This cycle the Supreme Court decided how far the Voting Rights Act reaches into congressional maps, whether states may count mail ballots that arrive after Election Day, and whether parties may spend without limit in coordination with their candidates. It also ruled on emergency requests about the maps in seven states, the President's elections order, a Postal Service rule for ballot mail, citizenship checks of voter rolls, campaign ad rates, New Hampshire's voter guidance and, on November 2, ballots in California. Each card says what the Court decided, who dissented and what it means for November 3, with a link to the Court's own text.
Updated .
Congressional maps
Rulings on how far Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act reaches into congressional districts, and on the maps Louisiana, Texas, California, Alabama, Missouri, New York and Virginia use on November 3.
DecidedVote: 6–3
Louisiana v. Callais
No. 24-109, 24-110 · Argued and
The question
Did Louisiana's 2024 congressional map, which added a second majority-Black district to comply with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, use race in a way the Constitution forbids?
What the Court decided
Yes. The Court held that Section 2 imposes liability only when the evidence supports a strong inference that a state intentionally drew its districts to give minority voters less opportunity because of their race. Because the Act did not require Louisiana's second majority-Black district, the map that created it is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.
In short, § 2 imposes liability only when the evidence supports a strong inference that the State intentionally drew its districts to afford minority voters less opportunity because of their race.
Louisiana could not use its 2024 map in 2026, and the Court let its judgment take effect at once (next card). The ruling also sets the test that Section 2 claims against any state's districts must now meet. Justice Kagan's dissent said the new requirement will make success in such suits nearly impossible.
Majority
Alito (wrote the opinion), Roberts, Thomas (concurred), Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett
Dissent
Kagan (wrote a dissent), Sotomayor, Jackson
Justice Gorsuch joined Justice Thomas's concurrence.
Callais v. Louisiana (application to issue the judgment at once)
No. 25A1197
The question
Should the Court send its Callais judgment to the lower court right away, instead of after the usual 32 days, so that a new map could be in place for 2026?
What the Court decided
Granted. The Court issued its judgment at once. Justice Alito wrote that prompt action was needed: the map had been held unconstitutional, the date set for early voting in the primary had passed, and the general election was six months away. Justice Jackson dissented.
What it means for this election
Louisiana's legislature passed a new congressional map in late May 2026. The state's U.S. House primaries, postponed from May 16, are on the November 3 ballot under those new lines, shown on the district map.
Noted dissents
Jackson (wrote a dissent)
Wrote a concurrence
Alito
An unsigned order records only the justices who noted a dissent, not how the others voted.
Justices Thomas and Gorsuch joined Justice Alito's concurrence.
Abbott v. League of United Latin American Citizens
No. 25-845
The question
Was a lower court right to block the congressional map Texas adopted in 2025, on a finding that race likely predominated in drawing it?
What the Court decided
No. Without hearing argument, the Court reversed the lower court's order for the reasons in its December 4, 2025 order, which had paused it. That order found Texas likely to show the lower court made at least two serious errors, and said lower federal courts should ordinarily not alter election rules on the eve of an election.
For the reasons set forth in Abbott v. League of United Latin American Citizens, 607 U. S. ___ (2025), we reverse the District Court’s judgment.
Texas holds its November 3 House elections under the map it adopted in 2025. The district map shows the new lines.
Noted dissents
Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson
An unsigned order records only the justices who noted a dissent, not how the others voted.
When the Court first paused the lower court on December 4, 2025, Justice Alito, joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch, wrote a concurrence, and Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, wrote a dissent.
Should the Court block the congressional map California voters approved as Proposition 50 in November 2025, which Republican challengers called a racial gerrymander, while their appeal goes on?
What the Court decided
Denied, in a one-sentence order with no reasons and no noted dissents. A divided three-judge lower court had also refused to block the map.
The application for writ of injunction pending appeal presented to Justice Kagan and by her referred to the Court is denied.
Should the Court pause a lower court order that, after Callais, again barred Alabama from using the congressional map its legislature passed in 2023, with one majority-Black district?
What the Court decided
Granted, in an unsigned opinion. The Court paused the lower court's renewed injunction, finding Alabama likely to succeed because that court did not apply the presumption of legislative good faith and departed from Callais.
At this preliminary stage, the State has shown that it is entitled to interim relief from the District Court’s injunction.
Alabama holds its November 3 House elections under the 2023 legislative map, in place of the court-drawn map used in 2024. The district map shows the lines.
Noted dissents
Sotomayor (wrote a dissent), Kagan, Jackson
An unsigned order records only the justices who noted a dissent, not how the others voted.
Justices Kagan and Jackson joined Justice Sotomayor's dissent. On May 11 the Court had sent Alabama's map cases back to the lower court in light of Callais, over the same three dissents.
Should the Court pause federal court orders that in effect required Missouri to use the map its legislature passed in 2025, which the Missouri Supreme Court held cannot take effect unless voters approve it in a referendum?
What the Court decided
Granted, in an unsigned opinion. The Court paused federal court orders that in effect required the 2025 map, as it had done on September 10. On September 8 Justice Kavanaugh had declined to pause the Missouri Supreme Court's ruling that state law requires the 2022 map in 2026.
