'I love it!': Trump applauds SCOTUS ruling against using race in redistricting

Speaking from the Oval Office on Wednesday, Trump expressed support for the Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling earlier in the day that using race as a determining factor in redistricting efforts is unconstitutional.

Trump was asked about his reaction to the ruling, and he asked the reporter who the Supreme Court's ruling was considered a win for. When the reporter said it was considered a win for Republicans, Trump replied, "I love it." He joked, "This is very good, we can end this news conference right now. I want to read it, wow."

When asked what Republican governors should do in the wake of the ruling, including whether a new map should be drawn, considering early voting begins in Louisiana on Saturday, Trump replied, "I would. I mean, it depends. I mean, some states don't need to redraw, and some do. I mean, I know what the concept of the rule—I just haven't seen the result. Yeah. I would say generally I would think that they would want to do it some are greatly helped and some, you know, it didn't make much difference. Yeah. I would say they would do that. They have time to do it."

The Supreme Court ruling on Wednesday morning came in response to a case out of Louisiana. The state had originally drawn a map after the 2020 census that contained one black-majority district out of its six districts. A lower court ruled that the map violated the Voting Rights Act, and when the state redrew the map in 2024, it had two black-majority districts.

The court ruled that "Because the Voting Rights Act did not require Louisiana to create an additional majority-minority district, no compelling interest justified the State’s use of race in creating SB8, and that map is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander."

Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the court, "In sum, because the Voting Rights Act did not require Louisiana to create an additional majority-minority district, no compelling interest justified the State’s use of race in creating SB8. That map is an unconstitutional gerrymander, and its use would violate the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights."