The ruling does not ban minority-majority districts, most of which are in states not covered by pre-clearance. If a state tried to, say, split up the Memphis area into two 35%-black CDs (which likely would elect two white Democrats), the DOJ or the courts could block it under Section 2 of the VRA just as they always could (and since TN has never been a covered state, they couldn’t have used Section 5 anyhow).
And whileit is true that preclearance was a sword that forced states to create minority-majority districts, which resulted in RAT legislatures being forced to bleach surrounding districts in the ‘90s, which helped the GOP immensely in the covered states, preclearance has been a shield that has allowed GOP legislatures to claim that they were forced to draw 60%-black (and thus 75%-Democrat) districts that, in reality, they wanted to draw because it helped them win surrounding districts. The NC GOP couldn’t have drawn 10 GOP CDs to only 3 RAT CDs had it not drawn 2 black-majority districts.
So is this helpful at all? Meaningless? Symbolic? Slightly harmful?