WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Thursday issued an emergency order blocking a federal appeals court ruling that would have dismantled a core enforcement mechanism of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The decision temporarily preserves the long-standing ability of private citizens and civil rights groups to sue over discriminatory voting laws, a practice that was abruptly invalidated by the lower court.

The brief, unsigned order grants an emergency request from two Native American tribes in North Dakota, putting on hold a controversial decision by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. That court had ruled in a North Dakota redistricting case that only the U.S. Attorney General has the authority to file lawsuits under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits voting practices that discriminate on the basis of race.

Had the Supreme Court allowed the 8th Circuit's decision to stand, it would have marked a seismic shift in civil rights law, effectively ending the primary method used to challenge gerrymandering and voter suppression tactics for nearly six decades.

A Challenge to Decades of Precedent

The underlying legal battle began when the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians and the Spirit Lake Tribe sued North Dakota, arguing that the state's 2021 legislative map unlawfully diluted their voting power. They contended the map cracked their communities across multiple districts, making it harder for them to elect candidates of their choice, a classic claim under Section 2 of the VRA.

A federal district judge initially sided with the tribes. However, on appeal, a three-judge panel of the 8th Circuit took a radical step. Instead of ruling on the merits of the gerrymandering claim, the panel declared that private entities—including individuals, tribes, and organizations like the NAACP or the ACLU—have no right to bring such lawsuits in the first place.

This interpretation defied decades of legal precedent in which federal courts, including the Supreme Court itself, have consistently heard and decided cases brought by private plaintiffs under the Voting Rights Act. The 8th Circuit's reasoning rested on a narrow reading of the statute, arguing that because the law does not explicitly state that private individuals can sue, only the federal government can act as the plaintiff.

A Critical Lifeline Preserved

Voting rights advocates and legal scholars immediately condemned the 8th Circuit's ruling as a judicial invention that would gut the landmark civil rights law. They argued that the Department of Justice has limited resources and cannot possibly police every discriminatory voting map or law enacted by thousands of state and local jurisdictions across the country. Private litigation has long been considered the VRA's primary enforcement engine.

In their emergency application to the Supreme Court, lawyers for the tribes warned that the ruling "shuts the courthouse doors to private plaintiffs" and "strips away the only means for victims of racial discrimination in voting to protect the franchise."

The Supreme Court’s stay prevents the 8th Circuit's interpretation from taking effect while the legal battle continues. The case will now return to the lower courts to be decided on its original merits—whether North Dakota’s map is discriminatory—without the restriction on who is allowed to sue.

While the order provides immediate relief for the tribes and other voting rights litigants within the 8th Circuit's jurisdiction (which includes Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, and the Dakotas), it is not a final ruling on the issue. The Supreme Court could still decide to take up the question of a private right of action under the VRA in a future case. For now, however, the court has averted what advocates called a potential death blow to the nation's most important voting rights protection.