Supreme Court Blocks Ruling Weakening Voting Rights Act \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ The U.S. Supreme Court blocked a lower-court ruling that would limit private lawsuits under the Voting Rights Act. At issue is whether only the federal government can enforce a key provision of the law. The decision preserves, for now, the ability of civil rights groups and individuals to challenge discriminatory voting maps.
Quick Looks
- Supreme Court halts ruling that would restrict Voting Rights Act enforcement.
- The North Dakota redistricting case involves Native American voting power.
- Private lawsuits under Section 2 remain viable—for now.
- 8th Circuit ruling challenged decades of legal precedent.
- Spirit Lake Tribe and Turtle Mountain Band filed the lawsuit.
- A new congressional map led to Native American legislative victories.
- Court decision signals likely review of Section 2 authority.
- Justice Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas dissented from the hold.
- 8th Circuit includes seven Midwestern and Plains states.
- A separate Louisiana redistricting case also awaits a second hearing.
Deep Look
In a move with wide-ranging implications for voting rights across the United States, the Supreme Court on Thursday blocked a lower-court ruling that would have significantly narrowed the ability of private citizens and civil rights groups to enforce one of the most powerful sections of the Voting Rights Act.
The unsigned order preserves the use of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 as a tool for individuals to challenge racially discriminatory voting maps and laws—at least for now. By halting the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision, the Supreme Court signaled it is likely to formally take up the issue in a future term, possibly hearing arguments as early as 2026, with a ruling expected by the following summer.
While the high court’s order did not include a detailed opinion, Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Clarence Thomas dissented, indicating their opposition to even temporarily preserving the right of private enforcement of Section 2.
What’s at Stake: Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is a core provision that prohibits voting practices or procedures that discriminate based on race, color, or membership in a language minority group. For decades, this section has served as the legal backbone of most voting rights challenges—particularly those involving redistricting, voter suppression, and racial gerrymandering.
Crucially, over 90% of lawsuits filed under Section 2 have come from private individuals or advocacy organizations, not the U.S. Department of Justice. A ruling that only allows the federal government to sue under this section would effectively gut the law’s reach, dramatically reducing the number of challenges brought against potentially discriminatory voting maps.
The North Dakota Case: Native American Voter Power
The case in question stems from a challenge to North Dakota’s 2021 legislative redistricting map, filed by the Spirit Lake Tribe and the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians. These two tribes, whose reservations are located about 60 miles apart, argued that the new district lines diluted the voting strength of Native American communities, preventing them from electing candidates of their choice.
Following a 2023 trial, a federal district judge ruled in favor of the tribes, ordering a revised map that included districts where Native voters had a stronger say. The result: in the following election, three Native American candidates—each a Democrat—were elected to the Republican-dominated state legislature.
However, in May 2024, a 2-1 decision by a three-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision, ruling that only the U.S. Department of Justice can bring lawsuits under Section 2. That ruling echoed a similar decision the court had made in an Arkansas case in 2023, creating a judicial rift with other circuit courts that have long recognized the right of private enforcement.
The 8th Circuit’s jurisdiction includes seven states—North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Arkansas—meaning the ruling, if allowed to stand, could severely limit voting rights protections for millions of voters across the Midwest and Great Plains.
Supreme Court Intervention and What Comes Next
When different federal appeals courts issue conflicting rulings on the same legal issue, the Supreme Court is often compelled to intervene to settle the matter and unify national precedent. That’s what appears to be happening here.
The court’s temporary block of the 8th Circuit ruling suggests that the justices will soon take up the broader question of who has the legal standing to sue under the Voting Rights Act. The outcome could redefine how election laws are challenged, and who has the authority to hold states accountable for discriminatory practices.
Notably, the Supreme Court is already considering a separate redistricting case from Louisiana, which involves the creation of a second majority-Black congressional district. After hearing arguments in March, the court took the unusual step of ordering a second round of arguments in its upcoming term starting in October. Although the court has not disclosed the specific issues it wants reconsidered, legal observers believe the future of Section 2 enforcement could play a central role.
Reactions from Tribes and Officials
In response to Thursday’s development, Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians Chairman Jamie Azure issued a strong statement: “We are relieved that Native voters in North Dakota retain the ability to protect ourselves from discrimination at the polls. Our fight for the rights of our citizens continues.”
He added that the 2021 map drawn by the state legislature “unlawfully dilutes the votes of Native voters, and it cannot be allowed to stand.”
North Dakota Secretary of State Michael Howe, a Republican and named defendant in the case, said his office will comply with whatever final ruling is issued. “We will continue to follow election laws set by the North Dakota legislature or as directed by any final decisions by the courts,” Howe stated.
Broader Legal and Political Ramifications
The stakes are high. If the Supreme Court ultimately agrees with the 8th Circuit, it would eliminate the most common avenue for challenging racial discrimination in elections—a ruling that civil rights groups warn could embolden states to enact restrictive voting laws without fear of legal pushback.
Professor Richard Hasen of UCLA School of Law noted in the Election Law Blog that “more than 90% of Section 2 cases have relied on private plaintiffs”, highlighting how crucial private enforcement is to the law’s effectiveness.
In response to the Arkansas ruling in 2023, some states like Minnesota have already moved to enact state-level voting rights protections, anticipating a possible weakening of the federal law.
As the legal battles continue to unfold, voting rights advocates stress that the integrity of future elections—particularly in diverse and marginalized communities—may hang in the balance.
You must Register or Login to post a comment.