The Supreme Court blocked a North Dakota redistricting ruling that threatened Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Learn about the case, its impact on Native American voters, and future implications.
Supreme Court Blocks North Dakota Redistricting Ruling That Threatened Voting Rights Act
The Supreme Court blocks North Dakota redistricting ruling in a decision that could reshape the future of voting rights litigation across the United States. On Thursday, the justices temporarily halted a lower court’s decision that aimed to eliminate a critical legal pathway under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA)—a provision that has safeguarded minority voting rights for nearly 60 years.
This legal battle comes at a time when voting rights remain one of the most contentious issues in U.S. politics. The Supreme Court’s intervention ensures, for now, that Native American voters in North Dakota and other minority communities can still use Section 2 to challenge discriminatory maps.
Background of the Case Supreme Court blocks North Dakota redistricting ruling
BREAKING: Supreme Court revives key provision of the Voting Rights Act, allowing North Dakota tribes and voters to bring Section 2 challenge, for now
— Kelsey Reichmann (@KelseyReichmann) July 24, 2025
Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch would deny the application@CourthouseNews pic.twitter.com/T73POr5WVq
The dispute began after the North Dakota Legislature passed a new legislative map in 2021. Two Native American tribes—the Spirit Lake Tribe and the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians—challenged the map, arguing that it diluted Native voting strength.
The tribes claimed that the map violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits voting practices that discriminate against minority groups. A federal judge agreed, ruling that the map was unlawful and ordering a new districting plan that allowed for fair representation.
As a result, three Native American legislators—each affiliated with the Democratic Party—won seats in the state’s Republican-dominated legislature in 2023.
The 8th Circuit Ruling and Its Impact
Case arose from a lawsuit brought by two Native American tribes, who argue that North Dakota’s state legislative map denied them an equal opportunity to elect their candidates of choice.
— Lynn Lee (@LynnLeeEspino) July 25, 2025
Supreme Court halts ruling that limits Voting Rights Act enforcement https://t.co/vUIfXZVH3d
In May, the Supreme Court blocks North Dakota redistricting ruling 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a controversial decision in a 2-1 vote, declaring that only the Justice Department—and not private citizens or civil rights groups—can file lawsuits under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
This Supreme Court blocks North Dakota redistricting ruling posed a serious threat to voting rights enforcement. According to legal scholars, more than 90% of Section 2 cases have historically been brought by private individuals or organizations, not the federal government.
If this interpretation had stood, it would have severely restricted the ability of minority voters to challenge discriminatory maps and election laws.
Supreme Court Blocks North Dakota Redistricting Ruling
On July 24, 2025, the Supreme Court stepped in and blocked Supreme Court blocks North Dakota redistricting ruling 8th Circuit’s decision. This means that, for now, private citizens can continue to sue under Section 2 while the legal battle continues.
In an unsigned order, the Court signaled that it is likely to hear the case in full, possibly in 2026, and issue a definitive ruling by next summer.
Notably, three conservative justices—Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Clarence Thomas—dissented, stating they would have allowed the 8th Circuit ruling to take effect.
Why This Case Matters for the Voting Rights Act
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 has been called the “crown jewel” of the civil rights movement. Its primary purpose is to prevent racial discrimination in voting. Section 2, in particular, has been a powerful tool for protecting minority voters against discriminatory maps and practices.
If the Supreme Court eventually rules that only the Justice Department can bring Section 2 cases, it would fundamentally change how voting rights are enforced in America. With limited resources, the DOJ cannot handle the thousands of cases that private advocacy groups currently pursue.
Such a decision could embolden states to adopt maps and laws that weaken minority voting power with little fear of legal challenge.
Native American Representation at Stake
Supreme Court blocks North Dakota redistricting ruling For Native American voters in North Dakota, this case is personal. The Spirit Lake Tribe and the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians have long fought for representation in state politics.
Their legal victory in 2023 was historic, leading to the election of three Native legislators. Without the ability to challenge discriminatory maps under Section 2, that progress could be reversed.
In a statement, Turtle Mountain Band Chairman Jamie Azure expressed relief after the Supreme Court intervened:
“We are relieved that Native voters in North Dakota retain the ability to protect ourselves from discrimination at the polls. Our fight for the rights of our citizens continues.”
Other States Affected by the 8th Circuit Decision Supreme Court blocks North Dakota redistricting ruling
The 8th Circuit covers seven states: Supreme Court blocks North Dakota redistricting ruling
- Arkansas
- Iowa
- Minnesota
- Missouri
- Nebraska
- North Dakota
- South Dakota
After the Arkansas decision in 2023, some states began enacting state-level voting rights protections to fill the gap. However, if the Supreme Court sides with the 8th Circuit, federal protections could be drastically weakened nationwide.
What Happens Next?
The Supreme Court is expected to schedule oral arguments in early 2026, with a final decision likely by summer. The outcome could determine whether private individuals retain the right to enforce Section 2—or if that authority will rest solely with the federal government.
The case also underscores the broader debate about voting rights and election integrity in the United States, as more states face lawsuits over redistricting maps and voter access laws.
✅ FAQs
1. What is Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act?
Section 2 prohibits voting practices or procedures that discriminate against racial or language minorities. It allows lawsuits to challenge such practices.
2. Why did the Supreme Court block the North Dakota ruling?
The Supreme Court blocks North Dakota redistricting rulingto maintain the current interpretation of Section 2 while it considers the case in full.
3. What happens if only the Justice Department can enforce Section 2?
It would severely limit enforcement, as most lawsuits are currently brought by private groups, not the DOJ.
4. How does this affect Native American voters?
If Section 2 enforcement is weakened, Native Americans may struggle to fight against maps that dilute their voting power.
5. When will the Supreme Court make a final decision?
Likely by summer 2026, after hearing arguments in its upcoming term.