The Mississippi Lottery offers several draw games for those aiming to win big.

Here’s a look at June 2, 2026, results for each game:

Winning Mississippi Match 5 numbers from June 2 drawing

05-14-16-33-35

Check Mississippi Match 5 payouts and previous drawings here.

Winning Cash 3 numbers from June 2 drawing

Midday: 3-3-8, FB: 5

Evening: 6-9-5, FB: 7

Check Cash 3 payouts and previous drawings here.

Winning Cash 4 numbers from June 2 drawing

Midday: 6-0-4-9, FB: 5

Evening: 2-8-1-0, FB: 7

Check Cash 4 payouts and previous drawings here.

Winning Cash Pop numbers from June 2 drawing

Midday: 08

Evening: 03

Check Cash Pop payouts and previous drawings here.

Feeling lucky? Explore the latest lottery news & results

Story continues below gallery.

Are you a winner? Here’s how to claim your lottery prize

Winnings of $599 or less can be claimed at any authorized Mississippi Lottery retailer.

Prizes between $600 and $99,999, may be claimed at the Mississippi Lottery Headquarters or by mail. Mississippi Lottery Winner Claim form, proper identification (ID) and the original ticket must be provided for all claims of $600 or more. If mailing, send required documentation to:

Mississippi Lottery Corporation

P.O. Box 321462

Flowood, MS

39232

If your prize is $100,000 or more, the claim must be made in person at the Mississippi Lottery headquarters. Please bring identification, such as a government-issued photo ID and a Social Security card to verify your identity. Winners of large prizes may also have the option of setting up electronic funds transfer (EFT) for direct deposits into a bank account.

Mississippi Lottery Headquarters

1080 River Oaks Drive, Bldg. B-100

Flowood, MS

39232

Mississippi Lottery prizes must be claimed within 180 days of the drawing date. For detailed instructions and necessary forms, please visit the Mississippi Lottery claim page.

When are the Mississippi Lottery drawings held?

• Cash 3: Daily at 2:30 p.m. (Midday) and 9:30 p.m. (Evening).
• Cash 4: Daily at 2:30 p.m. (Midday) and 9:30 p.m. (Evening).
• Match 5: Daily at 9:30 p.m. CT.
• Cash Pop: Daily at 2:30 p.m. (Midday) and 9:30 p.m. (Evening).

• A federal judge issued a split ruling on a new state law creating the Metro Jackson Water Authority.
• The judge blocked the new authority from taking substantive actions while Jackson’s water system is under federal oversight.
• Jackson Mayor John Horhn claimed the ruling as a victory, validating the city’s concerns about a state takeover.
• The judge did not strike down the law itself, leaving the question of future control of the water system unresolved.

Jackson Mayor John Horhn claimed victory in the city’s legal fight against Mississippi’s new Metro Jackson Water Authority, arguing a federal judge’s latest ruling validates Jackson’s concerns about state lawmakers trying to influence the future of the city’s water system.

During a press conference at City Hall Tuesday, June 2, Horhn pointed to U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate’s decision to block the authority from naming a president, entering lease agreements or taking other substantive actions while Jackson’s water and sewer systems remain under federal oversight.

“What we’re thankful of is that the judge seems to agree with us,” Horhn said. “House Bill 1677 appeared to try to subvert the authority of the federal court.”

The comments come one day after Wingate issued a split ruling on the controversial law. While the judge declined to block House Bill 1677 outright, he also barred the Metro Jackson Water Authority from taking operational action beyond seating board members while the federal court continues overseeing Jackson’s water and sewer systems.

But Wingate’s ruling did not strike down House Bill 1677. It was more of a split ruling.

The judge agreed with arguments made by the state, Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality and JXN Water that the law itself does not automatically transfer control of Jackson’s water and sewer systems because any future takeover remains subject to federal court approval.

That leaves open a question: If the law remains on the books, could the Metro Jackson Water Authority simply remain in place until federal oversight ends and then assume control of the systems?

Testing Jackson’s water: Clarion Ledger independently tests Jackson water. What we learned

Horhn was asked that question directly Tuesday.

In response, Horhn focused on portions of the ruling that prevent the authority from naming a president who would serve as a deputy to JXN Water leader and Interim Third-Party Manager Ted Henifin. Horhn also pointed to Wingate blocking movement on any lease agreements until the court decides how the eventual transition away from federal oversight should occur.

“Two major points of the judge’s ruling are that he enjoined the state and the authority if it does start taking action from being able to name a president who would become the second in command of JXN Water,” Horhn said. “The other thing is that he enjoined any action on a lease being entered into until such time as he has had a chance to deliberate and decide what the future path ought to be.”

Horhn’s answer suggested he believes the ruling leaves room for other options besides simply allowing House Bill 1677 to take effect once federal oversight ends.

“What the judge has said to us for a number of months is that he wants to see a transition plan,” Horhn said.

The mayor said city officials have already begun discussions with JXN Water about what that transition plan could look like.

“We have begun discussions with JXN Water to have meaningful conversations with them about putting such a transition plan forward,” Horhn said. “At this point, the actions of the city are focused on working with Jackson Water to try to come up with a transition plan that might be approved by the judge.”

Under existing court orders, JXN Water is expected to develop a formal transition plan that must ultimately be approved by Wingate.

When asked whether the city could pursue its own water authority rather than the state-created Metro Jackson Water Authority, Horhn pointed to existing Mississippi law allowing municipalities to create utility districts.

“For a number of years, there has been state statutory authority for municipalities to establish municipal utility districts,” Horhn said. “We have made that presentation before the judge, and as I understand it, he’s taking it under advisory.”

