Full Breakdown
Supreme Court Returns Mississippi and North Dakota Voting-Rights Cases to Lower Courts After Louisiana Ruling
5/19/2026, 1:57:06 AM
Supreme Court Sends Cases Back for Reconsideration
On May 18 2026 the U.S. Supreme Court issued unsigned orders vacating district-court rulings in Mississippi and North Dakota that had found state legislative maps in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA). The Court directed the lower courts to reassess the cases in light of its April 2026 decision in *Louisiana v. Callais*, which narrowed the scope of Section 2. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson filed a dissent in each order.
Background: *Louisiana v. Callais* Redefines Section 2
In April 2026 the Court held that Section 2 does not require states to create majority-minority districts and that plaintiffs must prove an intentional racial motive rather than merely a disparate impact. The ruling raised the evidentiary bar for VRA challenges and excluded race-based considerations from redistricting decisions, prompting the Court to revisit pending cases that relied on earlier interpretations.
Key Parties and Legal Stakes
- Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson – dissenting Justice.
- Mississippi NAACP chapter and 14 individual voters – plaintiffs in the Mississippi case.
- Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians, Spirit Lake Tribe and three Native American voters – plaintiffs in the North Dakota case.
- Attorney General Lynn Fitch and Mississippi Republican officials – argued that only the Attorney General may enforce Section 2.
- Lenny Powell, attorney for the Native American Rights Fund – representing tribal plaintiffs.
Data on Private Enforcement of Section 2
- Since 1982, private plaintiffs participated in 96 % of Section 2 cases that produced published decisions.
- Private parties were the sole litigants in 86.7 % of those opinions.
- Over 400 private-plaintiff cases have been decided on Section 2 claims, compared with roughly 40 cases brought by the Department of Justice.
Official Statements & Responses
Justice Jackson’s dissent emphasized that the *Callais* opinion did not address private enforceability, and therefore the lower judgments should not have been vacated. Mississippi officials maintained that Congress intended the Attorney General, not private parties, to enforce Section 2. Lenny Powell described the remand as “the right call” and pledged to continue fighting for Native voting rights. Damon Hewitt of the Lawyers’ Committee warned that the *Callais* decision endangers three upcoming majority-Black state legislative districts.
Criticism & Opposition
Chief Judge Steven Colloton (8th Circuit) called the appellate trend a “regrettable path of rendering unenforceable… the voting rights law that many have considered ‘the most successful civil rights statute in the history of the Nation.’”
Mississippi Republican Party Chairman Mike Hurst expressed disappointment that the Court did not resolve the private-right question.
North Carolina Rep. Rodney Pierce labeled the weakened VRA “a meaningless law with no teeth.”
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
The Supreme Court’s orders explicitly avoided deciding whether private parties retain a right of action under Section 2, leaving the legal question unresolved. Lower courts must now interpret how *Callais* applies to the private-enforceability issue, creating uncertainty for future VRA litigation.
Verbatim Quotes
- “Thus I see no basis for vacating the lower court’s judgment.” — Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson
- “This case presents only the question of Section 2’s private enforceability, which our decision in Louisiana v. Callais … did not address,” — Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson
- “keep fighting to ensure that Native voters have the ability to vote and effect change in their communities.” — Lenny Powell, Native American Rights Fund
- “regrettable path of rendering unenforceable, in this circuit alone, the voting rights law that many have considered 'the most successful civil rights statute in the history of the Nation.'” — Chief Judge Steven Colloton
- “a meaningless law with no teeth.” — Rodney Pierce, North Carolina state Rep.
What’s Next
The remanded cases will be briefed on how *Callais* influences private-right enforceability. Parallel challenges to congressional and state legislative maps are expected across the South, and advocacy groups have signaled intensified litigation ahead of the 2026 midterms. The Supreme Court may eventually address the private-right question if lower courts produce divergent rulings.
