Exclusive: Secret donors pumped millions into groups behind gutting of Black voting rights

Supreme Court Upholds Challenge to Louisiana Congressional Map in Voting Rights Act Dispute; Donor-Advised Fund Contributions to Amicus Filers Reported

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Louisiana v. Callais that a 2024 Louisiana congressional map creating a second majority-Black district constituted an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The decision addressed Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits voting practices that discriminate on the basis of race.

Seven nonprofit organizations that submitted amicus curiae briefs supporting the challenge to the map received nearly $105 million in contributions through donor-advised funds between 2021 and 2024, according to an analysis by True North Research, a progressive policy research organization. This amount represented approximately seven times the total such funding the same groups received in the prior three-year period. The America First Legal Foundation, co-founded in 2021 by Stephen Miller, Mark Meadows, and Gene Hamilton, accounted for more than $58 million of the total.

Donor-advised funds permit contributors to recommend grants while maintaining anonymity and receiving immediate tax deductions. The analysis examined contributions from entities including DonorsTrust, Donors Capital Fund, Fidelity Charitable, Vanguard Charitable, the National Christian Charitable Foundation, the Bradley Impact Fund, and others.

The 2022 Louisiana congressional map, drawn after the 2020 census, contained one majority-Black district out of six. A federal district court found that this configuration likely violated Section 2 given Louisiana’s Black population share of approximately one-third. The state legislature subsequently enacted a new map in 2024 that added a second majority-Black district. Plaintiffs in Callais argued that the revised map was drawn predominantly on the basis of race in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Supreme Court agreed with the plaintiffs. The majority opinion held that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act did not require the creation of the additional majority-Black district under the circumstances presented and that the map therefore could not be justified as a remedy for a Section 2 violation. The Court concluded that the predominant use of race in drawing the district lines rendered the map unconstitutional.

True North Research identified the seven organizations as the America First Legal Foundation, California Policy Center, Judicial Watch, Landmark Legal Foundation, Pacific Legal Foundation, Project on Fair Representation, and Public Interest Legal Foundation. All filed briefs questioning the application of Section 2 in the case. Amicus curiae briefs provide arguments and information to the Court from parties not directly involved in the litigation.

Alyssa Bowen, deputy executive director at True North Research, stated that the increase in funding coincided with the groups’ participation in the litigation and that donor-advised funds allow contributors to support policy advocacy without public disclosure of individual identities. Michael Beckel of Issue One, a nonprofit focused on campaign finance issues, noted that donor-advised funds shield donor identities while directing resources to organizations engaged in litigation and advocacy.

Several of the organizations responded to inquiries about the ruling and their funding. The Public Interest Legal Foundation issued a statement describing the prior map as drawn solely on the basis of race and stating that the Constitution prohibits racial discrimination in districting. Judicial Watch filed a subsequent brief urging the Court to prohibit the use of racial considerations in drawing majority-minority districts. The Pacific Legal Foundation described the decision as reinforcing the principle that the Constitution protects individual rights rather than group-based entitlements and stated that its contributions had increased across multiple sources in recent years.

The Public Interest Legal Foundation has received grants from DonorsTrust and the Bradley Foundation. It was previously chaired by Cleta Mitchell. Judicial Watch has conducted public records litigation resulting in the release of documents related to Hillary Clinton’s emails during her time as secretary of state. The Pacific Legal Foundation was founded by Edwin Meese III, who served as attorney general under President Ronald Reagan.

The article’s original framing described the ruling as a “gutting” of Black voting rights and characterized the organizations as “MAGA groups” and “far-right.” These characterizations have been removed. The Court’s holding rested on the determination that the challenged map was an impermissible racial gerrymander not required by Section 2, rather than on any finding that Black voters lacked equal opportunity to participate in the electoral process.

True North Research’s data on donor-advised fund transfers constitute one available accounting of contributions to the listed organizations. The organizations themselves have stated that they receive support from multiple sources aligned with their missions of constitutional litigation and policy advocacy. No equivalent comprehensive analysis of donor-advised fund contributions to organizations filing briefs on the opposing side of the case was included in the original reporting.

The Supreme Court’s opinion in Louisiana v. Callais addressed the narrow question of whether the specific district lines at issue could be sustained under the Equal Protection Clause once Section 2 was found not to compel the additional majority-Black district. The decision did not alter the statutory text of Section 2 or address other pending Voting Rights Act matters.