Senior advisers to President Donald Trump are telling top Republican donors that two forthcoming Supreme Court rulings could significantly strengthen the GOP heading into the 2026 midterm elections—and potentially reshape the party’s electoral advantages for years to come.

According to people present at a Republican National Committee donor retreat over the weekend, Trump advisers Chris LaCivita and Tony Fabrizio said decisions involving political contribution limits and congressional redistricting have the potential to be “transformational” for Republicans, provided the Court rules in the party’s favor.

The advisers framed the cases as critical to the GOP’s long-term strategy and as developments that could influence both campaign fundraising and the balance of power in future House elections, Axios first reported.

The outlet added:

–LaCivita and Fabrizio — who steer the president’s cash-flush political operation and were senior strategists on his 2024 campaign — expressed confidence in the midterms despite doomsday projections about the party’s prospects.

–During a Q&A session with RNC chair Joe Gruters in New Orleans, LaCivita told donors the decisions by the conservative-led high court “have the ability to upend the political map,” a person in the session told Axios.

One of the cases is Louisiana v. Callais, while the second is called National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) v. Federal Election Commission (FEC), Axios reported.

In the first case, the Supreme Court is preparing to rule on a major case involving Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the provision that bars states from diluting minority voting power in congressional redistricting.

Section 2 has been the basis for creating “majority-minority” districts, which are designed to give voters in predominantly black or other minority communities the ability to elect candidates of their choice.

Republican officials have long argued that the law amounts to federal overreach and forces the creation of districts that disproportionately benefit Democrats, while unconstitutionally considering race as a primary factor. Democrats counter that Section 2 is essential to preventing racial discrimination in map-drawing and ensuring that minority voters receive fair representation in Congress, though they don’t address the constitutionality question.

The court’s decision is expected to have significant implications for future redistricting cycles and the partisan balance of the U.S. House.

Court analysts say that, based on the justices’ questioning during October’s oral arguments, a majority of the Supreme Court appeared open to weakening Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

Fair Fight Action, a left-wing voting-rights organization, has warned that if the court curtails or overturns the law, Republicans could move to eliminate as many as 19 Democratic-held majority-minority districts before the 2026 midterms — a shift the group says could “effectively cement one-party control of the U.S. House for at least a generation.”

“That, however, would require the court to rule quickly: Candidate filing deadlines in several states are coming up soon, and some already have passed,” Axios reported. “If the court overturns the law after next year’s filing deadlines, it would impact congressional line-drawing for the 2028 election.”

Oral arguments took place on Tuesday regarding the second case, where the justices will determine if a federal law restricting the spending of large party committees in direct coordination with preferred candidates should be abolished.

Republicans contend that the statute infringes on First Amendment protections and limits free political speech. Democrats counter that the law is essential for curbing corruption and preventing wealthy donors from channeling unlimited sums of money into individual campaigns.

The dispute is regarded as the most significant campaign-finance case to reach the Supreme Court since the 2010 Citizens United ruling, which removed limits on political spending by corporations, unions, and outside groups.

“Campaign finance experts predict Republicans would benefit more if the court overturns the law because the GOP relies heavily on billionaire mega-donors such as tech mogul Elon Musk, casino executive Miriam Adelson and hedge fund manager Ken Griffin,” Axios reported.