“They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit.” — Roger B. Taney, Chief Justice, Supreme Court, March 1857
There’s a story America likes to tell about itself, and it always starts the same way: The Civil War ended, the slaves were freed, the Constitution was amended, and the country marched, slowly, imperfectly, but bravely, toward equality. It’s a nice story. The kind of story you can put in a textbook without frightening the children or upsetting the donors. “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”
But the real story, the one buried under monuments and myths and Supreme Court opinions, is much simpler: every time Black people gained political power, white institutions found a new way to take it back. And when the Klan’s night riders became too embarrassing to the national brand, the job was handed to a more respectable institution, one with better robes, better stationery, and a lifetime appointment. This is the story of how the Supreme Court became the most effective successor the Ku Klux Klan ever had.
Not because the justices share the Klan’s ideology — though some rulings make you wonder — but because the Court has repeatedly done, with legal language and constitutional footnotes, what the Klan once tried to do with torches and rope: decide who gets to vote, who gets to govern, and who gets disappeared from the map.
And nowhere is that clearer than in the decade‑plus since 2013, when the Court began dismantling the Voting Rights Act with the same quiet efficiency the Klan once used to dismantle Reconstruction.
Press enter or click to view image in full size
John Roberts /Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from Washington D.C, United States, CC BY 2.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0>, via Wikimedia Commons
- The First Time the Klan Lost, the Court Stepped In
Let’s start with Reconstruction, because that’s where the pattern begins.
After the Civil War, Black men voted, held office, built schools, ran newspapers, and reshaped the South. The Klan responded with terror, nightly, organized, systematic. Congress responded with the Enforcement Acts. And for a brief moment, the federal government actually protected Black citizens. But then came the Supreme Court.
In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Court overturned the convictions of white men who massacred Black voters in Colfax, Louisiana. The ruling essentially said: If a mob murders Black people for voting, that’s a state problem, not a federal one. The Klan didn’t need to respond to their convictions. The Court had done it for them.
In The Civil Rights Cases (1883), the Court struck down federal protections against racial discrimination. In Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), it legalized segregation.
By 1900, the Klan was in decline — not because racism had faded, but because the Supreme Court had made the Klan’s goals legal. Why risk a hood and a rope when the Court would do the job in daylight?
- The Voting Rights Act Was the First Time the Court Was Forced to Behave
Fast‑forward to 1965.
After a century of poll taxes, literacy tests, lynchings, and courthouse beatings, the Voting Rights Act finally put federal muscle behind Black voting rights. It was the first time since Reconstruction that the federal government said: No, really. We mean it this time.
And for a while, the Court played along. Not enthusiastically, but enough to avoid looking like the villain in the national story.
Then 2013 arrived.
III. Shelby County v. Holder (2013): The Day the Court Gave the Klan Its Job Back
If you want to understand modern voter suppression, start with Shelby County v. Holder. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion, but the logic could have been drafted in a 1920s Klan lodge:
“The country has changed.”
Translation: Racism is over, so we can stop checking whether states are discriminating.
The Court gutted Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act — the part that required states with a history of discrimination to get federal approval before changing voting laws.
Within hours, states began passing laws that had been blocked for years:
- strict voter ID
- polling place closures
- purges of voter rolls
- cuts to early voting
- new gerrymanders targeting Black districts
The Klan never moved that fast.
- Abbott v. Perez (2018): Intent Doesn’t Matter If You Pretend Not to See It
Texas had drawn maps that a lower court found were intentionally discriminatory. The Supreme Court looked at the same evidence and said:
“We presume good faith.”
Good faith. From a state that had been caught discriminating in every decade since Reconstruction.
This was the judicial equivalent of a police officer watching a man break into a house and saying, “Well, maybe he lives there.”
The Klan used to burn crosses to intimidate Black voters. The Court just rewrote the standard of proof.
- Brnovich v. DNC (2021): Discrimination Is Fine If It’s Inconvenient to Fix
In Brnovich, the Court upheld Arizona laws that disproportionately harmed Native and Black voters. But the real damage was the new “guideposts” the Court invented — criteria so vague and so tilted toward states that they might as well have been written on a napkin at a Federalist Society happy hour.
Among them:
- If a law existed in 1901, discrimination today would be less suspicious.
- If fixing discrimination is “administratively inconvenient,” states don’t have to.
