Supreme Court weighs the future of the Voting Rights Act in Louisiana v. Callais

Overview

Mississippi has been drawing its three Supreme Court districts the same way since 1987. On April 25, 2026, Governor Tate Reeves signed a proclamation that puts the legislature on a 21-day timer the moment the U.S. Supreme Court rules in Louisiana v. Callais. Whatever framework the justices adopt for race in redistricting, Mississippi will use it to redraw judicial maps a federal judge has already declared illegal.

Why it matters

If the Court limits Section 2, Black voters lose the main legal lever for challenging maps that dilute their political power in dozens of states.

Key Indicators

1987

Year Mississippi Supreme Court districts last drawn

Three districts, each electing three justices, with no majority-Black voting age population in any.

21 days

Trigger window after Callais ruling

Mississippi legislature must convene a special session within 21 days of the Supreme Court decision.

June 2026

Expected Callais decision

The Supreme Court's term ends in late June; the case has been pending since March 2025.

Section 2

VRA provision under review

Bans voting practices that deny or abridge the right to vote on account of race.

Nov 2026

Mississippi special judicial elections

Federal court ordered new districts in place before then to remedy the Section 2 violation.

Interactive

Exploring all sides of a story is often best achieved with Play.

Ever wondered what historical figures would say about today's headlines?

Debate Arena

Two rounds, two personas, one winner. You set the crossfire.

People Involved

Tate Reeves

Issued proclamation triggering special session pending Callais ruling

Sharion Aycock

Ruled Mississippi Supreme Court map violates Section 2

Brett Kavanaugh

Pivotal vote in Callais; questioned whether Section 2 should have a time limit

John G. Roberts Jr.

Authored Milligan; defended traditional Section 2 framework at oral argument

Janai S. Nelson

Argued Callais defending Section 2

Organizations Involved

Supreme Court of the United States

Federal Judiciary

Reviewing Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in Louisiana v. Callais

The Court reargued Callais in October 2025 after expanding the question to whether intentionally drawing a second majority-Black district violates the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments.

Mississippi Legislature

State Legislature

On standby for special session 21 days after Callais ruling

The legislature has not redrawn the state Supreme Court districts since 1987 and missed the 2026 regular session deadline that the federal court had set for compliance.

Mississippi NAACP and civil rights coalition

Civil Rights Plaintiffs

Won Section 2 ruling at trial; awaiting Fifth Circuit and Callais

A coalition of plaintiffs who won the August 2025 trial ruling that Mississippi's Supreme Court districts dilute Black voting power.

Timeline

Mississippi proclamation announced publicly
Statement

Reeves publicly ties the special session to whatever framework the Supreme Court adopts in Callais.
Today
Reeves signs special session proclamation
Executive Action

Governor commits Mississippi legislature to convene 21 days after the Supreme Court rules in Callais.
Yesterday
Mississippi special elections ordered
Legal

District court orders special judicial elections in November 2026 under a new remedial map.
December 1st, 2025
Callais reargued on broader question
Legal

Kavanaugh probes whether Section 2 should have a time limit; Roberts defends the existing framework.
October 15th, 2025
Federal court rules Mississippi map illegal
Legal

Judge Aycock rules the 1987 Supreme Court districts violate Section 2 and orders new lines drawn.
August 1st, 2025
Court orders Callais reargument
Legal

Justices broaden the question to whether intentionally drawing a majority-Black district is constitutional.
June 27th, 2025
Callais first oral argument
Legal

Supreme Court hears initial argument on Louisiana's second majority-Black congressional district.
March 24th, 2025
Mississippi judicial districts trial
Legal

U.S. District Judge Sharion Aycock holds bench trial in the Northern District of Mississippi.
August 1st, 2024
Allen v. Milligan upholds Section 2
Legal

Supreme Court rules 5-4 that Alabama's congressional map likely violates Section 2, preserving the framework.
June 8th, 2023
Mississippi NAACP files Section 2 suit
Legal

Coalition challenges the 1987 Supreme Court district map as diluting Black voting power.
December 1st, 2022
Shelby County v. Holder ends preclearance
Legal

Supreme Court strikes down the VRA's coverage formula, ending federal preclearance of voting changes.
June 25th, 2013
Mississippi draws current Supreme Court districts
Redistricting

Three districts, each electing three justices, drawn with no majority-Black voting age population.
January 1st, 1987
Thornburg v. Gingles establishes the framework
Legal

Supreme Court sets the three-prong test still used to evaluate vote dilution claims under Section 2.
June 30th, 1986
Section 2 amended to a results test
Legislation

