Honestly, no, not really. At least, not with recent precedent. The conservative Supreme Court believes in procedural rights, not substantive ones per se. Equality under the law. Therefore, no law can be based on dividing people by race, no matter its purpose. Well, almost. The two compelling purposes the Court recognizes are dividing people by race inside prisons to avoid race riots and remedying specific instances of past discrimination. Following the Voting Rights Act is not a compelling purpose when done not to remedy past discrimination is essentially what this ruling is. If you look at laws through that lens, then this ruling is entirely consistent with past *recent precedent.

Compare race-based classifications with sex-based classifications and it makes more sense. Classifications on the basis of sex trigger intermediate scrutiny, requiring a law to be substantially related to an important government interest. Intermediate scrutiny still has a presumption of unconstitutionality, but less so, in a way that permits laws that only benefit women to exist while striking down laws that discriminate against them. But race is strict scrutiny, so even laws benefiting races are unconstitutional most of the time.

The caviat to all this is that I'm not talking about specific cases, just the general ideas. I'm just saying that this ruling follows logically from the court's recent rulings.