In a brief unsigned order, the Supreme Court sent Mississippi and North Dakota redistricting cases back to lower courts to reconsider after its Louisiana v. Callais ruling weakened Voting Rights Act protections tied to racial discrimination in redistricting. T
Weeks after the Supreme Court further weakened the Voting Rights Act, the justices sidestepped a direct ruling that could sharply limit how much of the law still reaches the courts.
In a brief. unsigned order on Monday. the high court sent cases involving Mississippi and North Dakota state legislative maps back to lower courts for reconsideration in light of its recent ruling in Louisiana v.. Callais.. That April decision narrowed the Voting Rights Act’s protections against racial discrimination in redistricting. drawing renewed attention to the long-running gerrymandering fight ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.
Monday’s action effectively gives the court an off-ramp from what could have been the next major confrontation over the landmark 1965 law. The court did not take up a specific legal question tied to enforcement: whether there is a “private right of action” under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
Section 2 has been enforced largely through lawsuits brought by voters and advocacy groups. with hundreds of challenges targeting maps of voting districts and other election-related procedures.. But in the Mississippi and North Dakota redistricting disputes. Republican officials argued for a novel reading: that private individuals and groups cannot sue under Section 2. and that only the U.S.. attorney general may bring such actions.. If that interpretation prevailed, it would dramatically reduce the number of Section 2 lawsuits.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson pushed back in dissents from Monday’s order.. She argued that the Callais ruling did not resolve the separate question of Section 2’s enforceability by private individuals and groups.. “Thus I see no basis for vacating the lower court’s judgment. ” Jackson said. criticizing the court for throwing out earlier lower court rulings in both the Mississippi and North Dakota cases.
Enforcement pressure is not limited to Section 2.. A separate dispute over Section 208—another provision of the Voting Rights Act—has also raised questions about private enforcement.. Section 208 generally allows voters who need help to vote because of a disability or because they cannot read or write to receive assistance from a person of their choice.
In a case challenging an Arkansas law, a panel of the 8th U.S.. Circuit Court of Appeals found that private groups and individuals cannot sue to enforce Section 208.. In the North Dakota legislative redistricting case. that same appellate court also ruled against a private right of action under Section 2.
That has prompted further friction inside the appeals process.. In an opinion dissenting from the 8th Circuit’s decision not to review the panel’s decision in the Arkansas case. Chief Judge Steven Colloton—an appointee of former President George W.. Bush—wrote that the 8th Circuit is on a “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.’”
A Supreme Court brief in the Arkansas case is due Monday, as the justices prepare to decide—at some point—whether to take it up.
The pattern is straightforward: the Supreme Court used Louisiana v.. Callais as the reason to send Mississippi and North Dakota redistricting fights back down. while a separate enforcement question—whether private parties can sue under Section 2—remains unresolved. and the same private-enforcement issue is appearing in disputes about Section 208 in the 8th Circuit.
Supreme Court Voting Rights Act Louisiana v. Callais Mississippi redistricting North Dakota legislative maps Section 2 private right of action Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson Section 208 Arkansas law 8th Circuit Steven Colloton