchised Black voters, particularly in the South. It provided federal oversight of voter registration and election procedures in jurisdictions with a history of discriminatory practices.
President Johnson signed the VRA into law at a ceremony in the Capitol on August 6, 1965, with civil rights leaders including Martin Luther King Jr., Rosa Parks, and John Lewis in attendance.
Over the years, various provisions of the act have been challenged in courts, leading to significant rulings that have shaped its enforcement and applicability.
One of the most notable decisions was the 2013 case Shelby County v. Holder, in which the Supreme Court invalidated the coverage formula used to determine which jurisdictions were subject to federal preclearance before making changes to voting laws or practices. This ruling effectively weakened the federal government’s ability to monitor and prevent racial discrimination in voting, raising concerns about potential voter suppression.
Most recently, the Supreme Court heard arguments on October 15, 2025, in a case challenging a key provision of the Voting Rights Act, and is expected to issue a decision sometime in 2026. The case, Louisiana v. Callais, could significantly impact how states draw electoral maps by potentially limiting the ability to use race-conscious redistricting to protect voting power with communities of color. A decision is expected after the arguments conclude, with some requesting it come before the April 2026 state primary.

Consequences of Overturning the Voting Rights Act

1. Increased Voter Suppression: Without the protections afforded by the VRA, states may enact laws that disproportionately affect Black and Brown Americans. Measures such as strict voter ID requirements, purging of voter rolls, and changes to polling places could become more prevalent, making it more difficult for marginalized communities to exercise their voting rights.
2. Erosion of Federal Oversight: The VRA established vital federal oversight mechanisms to ensure fair voting practices. An overturning of the act would diminish these checks, allowing states greater freedom to implement laws that could disenfranchise specific populations.
3. Political Polarization: The political landscape may become increasingly polarized as states respond to a lack of federal oversight with legislation that caters to specific political agendas. This could lead to a patchwork of voting laws across the nation, where access to the ballot box depends heavily on geography, exacerbating divisions along partisan lines.
4. Impact on Future Elections: The ramifications of overturning the VRA could extend to the electoral process itself. With potential changes to districting, voting methods, and access to polling stations, future elections may see amplified challenges over legitimacy and fairness, further undermining public trust in the electoral system.
5. Legal and Civic Responses: In the wake of any SCOTUS decision to overturn the VRA, there likely would be a surge in legal challenges at both state and federal levels, as advocates for civil rights seek to protect voting access through alternative legal avenues. Additionally, civic organizations may ramp up efforts to educate and mobilize voters, emphasizing the need for grassroots movements to advocate for equitable voting rights at the state level.
6. Redistricting: We are already seeing the huge inequity red states are attempting to put forth in new maps, mid-census period, that dramatically favor Republicans and clearly take away districts with high concentrations of Brown and Black Americans.

Attention SCOTUS : The Post-Trump Era Won’t Likely Go Well For Justices

Should the current SCOTUS decide to weaken or negatively change the Voting Rights Act, there is a strong likelihood, once Trump is no longer president and the Congress has a Democratic Majority, that there will be review and potential investigations into their rulings that appear biased and potentially unconstitutional. Similarly, some of the practices of the current conservative justices are viewed by many as deeply unethical.
The grounds for impeaching a Supreme Court Justice, as with all federal civil officers, are defined in the U.S. Constitution as treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
The Constitution also states that federal judges “shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour”. This “good behavior” clause has been historically interpreted to mean that judges have lifetime tenure and can only be removed through the formal impeachment process.
Grounds for Impeachment
The specific phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” is not explicitly defined in the Constitution, leaving the interpretation to Congress. However, historical practice has generally limited impeachment to cases of serious ethical or criminal misconduct, not judicial decisions or political disagreements.
Common charges in past federal judicial impeachments have included:

• Bribery and improper financial relationships with litigants.
• Perjury and making false statements.
• Abuse of judicial power.
• Intoxication on the bench.
• Income tax evasion.
• Serious misconduct that brings the court into scandal and disrepute.

The Process
The impeachment process involves two steps:

1. Impeachment by the House: The House of Representatives must first approve articles of impeachment (charges) by a simple majority vote.
2. Trial in the Senate: The Senate then holds a trial. A conviction and removal from office requires a two-thirds majority vote of the Senators present.

Only one Supreme Court Justice, Samuel Chase, has been impeached by the House (in 1804), but he was acquitted by the Senate and remained on the bench. Justice Abe Fortas resigned in 1969 under threat of impeachment related to financial improprieties, but was not formally impeached.
That said, the ethics of the conservative court justices and their biases are, well, unprecedented and are very much in question.
As such, the current conservative justices should likely take a moment to reflect on their ethics, the constitution, their oaths and the fact that Trump will not be around in three years to protect them.

Moving Forward

The fate of the Voting Rights Act rests in the hands of the Supreme Court, but the conversation must extend beyond the courtroom. Advocates for voting rights are urged to mobilize community members, push for state-level protections, and engage in proactive legislative measures to ensure access to the ballot remains a fundamental right for all.
So that means everyone!
Please contact them and share your thoughts on The Voting Rights Act:
General Contact Information:
U.S. Mail:Supreme Court of the United States1 First Street, NEWashington, DC 20543
Telephone: 202-479-3000TTY: 202-479-3472