Poli Alert Politics & Civics
Related Articles
In a major development for voting rights, the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday temporarily blocked a lower court ruling that would have drastically limited the power of private citizens and civil rights groups to sue under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The high court’s decision grants an emergency application brought by two Native American tribes challenging a North Dakota redistricting map they say diluted Native voting power.
The unsigned order, issued just one day before the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling was set to take effect, signals that the conservative-majority Supreme Court may not be ready to embrace the lower court’s controversial interpretation of the landmark 1965 civil rights law.
Three of the Court’s most conservative justices — Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch — said they would have denied the tribes’ request, indicating a potential ideological divide on the issue. Justice Brett Kavanaugh had issued a temporary pause on the ruling earlier this week to give the full Court time to consider the matter.
The case stems from a 2021 redistricting plan passed by the North Dakota legislature that Native tribes say intentionally “packed” Native voters into one district and “cracked” the rest across several, weakening their electoral influence — a violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits voting practices that discriminate based on race or ethnicity.
In 2023, a federal district judge ruled in favor of the plaintiffs — the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians, the Spirit Lake Tribe, and three individual Native voters — and a new map was adopted for 2024 elections. Under the new map, three Native American candidates, including plaintiff Collette Brown, were elected.
But in a shocking reversal this May, the 8th Circuit ruled that private individuals and groups have no legal right to sue under Section 2, suggesting only the U.S. Department of Justice can bring such claims. The decision, if upheld nationwide, would dramatically narrow the scope of the Voting Rights Act and undercut decades of civil rights litigation used to protect minority voters.
North Dakota Attorney General Drew Wrigley, who defended the original 2021 map, argued that courts had for too long “uncritically assumed” private enforcement of the law without Congress explicitly authorizing it. “That this issue had not been raised before does not mean Congress spoke with the clarity needed,” Wrigley said in filings.
Tribal attorneys warned that failure to block the lower court’s ruling could immediately invalidate Collette Brown’s election, as she would no longer reside in her district if the 2021 map was reinstated — a requirement under state law.
The Supreme Court’s action means the litigation over the map will continue in lower courts, likely returning to the justices in the future through the normal appeals process. For now, the stay maintains the legal status quo, allowing Native tribes and other minority groups to continue pursuing claims under Section 2.
Civil rights advocates hailed the order as a reprieve for voting rights enforcement. “The ability of private citizens and communities to challenge racially discriminatory voting maps has been central to upholding fair elections in this country,” said Leah Aden, an attorney with the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. “The Court’s decision today preserves that power — for now.”
While the ruling is temporary, it marks a critical moment in the ongoing legal battles over redistricting and racial representation, especially in states with significant Native, Black, or Latino populations. A definitive ruling by the Court on the scope of Section 2 could reshape the nation’s voting rights landscape for years to come.
