Courts don't just resolve disputes; they set the terms of public debate. What happens in courtrooms matters enormously, but so does what people believe happened there.

Supreme Court decisions don't just settle legal questions; they signal what is acceptable, what is contestable, and what is off the table.

That is why the language that justices use to describe the scope of their decisions matters as much as the decisions themselves. That is also why, when one side works to minimize what a decision really means, that framing can be as damaging as the decision itself.

Conservative judges and lawyers often point out that the only thing the Supreme Court did in Citizens United was strike down a ban on corporate independent expenditures. Individuals, they note, were already constitutionally permitted under prior precedent to make unlimited independent expenditures.

When Justice Roberts gutted Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act in Shelby County, he claimed simply to be objecting to an outdated formula that determined which states were covered by its provisions. He assured us that the Court issued "no holding on §5 itself, only on the coverage formula. Congress may draft another formula based on current conditions."

In both instances, the truth turned out to be far different. Citizens United unleashed a torrent of money from all sources into our political system. Shelby County ushered in an era in which Republicans argue there is no longer any need to remedy racial discrimination.

It is tragically predictable that the recent decision in Callais will travel this same disingenuous path. In his opinion, Justice Alito went to great lengths to insist that he was simply "updating" the Section 2 "framework" to "align with the statutory text and reflect important developments."

Yet the truth is that he was rendering the former crown jewel of civil rights law a dead letter — creating conditions for minority voters and elected officials to be systematically targeted through redistricting, voter suppression, and racial discrimination.

And the Department of Justice isn’t wasting any time.

Already, Republicans seeking to undermine minority voting rights are using Callais to shift the Overton window. Leading this effort is the DOJ — an agency created after the Civil War specifically to protect the rights of the newly freed slaves and entrusted with defending voting rights ever since.

Since Donald Trump retook office, the DOJ has been weaponized against voting rights. Now, with Callais decided, it is poised to become far worse.

Despite Justice Alito's assurance that Section 2 remains constitutional, Todd Blanche, the acting attorney general, has publicly claimed otherwise. On Sunday, he asserted that Section 2 "was struck down by the Supreme Court" because it is not "consistent with our Constitution."

While Blanche’s assertion is false, it is a preview of the arguments to come — and a clear look into what we should expect from the DOJ.

After the decision was released, Sen. Eric Schmitt sent a letter to the department asking it to review all districts that might have been created under Section 2. In an ominous turn, he suggested starting with California.

Harmeet Dhillon, the assistant attorney general for civil rights, quickly took on the assignment. “Senator — we are ON IT!” Dhillion responded on social media.

Dhillon should know better. California's recently adopted map was found by federal courts to be a partisan, not racial, gerrymander.

Indeed, under the standard Justice Alito established, any challenge to that map would need to be accompanied by a proposed map achieving the same partisan outcomes as the existing one. In other words, it would have to be a pro-Democratic gerrymander. Donald Trump's DOJ will never do that. So, what is the game plan? 

Schmitt, Blanche and Dhillon want to go further — they are priming the public to believe that congressional maps in Democratic-controlled states are illegal and therefore illegitimate. That is how Republicans turn a damaging decision about the VRA into a broader assault on voting rights generally and ultimately try to delegitimize the results in 2026.

With the Trump Department of Justice, Republicans have the ultimate legal weapon to make that happen. 

At least for now, we cannot reverse the outcome of the Callais decision. That is something we will need a future Congress or Supreme Court to tackle.

We can, however, refuse to allow Republicans to weaponize this decision in further court cases and expand its reach in the public's consciousness. That means clearly defining what Callais is and is not.

It is the gutting of the last major protective provision of the Voting Rights Act, and it will diminish the ability of minority voters to elect their candidates of choice. That is a profound wrong, and it demands a strong legislative and electoral response.

However, despite what the DOJ may claim, Callais is not a permission slip to engage in voter suppression or intentional racial discrimination in voting. It is not an excuse to delegitimize minority candidates who win elections, nor the voters who support them. Most importantly, it is not the basis to question the outcome of elections in Democratic-controlled states.

There is no sugarcoating it. The Callais decision is morally and constitutionally wrong. But we cannot allow it to take on a cultural importance that legitimizes ever greater harm to minority communities and democracy itself.

Even as we deal with the immediate impact of the decision, even as we mourn the consequences, we must commit ourselves to challenge every bad faith claim that flows from this decision. That includes not only in court, in statehouses, and in Congress, but in the public square as well.