NEW: SCOTUS Liberals ‘Slow Walking’ Decision To Help Democrats In Midterms, ‘Reliable Sources’ Say

Former White House press secretary Sean Spicer, citing a source familiar with the matter, indicated that left-wing justices on the U.S. Supreme Court are “slow-walking” a massive Voting Rights Act case that could have far-reaching implications on the 2026 midterm elections.

“I have been told by reliable sources that the decision is done and the minority is slow walking the dissent so that states do not have time to redistrict,” Spicer said during a recent installment of “The Huddle.”

The Supreme Court typically issues opinions in argued cases by the end of its term in late June or early July. With reargument having occurred in October 2025 and no decision released as of mid-April 2026, a ruling is possible in the coming weeks or by the end of the current term.

Because candidate filing deadlines for the 2026 elections in Louisiana and other states are approaching or have passed in some places, any decision issued after spring 2026 would likely come too late to require new maps for the 2026 midterms, however. The existing maps would therefore remain in effect for those elections, with any broader changes applying to future cycles.

.@seanspicer Reporting on SCOTUS decision on voting rights: “I have been told by reliable sources that that decision is done and the minority is slow walking the dissent so that states do not have time to redistrict.” pic.twitter.com/K81LzH9W8E

— The Huddle (@theDChuddle) April 16, 2026

Expanding upon a Louisiana-based case that is already on the docket, justices said last year that they will consider arguments that the 1965 Voting Rights Act no longer provides a legitimate basis for map creators to intentionally craft majority Black or majority Hispanic districts. The ruling could also impact state and local legislative maps.

As of the 2022 midterm elections, the U.S. House had 11 majority Black and 31 majority Hispanic districts. Ahead of the 2024 election cycle, the high court issued a ruling on the issue in Allen v. Milligan, a case brought after the Republican-controlled legislature drew a congressional map that left just one majority black district in the state.

Civil rights groups, including the Alabama State Conference of the NAACP, challenged the map, arguing it violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA)  by diluting Black voting power through “packing” Black voters into one district and “cracking” others across multiple districts.

In a 5-4 ruling, the Court upheld a lower court’s decision that found Alabama’s map had likely violated the VRA. The ruling required Alabama to draw a second majority black district, resulting in a Democrat pickup in 2024.

The case also had an effect on a similar case in Louisiana, prompting the state to draw a second majority black district as well, which had the same effect as it did in Alabama.

On March 24, 2025, the Court heard arguments in Louisiana v. Callais. That case questions whether creating a second majority-Black district to comply with the VRA violates the 14th or 15th Amendments by prioritizing race.Conservative justices, including Justices Roberts and Kavanaugh, both go whom supported the Milligan ruling, expressed skepticism about the new map’s less compact district shapes, suggesting a potential shift.

Last August, the court signaled another potential shift by ordering additional briefing on the constitutionality of intentionally drawing districts on the basis of race, signaling a broader review that could weaken Section 2 protections. Additional arguments in the case are expected to be heard this upcoming fall.

A decision limiting the ability to create majority-minority districts to comply with the VRA could weaken Section 2 protections nationwide, affecting redistricting in a number of states. The conservative Supreme Court majority has historically been skeptical of race-based policies, and Justice Clarence Thomas has openly questioned the constitutionality of Section 2 in redistricting.

Depending on the scope of a ruling on race-based districts, it could dramatically alter the 2026 midterm elections and influence control of Congress for years to come.

RELATED: SCOTUS Strikes Down Blue State Law With 8-1 Ruling