- If the burden is “modest,” discrimination is acceptable.
Modest. Like closing 80% of polling places in Black neighborhoods. Like rejecting mail ballots for technicalities that white voters rarely encounter.
The Klan used to block the courthouse door. The Court just moved the door.
- Merrill v. Milligan (2023): A Brief, Accidental Moment of Sanity
In a surprise twist, the Court ruled that Alabama had violated the Voting Rights Act by refusing to draw a second majority‑Black district.
For a moment, people thought the Court had rediscovered the concept of racial discrimination. But the victory was temporary. Because the Court was already preparing its next move.
VII. Alexander v. South Carolina NAACP (2024): Gerrymandering Is Fine If You Don’t Say the Quiet Part Out Loud
South Carolina had drawn a map that surgically removed Black voters from a competitive district. The evidence was overwhelming.
The Court responded with a new rule:
If a state claims it was discriminating for partisan reasons, not racial ones, courts must accept that explanation unless the plaintiffs can read the map‑drawer’s mind.
This is the judicial equivalent of saying:
“If you say you didn’t mean to hit him, it’s not assault.”
The Klan used to hide behind hoods. The Court lets states hide behind “partisanship.”
VIII. Louisiana v. Callais (2026): The Court Finishes the Job
And then came Callais.
The Court ruled that states could draw maps that dilute Black voting power as long as the state claims it was following “traditional districting principles.”
Traditional. Like the traditions that kept Black people from voting for a century.
The decision effectively ended Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act as a tool for challenging racial gerrymandering.
The Klan used to redraw maps with violence. The Court does it with a PDF.
- The Pattern Is the Point
If you step back, the pattern is unmistakable:
- When Black people gained power during Reconstruction, the Klan attacked.
- When the Klan became too obvious, the Court stepped in.
- When the Voting Rights Act forced the Court to behave, it complied — grudgingly.
- When the Court regained a conservative majority, it resumed the work the Klan once did.
Not with hoods. Not with torches. Not with lynch mobs.
But with:
- doctrines
- guideposts
- presumptions of good faith
- deference to states
- invented standards
- and a 6–3 vote
The Klan wanted to stop Black people from voting. The Court found a legal way to limit voting.
The Klan wanted to redraw districts to preserve white power. The Court blessed the practice as “partisan.”
The Klan wanted to intimidate Black political participation. The Court simply made participation meaningless.
The Klan used violence. The Court uses jurisprudence.
Different tools. Same outcomes.
- The Court Doesn’t Need to Hate You to Erase You
Here’s the part people don’t like to admit:
The Supreme Court doesn’t need to share the Klan’s ideology to produce the Klan’s results.
All it needs is:
- a belief in state sovereignty
- a suspicion of federal oversight
- a romanticized view of the Constitution
- and a willingness to pretend racism is either over or irrelevant
The Klan believed Black political power was a threat. The Court believes Black political power is a “racial classification.”
The Klan wanted to preserve white rule. The Court wants to preserve “race‑neutrality.”
The Klan used fear. The Court uses abstraction.
But the effect is the same: Black voters lose power. White voters gain it. And the country pretends it’s all just constitutional interpretation.
- The Only Question Left Is Whether We’re Ready
The Klan is not coming back. It doesn’t need to.
Its goals have been absorbed into the machinery of American law, refined into doctrines, polished into opinions, and delivered with the solemnity of judicial review.
The next decade of voting rights will not be decided by night riders. It will be decided by:
- redistricting commissions
- state legislatures
- federal courts
- and a Supreme Court that has already shown us exactly who it is
The only question is whether we will be ready.
Will You Be Ready When Jim Crow 2.0 Comes? | by William Spivey | The Polis | May, 2026 | Medium
Because if we treat redistricting as something that happens to us instead of something we must respond to, we will be exactly where the architects of disenfranchisement want us:
unprepared, unorganized, and left behind.
The map is always being drawn. The Court is always watching. And the people who want us gone are always planning ahead.
The only way not to disappear from the map is to show up before the ink dries.
—
This post was previously published on MEDIUM.COM.
—
If you believe in the work we are doing here at The Good Men Project, please join us as a Premium Member today.
All Premium Members get to view The Good Men Project with NO ADS.
Need more info? A complete list of benefits is here.
—
Photo credit: iStock.com
