The U.S. Supreme Court has extended a temporary halt on a contentious lower court ruling concerning the enforcement of protections against racial discrimination under the federal Voting Rights Act.
This ruling impacts seven predominantly Midwestern states and stems from a redistricting case from the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
As two tribal nations in North Dakota prepare to request a full review of the ruling, the Supreme Court issued an unsigned order.
Three justices—Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch—indicated their willingness to deny the tribal nations’ request to maintain the pause on the ruling from the 8th Circuit panel.
This legal dispute poses the risk of further diluting the landmark Voting Rights Act at a time when the Justice Department, under President Donald Trump, has shown a decreased willingness to engage in voting rights cases that had initially gained momentum during President Biden’s tenure.
Before the high court makes a decision on whether to take up the North Dakota case, the tribal nations have asked for a pause on the 8th Circuit ruling.
This would aid election officials in North Dakota as they make decisions regarding the redistricting plan for the 2026 state legislative elections.
For the upcoming election, North Dakota intends to use the same voting map as that of the 2024 election—a map the tribal nations successfully fought for in court.
Jamie Azure, chair of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians, expressed relief, stating, “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.”
The Supreme Court order also allows Democratic state Rep. Collette Brown—who is a member of the Spirit Lake Tribe and one of three Native American lawmakers elected in North Dakota in 2024—to finish her term, as her legislative district remains intact.
Brown remarked that the situation transcends mere maps and boundaries, saying, “It is about whether people in my community have an equal opportunity to elect our candidates of choice.”
North Dakota’s Republican Secretary of State, Michael Howe, whose office is involved in the lawsuit, has not yet commented on the Supreme Court’s recent order.
The legal proceeding highlights a significant battle over the Voting Rights Act, which has been used extensively by private individuals and groups—a right affirmed under Section 2 of the Act—in lawsuits addressing voting discrimination.
In recent years, the Turtle Mountain and Spirit Lake tribes filed a lawsuit challenging a voting map drawn by Republican lawmakers.
U.S. District Judge Peter Welte, nominated by President Donald Trump, ruled that the Republican-drawn map diluted the voting power of Native Americans, hindering their ability to elect preferred candidates in racially polarized areas.
After Howe’s office appealed the decision, the 8th Circuit panel ruled that the tribal nations did not have the standing to sue, fundamentally questioning the concept of a “private right of action” under the Voting Rights Act.
This ruling diverges from decades of legal precedent and suggests that only the U.S. Justice Department’s leadership could initiate such Section 2 cases.
Rulings from the 8th Circuit affect several states, including Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota.
Notably, Justices Gorsuch and Thomas have previously shown interest in examining the debated topic of private action rights under Section 2.
Gorsuch, supported by Thomas, indicated in 2021 that the question of whether private individuals can file lawsuits under Section 2 remains unresolved, prompting Republican officials across numerous states to align against such individual-led litigation.
Many advocates of voting rights are alarmed that if the Supreme Court decides to take on the North Dakota case, it could lead to a ruling that further restricts the scope of this vital civil rights legislation.
image source from：npr
