WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Supreme Court justices on Monday signaled they are likely to leave in place a lower-court’s ruling that Virginia’s Republican-led legislature unlawfully considered race when drawing U.S. congressional districts by packing black voters into one of them. The court heard oral arguments in the case at a time when Democrats are accusing Republicans in various states of taking actions to reduce the influence of black, Hispanic and other voters who often favor Democrats. The focus of the case is on the composition of the majority-black U.S. House of Representatives district held by Democrat Bobby Scott, the only black member of Virginia’s congressional delegation. The eight justices, down one following the Feb. 13 death of conservative Antonin Scalia, heard an appeal by current and former Republican House members challenging the June 2015 lower court ruling that threw out the district. Following that ruling, some black voters from Scott’s district were moved to an adjoining district, which is currently represented by white Republican Randy Forbes, one of the challengers in the case. This is likely to make the district a possible Democratic pickup in the Nov. 8 election. Without Scalia, the court could split 4-4 with its four liberals on one side and four conservatives on the other, which would leave intact the lower-court decision. None of the court’s liberals indicated they are likely to back the Republican challengers. The court may not even decide the merits of the case. The justices could instead rule that House members from adjoining districts do not have legal standing to challenge new boundary lines that imperil their re-election prospects. Some of the justices signaled hostility to the idea that elected House members should receive legal protection when their ability to win re-election is put in doubt. “This is now an incumbency-protection standing rule,” liberal Sonia Sotomayor said of the challengers’ legal argument. Liberal Elena Kagan said even if lawmakers suffered an injury, the question remains whether they have a “legally recognized interest” in their re-election prospects. Several voters in Scott’s district challenged the redistricting plan, approved by the Republican-led legislature in 2012, saying it minimized minority voting power in violation of the federal Voting Rights Act and the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection under the law. The voters who brought the case in 2013 argued that the district that Scott represents, stretching from Richmond to Norfolk, was racially “gerrymandered,” cramming black voters into it and reducing black influence in neighboring districts. A ruling is due by the end of June. The case is Wittman v. Personhuballah, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 14-1504. 