JACKSON — In May 2026, a federal appeals court vacated a 2025 ruling that had found Mississippi Supreme Court election districts violated the Voting Rights Act, following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Louisiana v. Callais. The appeals court acted after both plaintiffs and defendants agreed the Callais ruling had altered the legal standard for voting discrimination claims.

The vacated decision had been issued in August 2025 by U.S. District Court Judge Sharion Aycock, a George W. Bush appointee, who ruled that Mississippi’s Supreme Court districts diluted Black voting power in violation of the Voting Rights Act. Judge Aycock had ordered state lawmakers to draw a new map to enhance Black voters’ electoral influence and scheduled court-ordered special elections for fall 2026. That order has now been nullified, removing Mississippi’s obligation to redraw the map and eliminating the planned special elections.

The case originated in 2022 when Dyamone White, a resident of Edwards, Mississippi, filed a federal lawsuit arguing that Black voters lacked a fair opportunity to elect justices to the state’s highest court. After the 2025 ruling, White wrote on social media, “WE WON. This isn’t just a personal victory — it’s a win for every Mississippian who has waited too long for fair representation. I became a plaintiff because I refused to accept that our state’s highest court could exclude the very people it serves. Today, that changes.”

The legal landscape shifted in late April 2026 when the U.S. Supreme Court, in Louisiana v. Callais, held that Voting Rights Act violations may be found only when circumstances give rise to a strong inference that intentional discrimination occurred. The decision replaced the previous standard that focused on discriminatory effects, making it more difficult for racial minorities to prevail in Section 2 claims.

Amir Badat, a civil rights lawyer, said that in nonpartisan judicial elections like those for the Mississippi Supreme Court, lawmakers may not be able to cite partisan intent as a defense under Callais. “In this kind of narrow circumstance, you still have viable Section 2 claims,” Badat said, referencing the Voting Rights Act provision that bans discriminatory election practices.

Justin Levitt, an election law expert and former Department of Justice official who teaches at Loyola Marymount University Law School, said, “It’s going to be just lightning-strike rare for a Voting Rights Act claim to work where partisanship is permitted.” He acknowledged that nonpartisan elections might still present viable cases. The lawsuit will now return to Judge Aycock’s court for new arguments under the stricter Callais standard.