The U.S. Supreme Court has temporarily halted a ruling by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals that would have significantly limited the enforcement of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) in seven Midwestern states. This decision maintains the ability of private individuals and groups to challenge voting laws they allege are discriminatory.
The case originated in 2022 when the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians, the Spirit Lake Tribe, and three Native American voters filed a lawsuit against North Dakota’s Secretary of State. They contended that the state’s 2021 legislative redistricting plan diluted Indigenous voting power by reducing the number of seats where Native voters had a fair opportunity to elect their preferred candidates. A federal judge initially sided with the tribes, leading to the adoption of a new map and the election of three Native American Democrats to the state legislature in 2024.
However, in May 2025, a divided panel of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed this decision, ruling that only the U.S. Department of Justice—not private individuals or groups—has the authority to sue under Section 2 of the VRA, which prohibits voting practices that discriminate based on race. This interpretation contradicted decades of precedent and effectively barred private enforcement of the VRA in the Eighth Circuit, which includes North Dakota, South Dakota, Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Nebraska.
The Supreme Court’s unsigned order to pause the Eighth Circuit’s ruling suggests a willingness to review the case. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch indicated they would have denied the stay. The Court’s intervention preserves the current legislative map in North Dakota and ensures that private parties can continue to file lawsuits under Section 2 of the VRA in the affected states, at least until a final decision is reached.
Legal experts and civil rights advocates have expressed concern over the Eighth Circuit’s ruling. The Campaign Legal Center described the decision as a “stunningly antidemocratic move,” emphasizing that it undermines the VRA and contradicts both congressional intent and longstanding Supreme Court precedent affirming voters’ power to enforce the law in court. Similarly, the Native American Rights Fund highlighted the potential harm to Native voters, noting that the ruling threatens progress and weakens their voice in state government.
North Dakota officials have stated their intention to comply with election laws as set by the state legislature or as directed by any final court decisions. Secretary of State Michael Howe affirmed that his office will continue to follow the law as determined by the courts.
The Supreme Court’s decision to grant a stay in this case underscores the ongoing national debate over voting rights and the enforcement mechanisms of the VRA. As the Court considers whether to hear the full case, the outcome could have significant implications for the ability of private citizens and organizations to challenge discriminatory voting laws across the country.