Why is the Court GVRing Cases In Light Of Callais That Did Not Turn On The Issues In Callais?
The Supreme Court has GVR'd several cases in light of the recent Callais decision, which addresses issues related to Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Justices Jackson and Sotomayor dissented in these cases, arguing that the Court's actions may cause confusion and are unnecessary given existing findings of intentional discrimination. The Court's approach suggests a reluctance to engage with the complexities of these cases, potentially allowing them to be dismissed without a thorough examination of the merits.
- ▪The Supreme Court GVR'd two cases related to Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
- ▪Justice Jackson dissented, stating that the issues in Callais were not relevant to the cases at hand.
- ▪The Court's decision may lead to confusion as it vacates lower court judgments and requires new trials.
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
Why is the Court GVRing Cases In Light Of Callais That Did Not Turn On The Issues In Callais? I think the Court is hoping these cases go away on the merits and they won't have to deal with them. Josh Blackman | 5.18.2026 11:39 AM Today the Supreme Court GVR'd two cases in light of Callais. State Board of Election Commissioners v. Mississippi NAACP and Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians v. North Dakota presented the same issue: whether there is a private cause of action under Section 2. And, in both cases, Justice Jackson dissented. She wrote: This case presents only the question of Section 2's private enforceability, which our decision in Louisiana v. Callais, 608 U. S. ___ (2026), did not address. Thus I see no basis for vacating the lower court's judgment.
…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at Reason Magazine.
Discussion
0 commentsMore from Reason Magazine