Horhn did not elaborate on whether the city is actively pursuing that option, but the comments suggest Jackson may continue advocating for alternatives to House Bill 1677 as discussions about a post-receivership transition continue.

In 2022, Dyamone White, then in her late 20s, filed a lawsuit in federal court arguing that Black voters like her didn’t have a fair chance to elect justices to the Mississippi Supreme Court.

Three years later, she won a significant victory. A federal judge ruled that Mississippi Supreme Court election districts violated the Voting Rights Act and that Black candidates who wanted to run for the state’s highest court were unlikely to succeed. U.S. District Court Judge Sharion Aycock instructed lawmakers to draw a new map to give Black voters more power, with court-ordered special elections to follow, likely this fall.

“WE WON,” White wrote in a social media post that day in August 2025. “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.”

But that change still hasn’t happened — and a recent seismic ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court means it may never happen.

In late April, the conservative majority of the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Louisiana v. Callais that dramatically weakened the Voting Rights Act, making it much harder for racial minorities to win voting discrimination lawsuits.

The decision further intensified a mid-decade redistricting war that’s been spreading across the country ahead of the congressional elections in the fall. But the decision affects politics beyond the federal level. The now-upended court battle about Mississippi’s judicial elections will serve as an early test of whether voting rights plaintiffs can still mount a convincing case in some circumstances.

Earlier this month, a federal appeals court vacated Aycock’s ruling from last year after the plaintiffs and defendants agreed that the Callais decision had dramatically changed the legal landscape.

That removed the state’s obligation to draw a new court map. It also eliminated the possibility that the state would hold special elections for its Supreme Court seats this fall, ending Black voters’ hope that 2026 may yield fairer representation at the top of the state’s judiciary. The case will now head back to Aycock’s court for new arguments under the higher standard created by the Callais decision.

The plaintiffs still see a path forward to win new maps. Attorneys with the American Civil Liberties Union and the Southern Poverty Law Center argue on behalf of White and her fellow plaintiffs that they can still prevail under that new standard.

Looking to the court battles ahead, White is also looking back. She is from the tiny town of Edwards, a rural community near the state’s capital city region, and she recites its history of Black resistance to oppression, from the Civil War to the Civil Rights movement and beyond.

“It’s an area that is resilient,” White said. “The people I grew up around, they were all fighters.”

The Voting Rights Act, passed in 1965, was a key tool in dismantling the Jim Crow regime of White supremacy that blocked Black residents from ballot box access in Mississippi and across the South.

Among other provisions, the law prohibited states from diluting the voting power of racial minorities and required that those voters have an opportunity to elect candidates of their choosing.

So, with Callais decided, what’s changed?

When plaintiffs filed suit over the Mississippi Supreme Court voting districts in 2022, they had to show a violation of the law only by pointing to discriminatory effects of the voting districts in use, regardless of what the original architects of those districts may have intended.

Those effects? Black people make up about 38% of Mississippi’s population, but the state has just one Black justice currently sitting on its nine-member Supreme Court. Only four Black justices have ever been on the court, all serving since 1985 and never more than one at a time. All four first reached the court through a gubernatorial appointment to fill a vacancy.

That has meant very little Black representation on a body that interprets state laws and the state constitution, hears appeals in criminal and civil cases and has some control over the operations of lower courts.

With no need to delve into the intention of the legislators who created the current districts in the late 1980s, Aycock, a George W. Bush appointee, ruled that the Mississippi Supreme Court districts as drawn have the effect of diluting Black voting power, violating the Voting Rights Act.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s majority opinion in the Callais case, however, sets a higher standard. A Voting Rights Act violation may now be found “only when circumstances give rise to a strong inference that intentional discrimination occurred.”

Legal experts have said that proving intentional discrimination is challenging — made even more difficult by the Alito opinion’s endorsement of partisan gerrymandering as a legitimate purpose of redistricting. The conservative justice wrote that states can now defend themselves against race dilution claims by arguing that Black districts are being eliminated not because of racist motivations but partisan ones since Black voters have typically supported Democratic candidates.

States like Louisiana and Tennessee have moved to quickly eliminate Black-majority Congressional districts. They will likely defend their new maps as partisan gerrymanders, not racially motivated ones.

“It’s going to be just lightning-strike rare for a Voting Rights Act claim to work where partisanship is permitted,” said Justin Levitt, a former Department of Justice official and election law expert who teaches at Loyola Marymount University Law School.

However, Mississippi Supreme Court elections are nonpartisan, and that may make a meaningful difference in the current litigation, said Amir Badat, a civil rights lawyer who has argued a number of voting rights claims in the state.

Badat said that even under Callais, lawmakers may not be able to hide behind partisan intent to shield themselves from judicial scrutiny.

“In this kind of narrow circumstance, you still have viable Section 2 claims,” said Badat, referencing the section of the Voting Rights Act that bans discriminatory election practices.

Levitt agrees that voting rights cases in nonpartisan elections may still be possible to win under Callais, though he added that the overall impact of the decision likely makes even those cases quite difficult.

While the legal standard may have changed, White, the lawsuit’s lead plaintiff, says one thing has not: The reality faced by Black voters who want to see a fair state Supreme Court map.

“We laid out the facts of representation in the state. You can’t deny that, “ White said. “We can go back to court again, and the facts remain the same. Representation is not equal.”

This article was produced in collaboration with Bolts, a nonprofit publication that covers criminal justice and voting rights in local governments; sign up for their newsletter.