Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin has filed a motion to terminate a 35-year-old federal consent decree that created majority-Black judicial districts in the state. Griffin’s filing, submitted on Thursday, refers to recent legal developments, particularly the U.S. Supreme Court’s April decision in *Louisiana v. Callais* that narrowed the scope of the Voting Rights Act.

The 1991 decree established 10 judicial positions in predominantly Black subdistricts following a lawsuit by Black residents who argued that the state’s method of electing judges violated provisions of the Voting Rights Act. Griffin, a Republican, contends that the order is no longer legally or constitutionally justified.

“Significant changes in the law, as well as full compliance with the decree since its inception, warrant its termination,” Griffin wrote in his filing. He further argued that the decree is “premised on racial stereotypes” and “unconstitutionally divides voters by race.”

The filing has drawn sharp criticism from civil rights organizations. Barry Jefferson, president of the Arkansas State Conference of the NAACP, described Griffin’s move as “an attack on Black judges doing outstanding work across Arkansas.” Jefferson urged public resistance to prevent similar actions nationwide.

The NAACP Legal Defense Fund announced its intent to oppose Griffin’s motion. Senior counsel Kathryn Sadasivan said that before the decree, Arkansas had never elected a Black judge. “The justice system at the time was overseen by individuals who did not reflect the populations they served. This decree has fostered a more representative judiciary, which is crucial for the state,” Sadasivan added.

In his statement, Griffin pointed to the equal protection clause, claiming that the current system unfairly emphasizes racial considerations. He emphasized that any lingering effects of past discrimination had been addressed.

The next steps in this legal challenge remain unclear. However, the motion has reignited discussion in Arkansas over the role of the judiciary in ensuring fairness and representation. Civil rights advocates underscore the importance of maintaining systems that enable diverse judicial voices, while others argue that the decree’s relevance has diminished given changes in the legal landscape.

The federal judge overseeing the consent decree has not yet indicated when a decision might be made.