This Court’s September 10 stay order meant that the 2022 map would be used in the 2026 congressional election in Missouri, absent further order of this Court.
Missouri votes on November 3 under its 2022 map. Under the Missouri Supreme Court's ruling, the 2025 map takes effect only if voters approve it in a referendum in the 2026 election.
Noted dissents
None noted
An unsigned order records only the justices who noted a dissent, not how the others voted.
Should the Court pause a New York trial court order that found the 11th Congressional District, on Staten Island and in southwestern Brooklyn, diluted Black and Latino votes under the state constitution and told the state redistricting commission to redraw it?
What the Court decided
Granted. The Court paused the trial court's order while the appeal in the New York courts goes on.
What it means for this election
New York's 11th District keeps its current lines for the November 3 election.
Noted dissents
Sotomayor (wrote a dissent), Kagan, Jackson
Wrote a concurrence
Alito
An unsigned order records only the justices who noted a dissent, not how the others voted.
Justices Kagan and Jackson joined Justice Sotomayor's dissent.
Should the Court pause a Virginia Supreme Court ruling that voided a voter-approved constitutional amendment letting the legislature redraw congressional districts before the 2026 election?
What the Court decided
Denied, in a one-sentence order with no reasons and no noted dissents. The Virginia Supreme Court had ruled 4 to 3 on May 8 that the amendment, approved by voters on April 21, was adopted in violation of the state constitution's amendment process.
The application for stay presented to The Chief Justice and by him referred to the Court is denied.
Rulings on which mail ballots count and who may challenge counting rules, on the President's elections order, a Postal Service rule for ballot mail and citizenship checks of voter rolls, and on requests decided in the final weeks.
DecidedVote: 5–4
Watson v. Republican National Committee
No. 24-1260 · Argued
The question
Do the federal laws that set Election Day bar a state from counting mail ballots that are postmarked by Election Day but arrive in the days after?
What the Court decided
No. The Court held that the federal Election Day statutes do not set a deadline for ballot receipt, so they do not prevent Mississippi from counting absentee ballots postmarked by Election Day and received up to five business days later.
But the election-day statutes do not set a deadline for ballot receipt, so they do not prevent Mississippi from counting ballots postmarked before election day yet received afterward.
States that count mail ballots arriving after Election Day may keep doing so for November 3. The National Conference of State Legislatures lists 15 states and the District of Columbia that count ballots postmarked by Election Day that arrive afterward, so in those states the count can grow for days. The opinion's figure of roughly 30 states also counts states that accept only some military and overseas ballots late.
Majority
Barrett (wrote the opinion), Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson
Dissent
Alito (wrote a dissent), Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh
Justice Kavanaugh joined Justice Alito's dissent except Parts II-C-2 and III.
States Alaska, California, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia
May a candidate sue in federal court over the rules for counting votes in his own election, here Illinois's counting of mail ballots that arrive up to two weeks after Election Day?
What the Court decided
Yes. The Court held that as a candidate for office, Congressman Mike Bost of Illinois has standing to challenge the rules that govern the counting of votes in his election. It did not decide whether Illinois's rule is lawful.
As a candidate for office, Congressman Bost has standing to challenge the rules that govern the counting of votes in his election.
Candidates can bring federal suits over how the votes in their own races are counted without first showing that the rule would change the result.
Majority
Roberts (wrote the opinion), Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett (concurred), Kagan
Dissent
Jackson (wrote a dissent), Sotomayor
Justices Barrett and Kagan agreed that Congressman Bost has standing, for a different reason; Justice Barrett wrote that opinion, concurring in the judgment.
Should the Court pause a lower court injunction that blocked parts of the President's March 2026 executive order on elections? They direct Homeland Security to compile state citizenship lists, the Attorney General to prioritize certain election crimes, and the Postal Service to start a rulemaking on mailed ballots.
What the Court decided
Granted, in an unsigned opinion. The Court paused the lower court's injunction, finding the states likely lack standing and their claims are not ripe, because the provisions are internal Executive Branch directives that impose no obligations on the states. A companion request from Alabama and other states was denied as moot.
The Court's disposition of this application does not mean that any measure taken by the Government to implement the Order will necessarily be lawful.
The order's directives can go forward while the case continues. A measure taken to carry them out can be challenged on its own, as the Postal Service's ballot-mail rule was (next card).
Noted dissents
Sotomayor (wrote a dissent), Kagan, Jackson (wrote a dissent)
An unsigned order records only the justices who noted a dissent, not how the others voted.
Should the Court pause a lower court injunction that blocks a Postal Service rule for federal ballot mail? The rule requires envelopes with an election-mail logo, a design that high-speed equipment can scan, and a barcode unique to each voter.
What the Court decided
Denied. The Court left the lower court's injunction in place, saying the Government is unlikely to succeed in its challenge to it. Justice Kavanaugh wrote that the rule may fall within the Postal Service's authority, but that applying it in the 2026 elections would be arbitrary and capricious because election officials do not have enough time to put it in place.
