On Wednesday, after the Supreme Court ruled that the Fifteenth Amendment’s prohibition on intentional racial discrimination forbids race-based redistricting, former President Barack Obama issued a screed denouncing the decision that was, in turn, harshly criticized on social media.
“Today’s Supreme Court decision effectively guts a key pillar of the Voting Rights Act, freeing state legislatures to gerrymander legislative districts to systematically dilute and weaken the voting power of racial minorities – so long as they do it under the guise of ‘partisanship’ rather than explicit ‘racial bias,’” Obama wrote on X. “And it serves as just one more example of how a majority of the current Court seems intent on abandoning its vital role in ensuring equal participation in our democracy and protecting the rights of minority groups against majority overreach. The good news is that such setbacks can be overcome. But that will only happen if citizens across the country who cherish our democratic ideals continue to mobilize and vote in record numbers – not just in the upcoming midterms or in high profile races, but in every election and every level.”
Today’s Supreme Court decision effectively guts a key pillar of the Voting Rights Act, freeing state legislatures to gerrymander legislative districts to systematically dilute and weaken the voting power of racial minorities – so long as they do it under the guise of…
— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) April 29, 2026
The response came quickly:
You have absolutely lost your mind.
YOU were the guy who was supposed to get us PAST sorting people by race.
You said judge people by character not color.
Now you're calling it "voter suppression" when the Court strikes down a district drawn ENTIRELY BY SKIN COLOR??!!
The… pic.twitter.com/2NQ5Xq8Xmh
— Matt Van Swol (@mattvanswol) April 29, 2026
As with tour characterization of Citizens United, not true! Today’s voting-rights blockbuster was the right call and a victory for the colorblind Constitution. The bottom line is that the Voting Rights Act doesn’t require majority-minority districts and states can’t use race to…
— Ilya Shapiro (@ishapiro) April 29, 2026
I can’t imagine being a nations first black president and wanting to take them all the way backwards on race but if you like your garbage legacy you can KEEP your garbage legacy.
— Jimmy Failla (@jimmyfailla) April 29, 2026
It was pointed out that the districts as apportioned in Illinois, Obama’s home state, which is run by Democrats, are crazy:
lol. This is your home state pic.twitter.com/95DsjmFZox
— Megan Basham (@megbasham) April 29, 2026
As well as the current map of Lousiana’s districts, which is well-nigh ridiculous:
These are the 2 illegal racially gerrymandered districts that the Supreme Court overturned. Any fair map of Louisiana will look nothing like this 👇 pic.twitter.com/UOzzq2Hus4
— Izengabe (@Izengabe_) April 29, 2026
Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the court, stated, “Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was designed to enforce the Constitution — not collide with it. Unfortunately, lower courts have sometimes applied this Court’s precedents in a way that forces States to engage in the very race-based discrimination that the Constitution forbids.”
“Allowing race to play any part in government decision making represents a departure from the constitutional rule that applies in almost every other context,” he continued.
Obama’s denigrative use of the phrase “guise of partisanship” was a deliberate attempt to ignore that the Supreme Court opinion was in strict line with the fact that the United States is a constitutional republic. As Alito explained, “Disapproval of partisan gerrymandering dates back to the founding. But partisan gerrymandering claims are not justiciable in federal court. Thus, in considering the constitutionality of a districting scheme, courts must treat partisan advantage like any other race-neutral aim: a constitutionally permissible criterion that States may rely on as desired. For this reason, as we have repeatedly made clear, when a State defends a districting scheme on the ground that it was drawn for partisan purposes, plaintiffs have a ‘special’ burden to overcome.”
.png)
.png)
