Supreme Court Upholds Right to Sue Under Voting Rights Act, For Now

July 25, 2025: Washington D.C. – In a significant move on Thursday, the Supreme Court temporarily preserved the ability of individuals to sue to enforce their rights under the 1965 Voting Rights Act, specifically concerning race-based voting discrimination. This decision comes from a North Dakota case, even as the court prepares to re-hear a similar, high-stakes case from Louisiana.

The North Dakota case originated in 2021 after the state’s Republican-dominated legislature implemented a new redistricting plan. Two Native American tribes swiftly challenged the map, arguing it “diluted Native American voting strength” in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. They pointed out that for the first time in 35 years, no Native American candidate was serving in the North Dakota Senate following the redistricting.

Also Read: Joe Buck’s GMA Stint Divides Viewers During Stephanopoulos’s Absence

A federal district court sided with the tribes, blocking the map and mandating the North Dakota Legislative Assembly to create a fairer one. When the state failed to do so in time, the court implemented a map favored by the tribes for the 2024 election cycle. This resulted in the election of one Native American state senator and two Native American members of the state house of representatives.

North Dakota’s Republican Secretary of State appealed, arguing that individuals lack the right to sue over Voting Rights Act violations. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, an outlier decision nationally, as it remains the only federal appellate court to interpret the law so narrowly. The tribes then appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that inaction would lead to the removal of duly elected tribal members.

The Supreme Court, without providing specific reasons, intervened on Thursday, at least for the time being, upholding the rights of individual voters to bring vote dilution and other enforcement challenges. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch dissented, stating they would have denied the request.

However, this victory for the tribes might be short-lived. The high court recently decided to re-hear a similar case from Louisiana next term, scheduling it for reargument. The court indicated it might consider “additional questions” regarding whether Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act itself is unconstitutional if it leads to the consideration of race in drawing congressional district lines. This Louisiana case is particularly scrutinized as the legislature aimed to create a second majority-minority district while also maintaining safe districts for high-ranking Republican members, including House Speaker Mike Johnson.

Justice Thomas has long argued for the unconstitutionality of the Voting Rights Act, and Justices Alito, Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett have historically advocated for a race-neutral approach to redistricting. If the court rules in the Louisiana case that Section 2 does not permit individuals or groups to bring enforcement challenges, it would effectively moot the North Dakota case, making it impossible to win such a suit.

In recent years, with rare exceptions, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority has consistently limited the enforcement power of the Voting Rights Act. Notably, in 2013, it invalidated a key section that required states with a history of discrimination to obtain pre-clearance from the Justice Department before changing voting laws. More recently, it has made enforcement under Section 2 more challenging.