Heavy snow and difficult travel expected again, heaviest snow in southern Minnesota

MPR News helps you turn down the noise and build shared understanding. Turn up your support for this public resource and keep trusted journalism accessible to all. 

Turn Up Your Support

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday extended a pause, for now, on a 

 that struck down one of the remaining ways of enforcing protections against racial discrimination under the federal Voting Rights Act in seven mainly Midwestern states.

 comes as two tribal nations in North Dakota prepare to ask the high court to take up a full review of the ruling in a redistricting case out of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch said they would deny the tribal nations' request to keep the 8th Circuit panel's ruling on hold.

 across the country at a time when the Justice Department under the Trump administration has 

 that had begun when former President Joe Biden was in office.

Before the justices decide whether to hear the North Dakota case fully, the tribal nations 

 the Supreme Court to consider putting a hold on the 8th Circuit panel's ruling to help election officials in North Dakota determine which redistricting plan they can use for 2026 state legislative contests.

For next year's election, the state is now set to use the same voting map it used for the 2024 election, which the tribal nations successfully advocated in court to put in place.

The new order also means Democratic state Rep. Collette Brown — an enrolled member of the Spirit Lake Tribe, who is one of the three Native American lawmakers elected in North Dakota in 2024 and joined the tribal nations in the lawsuit — will be 

 to complete her term because her legislative district is preserved.

How a ruling against a "private right of action" could upend the Voting Rights Act

Three years ago, the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians and the Spirit Lake Tribe filed one of the hundreds of lawsuits that have long been brought under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by private individuals and groups.

The tribal nations successfully fought for a new voting map that they proposed for North Dakota's legislature after U.S. District Judge Peter Welte, a nominee of President Trump, concluded that the one Republican lawmakers drew diluted the collective power of Native American voters, preventing them from electing their preferred candidates in areas where voting is racially polarized.

After an appeal by the state's Republican secretary of state, Michael Howe, however, the 8th Circuit panel ruled that, contrary to decades of precedent, the tribal nations should not have been allowed to sue because private individuals and groups are not explicitly named in the text of the Voting Rights Act.

In 2023, a separate 8th Circuit panel in a 

 also ruled against what's known as a "private right of action" under Section 2.

Such decisions would mean that only the head of the U.S. Justice Department can bring Section 2 cases.

Both 8th Circuit rulings apply to Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota.

At the Supreme Court, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas have signaled interest in taking up a case based on this novel argument against a private right of action. In 2021, with the support of Thomas, Gorsuch issued a 

 that said lower courts have considered whether private individuals can sue under Section 2 an "open question." That has led to 

 echoing opposition to private individuals filing redistricting lawsuits under Section 2.

Many voting rights advocates are concerned that, if taken up for a full review by the high court, the North Dakota case could result in the court's conservative majority issuing another decision that limits the scope of this legislative legacy of the Civil Rights Movement.

Crime, Law and Justice

Courts

Politics and Government News

Homepage

Hansi Lo Wang

Author

The Supreme Court has extended a pause, for now, on a lower court ruling that struck down a key tool for protecting minority voters under the Voting Rights Act in seven states.

Supreme Court keeps a pause for now on a ruling that weakens the Voting Rights Act

Go Deeper.

Like this?