Supreme Court tells lower courts to take new look at 2 voting rights cases

CBS News via MSN ^ | May 18, 2026 | Melissa Quinn

[libstripper]

Washington — The Supreme Court on Monday told lower courts to take another look at a pair of cases involving whether private individuals and groups can sue to enforce a key provision of the Voting Rights Act that prohibits discriminatory voting practices.

In brief orders, the high court set aside lower court decisions and sent the cases back for further proceedings in light of its landmark ruling last month weakening Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.

At issue in the disputes is who can bring lawsuits in federal court to address potential violations of Section 2. The cases are the latest test of the 1965 law and threaten to sharply curtail who can sue to enforce Section 2. Future decisions embracing those limits could further undermine the landmark voting law, long considered the crown jewel of the civil rights movement, and hamper the ability of voting rights groups and individual voters to file lawsuits alleging violations of the measure.

---

TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: privatelitigants; standing; vra

[libstripper]

This is a big one because SCOTUS could easily limit the ability of private plaintiffs to bring VRA cases. Indeed, in its most recent opinion under the VRA it looks like it's inclined to so limit the scope of potential plaintiffs.

[ProtectOurFreedom]

LOL...SCOTUS to lower courts: "Go take a second look after you carefully consider what we found in Louisiana v. Callais."

[fwdude]

I still don’t get why “protections” can only apply to certain groups, meaning other groups (whites) are NOT protected.

This is the definition of unequal protection under the law.

[NorthMountain]

long considered the crown jewel of the civil rights movement

That's a damning indictment of the so-called "civil" "rights" "movement".

[bwest]

“… in light of its landmark ruling last month weakening Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.”

It did nothing of the kind. It clarified Section 2 and provided a path to ensure proper application.

[TBP]

After the 2011 redistricting in Maryland produced two of the three most gerrymandered districts in America, the Maryland GOP and a black PAC known as the Fannie Lou Hamer PAC sued to overturn the lines. (They lost.)

Banning private parties from challenging under VRA would prevent Republicans from being able to sue to stop Democrat gerrymanders.

Ironically, the plan the Republicans were promoting in Maryland in 2011, which was much more community and geographically oriented without gerrymanders, would probably have e produced three black seats instead of the two the Democrat legislature’s plan had — but it would have preserved the GOP seat in the Panhandle.

[Merrick]

STOP SENDING CLICKS TO THPOS REPORTING MSN!

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-voting-rights-cases-mississippi-north-dakota/

We return you know to your regularly scheduled programming...

[Flaming Conservative]

The civil rights act, at its best, should have meant that no one gets special treatment, meaning that whites and people of color had the same rights. Of course, it morphed into blacks receiving preferential treatment, which it should never have done.

[dadfly]

bookmark.

[Political Junkie Too]

This order by SCOTUS is asking the lower courts to review their prior rulings based on the Supreme Court's ruling that section 2 should be view in terms of "intent" and not "results."

In other words, if the state intended to create a racial district, that's not allowed; but if the state intended to create a partisan district that had minority impacts, that is allowed.

Jackson, as usual, dissented in the case that ruled for the majority, and affirmed in the case that ruled for the minority.

-PJ