The Supreme Court’s latest order list put voting rights back in the spotlight. On Monday, May 18, 2026, the Court did not issue a full new ruling on two closely watched election cases.
Instead, it sent both cases back to lower courts for another look after its recent decision in Louisiana v. Callais. That move may sound small, but it matters because both cases deal with how voting maps are challenged under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
Why This Order Matters
The first case listed was Board of Election Commissioners v. NAACP. The Supreme Court vacated the lower court’s judgment and sent the case back to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. The Court said the case should be reviewed again in light of Louisiana v. Callais, a 2026 decision that dealt with race and voting maps.
The second case was Turtle Mountain Band v. Howe. This case came from North Dakota and involved Native American tribes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, vacated the judgment, and sent the case back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The reason was the same: the lower court must now look again after Louisiana v. Callais.
The Section 2 Question
The heart of the issue is Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. That part of the law has long been used to challenge voting rules or maps that may weaken the voting power of minority groups.
In the North Dakota case, the Eighth Circuit had ruled that only the federal government could bring Section 2 lawsuits, not voters or private groups. The Associated Press reported that this finding cut against decades of case law and affected a key way the law has been enforced.
That is why Monday’s action is being watched closely. The Supreme Court did not give a final answer on that private enforcement question. Instead, it told the lower courts to reconsider the cases under the Court’s newer guidance.
Justice Jackson Disagreed
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented in both voting rights orders. In the Mississippi case, she wrote that Louisiana v. Callais did not address Section 2’s private enforceability, so she saw no reason to vacate the lower court’s judgment. In the North Dakota case, she again said the issue was private enforceability and said she would have reversed instead.
Her dissent is important because it points to the narrow legal concern here. The Court’s majority sent the cases back because of Callais. Justice Jackson said that the decision did not answer the question these cases raised.
More From Today’s Order List
The voting rights cases were not the only actions on the May 18 order list. The Court also granted review in Crowther v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia. That means the justices agreed to hear that case.
The Court also invited the Solicitor General to file a brief in GEO Group, Inc. v. Nwauzor. That step usually means the justices want the federal government’s view before deciding what to do next.
Several petitions were denied, including petitions involving drug manufacturers and federal health officials. A denial does not mean the Court agrees with the lower court. It only means the justices chose not to take that case at this time.
Conclusion
The lower courts now have to review the voting rights cases again. They will have to weigh the Supreme Court’s recent Callais decision while looking at the facts and legal questions in each case.
For voters, states, tribes, and civil rights groups, the next steps could shape how future voting map fights are handled. The main question remains whether private voters and groups can keep bringing Section 2 cases, or whether that power belongs only to the federal government.
For now, the Supreme Court has not closed the door. It has sent the fight back down, where the next round will begin.
