The U.S. Supreme Court issued an unsigned order on Monday declining to resolve whether private individuals can bring lawsuits under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA). The Court instead vacated lower court rulings in two cases, one from Mississippi and one from North Dakota, and remanded them for reconsideration in light of its recent decision in Louisiana v. Callais.
The Court did not address the "private right of action" question—whether private individuals and groups can enforce Section 2 of the VRA.
Case Details
The two cases involved challenges to state legislative redistricting plans. Both were brought by private voters and groups, not the U.S. Department of Justice. The Supreme Court directed the lower courts to reassess the cases following its April ruling, which raised the standard for VRA redistricting claims by holding that a majority-Black district relied too heavily on race.
Mississippi Case
- A lower court had previously ruled that individuals have the right to sue under Section 2.
- The case upheld three majority-Black state legislative districts.
North Dakota Case
- The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that only the federal government may bring lawsuits under Section 2, a decision that conflicted with decades of precedent.
- The Supreme Court had temporarily blocked that 8th Circuit ruling in July, allowing tribal-preferred voting maps to remain in effect.
Questions Left Open
Section 2 prohibits racial discrimination in voting, and its enforcement has historically relied on lawsuits by private parties. Republican officials in Mississippi and North Dakota had argued that only the U.S. Attorney General can enforce Section 2.
Dissenting Opinion
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented from the Court's order. She stated that the Callais ruling did not address the enforceability question and that there was no basis for vacating the lower court judgments. She indicated she would have ruled summarily to affirm that private individuals have a right to sue under the VRA.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Samuel Alito have indicated in prior opinions that they consider the question of a private right of action under the VRA to be open.
Statements from Involved Parties
Lenny Powell – Attorney for the Native American Rights Fund, which represents tribal interests in the North Dakota case: Stated that sending the case back was the correct decision and that his organization will continue to advocate for Native voters' ability to vote and effect change.
Damon Hewitt – President of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law: Said the decision jeopardizes three new majority-Black state legislative districts, though effects likely will not be felt until 2027.
8th Circuit Chief Judge Steven Colloton – Described the circuit's approach as a "regrettable path of rendering unenforceable" the Voting Rights Act.
Related Cases
A separate case from Arkansas is challenging private enforcement of Section 208 of the VRA, which allows voters with disabilities or literacy issues to receive assistance. The 8th Circuit ruled against a private right of action under Section 208, and the Supreme Court may consider whether to hear that case.