Congress rewrites Section 2 so plaintiffs need only show discriminatory effects, not intent.
June 29th, 1982
Voting Rights Act enacted
Legislation

Congress passes the VRA, with Section 2 banning voting practices that deny or abridge rights based on race.
August 6th, 1965

Scenarios

Court strikes down Section 2 results test; states redraw without race remedies

Discussed by: Stanford Center for Racial Justice, Brennan Center, NAACP Legal Defense Fund

A majority adopts the broader Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendment ruling the Court asked the parties to brief, holding that intentionally drawing majority-minority districts is unconstitutional. Mississippi's special session redraws the Supreme Court map without race-conscious adjustments, and the Aycock ruling is vacated on appeal. Similar challenges in Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, and Texas collapse. Voting rights groups warn this would end the principal tool used since 1982 to challenge vote dilution.

Court narrows Section 2 with a time limit or higher proof bar

Discussed by: Quarles Law Firm analysis, Harvard Undergraduate Law Review, Constitutional Law Reporter

The Court imposes a sunset on race-based remedies (echoing Kavanaugh's question) or tightens the Gingles preconditions. Mississippi's special session draws a remedial map under a tougher standard, possibly without a majority-Black district but with adjustments to district lines. The Fifth Circuit applies the new test on remand. Plaintiffs would need to show more recent or stronger evidence of racially polarized voting to prevail in future suits.

Court reaffirms Section 2; Mississippi creates majority-Black judicial district

Discussed by: ACLU, Mississippi Center for Justice, Democracy Docket

The Court declines to reach the broader constitutional question and reaffirms the Milligan framework. Mississippi's special session draws a District 1 with a Black voting age majority, anchored in Jackson and the Delta, in time for the November 2026 special elections. Other Section 2 cases pending in the Fifth and Eleventh Circuits move forward under existing law.

Court splits or delays; Mississippi elections proceed under disputed map

Discussed by: SCOTUSblog, Mississippi Today

The justices fragment without a majority opinion, or punt with a remand for further factual development. The Fifth Circuit's stay continues, the Aycock remedy order is delayed, and Mississippi holds 2026 judicial elections under the 1987 map while litigation continues. A clearer ruling could come in a future term.

Historical Context

Thornburg v. Gingles (1986)

June 1986

What Happened

The Supreme Court interpreted the 1982 Section 2 amendments and laid out a three-part test for vote dilution claims: a minority group must be sufficiently large and compact to form a majority in a district, be politically cohesive, and face white bloc voting that usually defeats its preferred candidates. The case involved North Carolina state legislative districts.

Outcome

Short Term

Six of seven challenged North Carolina districts were struck down. Plaintiffs across the South began winning Section 2 cases against multimember districts and at-large elections.

Long Term

The Gingles framework became the workhorse standard for forty years of vote dilution litigation, including Allen v. Milligan and the Mississippi judicial districts case.

Why It's Relevant Today

Callais directly questions whether the Gingles framework, and the race-conscious remedies it implies, can survive under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.

Shelby County v. Holder (2013)

June 2013

What Happened

By a 5-4 vote written by Chief Justice Roberts, the Supreme Court struck down the VRA's coverage formula, which had required nine states (mostly in the South) to get federal approval before changing voting rules. The Court did not strike Section 5 itself but disabled it without an updated formula.

Outcome

Short Term

Within hours, Texas announced it would enforce a voter ID law previously blocked. Other covered states moved quickly on voting changes that no longer required preclearance.

Long Term

Section 2 became the primary federal tool for challenging discriminatory voting practices—exactly the tool now under review in Callais.

Why It's Relevant Today

Callais could complete what Shelby began, leaving Section 2 narrowed or unavailable just as preclearance was.

Allen v. Milligan (2023)

June 2023

What Happened

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that Alabama's 2021 congressional map likely violated Section 2 by packing and cracking Black voters. Roberts wrote the opinion; Kavanaugh joined and wrote a concurrence flagging concerns about the durability of race-based remedies. Alabama was ordered to draw a second majority-Black district.

Outcome

Short Term

Alabama initially defied the order, drew another non-compliant map, and was overruled again. Section 2 challenges in Louisiana, South Carolina, and Georgia gained traction.

Long Term

The Louisiana remedial map drawn in Milligan's wake is the same map at issue in Callais—the ruling that preserved Section 2 produced the case that may dismantle it.

Why It's Relevant Today

The same justices who upheld Section 2 in Milligan are now reconsidering it. Kavanaugh's time-limit framing in Callais reargument signals the framework may not hold a second time.