Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson objected Monday after the high court ordered lower courts to revisit a pair of voting rights cases in light of its recent Louisiana redistricting decision.
The Supreme Court sent cases from Mississippi and North Dakota back to lower courts following its ruling in Louisiana v. Callais, the major redistricting case that narrowed how courts evaluate certain Voting Rights Act claims involving congressional maps.
Jackson dissented from the court’s orders, arguing the justices should have gone further instead of simply remanding the cases for reconsideration.
One of the disputes involves a North Dakota case centered on whether private citizens and advocacy groups can sue under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. A lower appeals court previously ruled that only the federal government could bring those claims, a decision that alarmed voting rights activists and tribal groups that challenged the map.
The Mississippi case concerns a challenge to congressional districts opponents argue diluted Black voting strength.
The Supreme Court did not issue a full opinion Monday but instructed the lower courts to reconsider both disputes using the legal framework established in Louisiana v. Callais.
That Louisiana ruling, handed down in a 6-3 decision last month, found that Louisiana’s congressional map containing a second majority-Black district amounted to an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.
Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the conservative majority that race cannot predominate in the drawing of congressional districts simply to satisfy Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
Jackson has emerged as one of the court’s most outspoken liberal voices on redistricting and voting rights disputes.
The decision is already fueling new redistricting fights across several Southern states as Republicans push to redraw congressional maps ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.
Download the FREE Trending Politics App to get the latest news FIRST >>