The Government is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its challenge to the District Court’s preliminary injunction.
Department of Homeland Security v. League of Women Voters
No. 26A308
The question
Should the Court pause a lower court order that set aside the expanded SAVE program, which lets state and local officials check the citizenship of registered voters against Social Security records, while the government appeals?
What the Court decided
Granted, in an unsigned opinion. The Court paused the lower court's order while the appeal goes on, finding that the groups challenging the program likely have standing but that their claims likely lack merit.
Although the plaintiff organizations likely have standing, their claims likely lack merit.
State and local election officials may use the expanded program. Where it cannot confirm that a voter is a citizen, the official must contact the voter and ask for proof of citizenship to register or stay registered. The Court noted that federal law requires systematic programs to remove ineligible voters to end 90 days before a federal election; individual checks remain allowed.
Noted dissents
Jackson (wrote a dissent), Sotomayor, Kagan
An unsigned order records only the justices who noted a dissent, not how the others voted.
Justices Sotomayor and Kagan joined Justice Jackson's dissent.
Should the Court pause federal court orders that stopped New Hampshire's Secretary of State from enforcing his guidance on the state's new voter identification rules, including the use of student IDs, and required new guidance?
What the Court decided
Granted. The Court paused the orders, saying the lower court pointed to nothing that would justify changing election rules on the eve of an election. Justice Jackson dissented, writing that the orders addressed alleged misinformation in the guidance and did not change the law.
This Court has repeatedly emphasized that lower federal courts should ordinarily not alter the election rules on the eve of an election.
Should California election officials be ordered, while the Justice Department appeals, to set aside the mail ballots of more than 20,000 voters the federal government says are likely not citizens, so they are not counted until their eligibility is decided?
What the Court decided
Denied, the day it was filed, in a one-sentence order that gives no reasons and notes no dissents. The district court and a divided Ninth Circuit panel had also declined.
The application for injunction pending appeal presented to Justice Kagan and by her referred to the Court is denied.
Party committees may spend in coordination with their candidates without those limits in the 2026 general election. Before the ruling, a national party committee could spend from $130,600 to $4,071,800 in coordination with a Senate candidate, depending on the state, and from $65,300 to $130,600 with a House candidate.
Majority
Kavanaugh (wrote the opinion), Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Barrett
National Republican Congressional Committee v. Brown
No. 26A274
The question
Should the Court put on hold an appeals court ruling that set aside an FCC notice, while the case continues? The notice says party committees engaged in coordinated activity, not only candidates, can buy broadcast ads at the lowest unit charge in the weeks before an election.
What the Court decided
Granted, in an unsigned opinion. The Court paused the Fourth Circuit's ruling because that court likely lacked jurisdiction while the candidates' challenge was still pending before the FCC.
Because the candidates’ application for review was pending when they filed their petition for review, the Fourth Circuit likely lacked statutory jurisdiction to address their challenge.
Should the Court pause a Fourth Circuit order that gave the FCC 48 hours to rule on the candidates' challenge to its ad-rate notice?
What the Court decided
Granted, in an unsigned opinion. The Court paused the order while the FCC seeks review in the Court. A related request from the party committees was denied as moot.
Each of these factors favors the FCC, so we grant the stay.
Cases and requests the Court has not yet decided that bear on this election or the next.
Pending
Republican National Committee v. Mi Familia Vota
No. 25-1017
The question
Does federal law or a 2018 consent decree bar Arizona from requiring people who register with the state form to show proof of U.S. citizenship, and from running a program within 90 days of a federal election to cancel the registrations of people found not to be citizens?
Where it stands
The Court agreed on June 29, 2026 to hear the case; argument is set for December 8, 2026.
What it means for this election
The Court hears it after November 3, so it does not change this election's rules. A decision would bear on voter registration rules for 2028.
The President nominates Supreme Court justices, and the Senate confirms them by a majority vote. Since a Senate precedent of April 6, 2017, a simple majority can also end debate on a Supreme Court nomination, which used to take 60 votes. The senators elected on November 3 will serve in the Senate that would vote on any nomination made in 2027 or 2028. The Senate races to watch.
The side each justice took in the rulings above that the Court decided with a full opinion. Emergency orders are left out, because an unsigned order records only the justices who noted a dissent.
Built from the Court's opinions, orders and dockets on supremecourt.gov and the Senate's confirmation records, read through November 2, 2026. The summaries are Open America's own. Each is checked against the text it describes, and each quote is copied from the opinion or order it cites.
Rulings link to the Court's own opinion or order and its docket on supremecourt.gov. The quote on each card is copied from the opinion or order.
Summaries say in plain words what the Court decided and what it changed for this election. They describe the rulings; they do not grade them, and they are not legal advice.
Votes are each justice's side as the opinion records it. A justice who wrote separately is marked; a justice can join the majority and also write a concurrence.
News links are the reporting behind each card, listed by headline, outlet and date. Headlines are the outlets' own words.
Confirmations are the Senate's recorded votes, linked to each roll call and nomination.
Updated November 2, 2026. Each ruling carries its own date.