The Supreme Court vacated VRA Section 2 redistricting wins in Mississippi and North Dakota, remanding both under Callais and drawing a dissent from Justice Jackson.
The Supreme Court issued unsigned orders Monday vacating lower-court redistricting victories for minority plaintiffs in two states and remanding both cases for reconsideration under its April 29 decision in *Louisiana v. Callais* [1]. The orders reached cases in Mississippi and North Dakota, unraveling prior wins before plaintiffs have had any opportunity to defend them under the new analytical framework [2]. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented from both orders [1].
The two cases, *State Board of Election Commissioners v. NAACP* and *Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians v. Howe*, had produced favorable rulings for minority plaintiffs under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act [3]. The Court disposed of both through grant-vacate-remand orders, a procedural mechanism that requires no full briefing or argument and carries no signed majority opinion [1]. The Mississippi case returns to a federal district court for the second time following Supreme Court intervention [2].
Jackson's dissent draws a line the majority declined to address. She argued that *Callais* resolved questions about racial predominance in legislative line-drawing but left untouched the distinct question of whether private parties hold a right of action to enforce Section 2 at all [1]. That question, unresolved by *Callais*, now sits embedded in both remands, and lower courts must navigate it without Supreme Court guidance [3]. The practical effect is that minority plaintiffs who had already litigated to victory must re-litigate their claims before courts that may dismiss them entirely on standing grounds before reaching the merits [1].
The significance extends beyond Mississippi and North Dakota. *Callais* now operates as a vehicle to unwind Section 2 litigation across multiple jurisdictions [3]. Both remanded cases arise in circuits, the 5th and 8th, where redistricting litigation has historically provided the primary enforcement mechanism for minority voting rights [2]. With the 2026 midterm election cycle underway, district courts face compressed timelines to reconsider remedial maps, adding logistical pressure to an already unsettled legal landscape [3].
The lower courts must now determine whether *Callais* forecloses the specific claims before them and, separately, whether any private right of action survives under current doctrine [1]. If either district court dismisses on private-right-of-action grounds, the question Jackson flagged would ripen for the Supreme Court's consideration in a future term [3].