Full Breakdown
Supreme Court Vacates Mississippi and North Dakota Voting-Rights Cases After “Callais” Ruling
5/19/2026, 5:34:59 AM
Core Event: Supreme Court Sends Two Redistricting Cases Back to Lower Courts
On May 18 2026 the U.S. Supreme Court issued unsigned orders vacating and remanding two Section 2 Voting Rights Act (VRA) cases—*Mississippi Board of Election Commissioners v. NAACP* and *Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians et al. v. Howe*. The Court instructed the lower courts to reconsider the decisions in light of the April 2026 *Louisiana v. Callais* opinion, which narrowed the standard for proving intentional racial discrimination in redistricting.
Background & Context: “Callais” Narrows Section 2 Enforcement
*Louisiana v. Callais* held that plaintiffs must show a district was drawn with the purpose of discriminating on the basis of race, a higher bar than the prior “effects” test. The ruling also left unanswered whether private parties may sue under Section 2, a question that now underlies the Mississippi and North Dakota disputes.
Key Figures & Groups
- Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson – lone dissenter, arguing the Court should not have vacated the lower rulings.
- NAACP Mississippi State Conference 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.
- Native American Rights Fund (NARF) and Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights – representing the tribal plaintiffs.
- Governor Tate Reeves (Mississippi) – praised the decision.
Timeline
- April 2026 – Supreme Court decides *Louisiana v. Callais*, reshaping Section 2 jurisprudence.
- May 18 2026 – Court vacates and remands the Mississippi and North Dakota cases.
Data & Statistics
Legal scholars note that private plaintiffs have driven the vast majority of Section 2 litigation: since 1982, they were parties to 96.4 % of published decisions and the sole litigants in 86.7 % of those cases.
Why It Matters / Impact
By sending the cases back, the Court leaves the enforceability of Section 2 by private parties unresolved, potentially limiting future challenges to racially gerrymandered maps. The Mississippi order had created three new majority-Black state legislative districts; the North Dakota order protected tribal voting strength. Both could be altered, affecting representation ahead of the 2026 midterms and the 2028 elections.
Official Statements & Responses
- Justice Jackson warned that the Court’s action “spawns chaos” and undermines public confidence in the judiciary.
- Governor Reeves hailed the order as a reaffirmation that “race may not be considered in drawing legislative maps.”
- Lenny Powell (NARF) pledged continued litigation to protect Native-voter rights.
- Ellen Katz (University of Michigan Law School) emphasized the historic reliance on private lawsuits to enforce Section 2.
Criticism & Opposition
Justice Jackson’s dissent argued the Court ignored the core issue of private enforceability, a matter the *Callais* decision did not address. Advocacy groups, including the Lawyers’ Committee, condemned the vacatur as a “greenlight to racially gerrymander” and warned it could erode the VRA’s “crown-jewel” protections.
Verbatim Quotes
- “Public confidence is really all the judiciary has,” — Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson
- “Thus I see no basis for vacating the lower court’s judgment.” — Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson
- “keep fighting to ensure that Native voters have the ability to vote and effect change in their communities.” — Lenny Powell, attorney, Native American Rights Fund
- “The U.S. Supreme Court has again recognized that race may not be considered in drawing legislative maps. They also remanded this case back to the original three-judge panel—an opinion that we believe ultimately results in the 2022 legislative maps being reinstated,” — Governor Tate Reeves
What’s Next
The Southern District of Mississippi and the District of North Dakota must reassess the lower rulings under *Callais*. Both states are likely to revise their maps before the 2026 elections, while the Supreme Court may revisit the private-right question if lower courts again rule against the plaintiffs.
