Trump’s DOJ Goes to War Against Race-Based Voting: Assistant AG Harmeet Dhillon and Solicitor General John Sauer Argue Before Supreme Court to ABOLISH Rigged Voting Rights Act Districts | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hᴏft

In a pivotal moment that may redefine the landscape of American electoral politics, President Trump’s Department of Justice (DOJ), represented by Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon and Solicitor General John Sauer, presented a compelling argument to the U.S. Supreme Court calling for the end of race-based congressional districts.

The case, State of Louisiana v. Phillip Callais (alongside Press Robinson v. Phillip Callais), arises from Louisiana lawmakers’ controversial decision, allegedly influenced by left-leaning judicial opinions, to establish a second “majority-minority” congressional district.

The DOJ’s brief delivered a clear message: the Voting Rights Act (VRA) should not be misused as a means of perpetuating racial gerrymandering.

“In today’s proceedings at the Supreme Court, the [DOJ Civil Rights Division] made it clear that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act does not constitutionally support districts primarily determined by race!” Dhillon remarked on social media platform X.

In today’s proceedings at SCOTUS, the @CivilRights underscored that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act does not constitutionally support districts primarily determined by race! pic.twitter.com/6uWrzNs9Eq

— AAGHarmeetDhillon (@AAGDhillon) September 25, 2025

Directly from their submission: “Section 2 fails to substantiate a compelling interest in drawing districts where race is the predominant determining factor.”

The brief critiques the antiquated “Gingles framework” established in the 1986 Thornburg v. Gingles ruling, which has allowed courts to impose districts obsessively centered on race.

Sauer and his colleagues highlighted that lower courts have “repeatedly” misapplied this framework to enforce racial gerrymandering even in the absence of any demonstrated discrimination.

“Lower courts have consistently interpreted this Court’s framework… to mandate States to draw district lines where race supersedes neutral districting principles as a remedy for alleged violations of Section 2’s “results” test,” the brief asserted.

Moreover, they contend that this interpretation effectively transforms the VRA into a mechanism that detaches the statute from its original objective of exposing discriminatory voting practices, compelling racial gerrymandering instead. While perhaps constitutionally questionable at the time of the “results” test’s inception in 1982, its unconstitutionality is indisputably clearer today. Current electoral contexts do not warrant such an undue focus on race.

The DOJ posits that Democrats and activist judges have weaponized Section 2 of the VRA to generate “phantom statutory violations,” coercing states like Louisiana into constitutional infringements to satisfy race-centric agendas.

The DOJ advocates for a significant reform: to modify the Gingles ruling to more accurately reflect the text of the law and mitigate these “fundamental constitutional issues.”

Here are the main critiques lodged against the current legal landscape:

1. No More Race-First Districts Without Proof: Plaintiffs need to demonstrate that any proposed majority-minority district represents a “superior” alternative to the state’s electoral map based on race-neutral criteria, including political objectives. Assumptions of racism in the absence of evidence are no longer acceptable.
2. Decouple Race from Party: The brief criticizes courts for permitting Democrats to shield their electoral strategies behind claims of “polarized voting,” which often merely reflect partisan differences. “Plaintiffs must separate party affiliation from race when assessing whether majority and minority voters exhibit varying voting patterns,” asserts the document. The era of leveraging black voters’ strong support for Democrats as a pretext for gerrymandering must end.
3. Concrete Evidence of Discrimination Required: Echoing the principles established in Shelby County v. Holder (which dismantled arcane provisions of the VRA in 2013), the DOJ contends that today’s conditions do not justify these practices. With record voter turnout and significant minority electoral success—including increased representation in Congress—the rationale for such race-based districting practices has eroded.

You can access the full brief below: