Supreme Court Orders New Review of Key Voting Rights Cases

Washington — The Supreme Court announced on Monday that lower courts should re-examine two cases concerning whether private citizens and organizations have the right to initiate legal action to uphold a crucial part of the Voting Rights Act that forbids unfair voting practices.

In brief orders, the supreme court overturned previous court decisions and returned the cases for additional proceedings in light of its significant ruling from last monthweakening Section 2regarding the Voting Rights Act. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson expressed her disagreement.

The central issue in the disputes is who has the right to file lawsuits in federal court regarding possible violations of Section 2. These cases represent the most recent challenge to the 1965 law and risk significantly limiting who can initiate legal action to enforce Section 2. Future rulings that adopt these restrictions could further weaken the provisions.landmark voting law, long regarded as the pinnacle of the civil rights movement, and hinder the capacity of voting rights organizations and individual voters to initiate legal actions claiming breaches of the law.

The most recent legal dispute concerning Section 2 reached the Supreme Court via two separate cases that are contesting it.legislative mapsselected in Mississippi and North Dakota following the 2020 census as breaches of Section 2.

The case from Mississippi was initiated by the state's NAACP chapter along with 14 voters, while in the North Dakota matter, the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians, the Spirit Lake Tribe, and three Native American voters were the ones who filed the lawsuit. Both groups of plaintiffs won their cases in district courts.

Officials from North Dakota took the lower court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit. This court determined that Section 2 cannot be enforced by private individuals filing lawsuits under a separate civil rights statute called Section 1983. Section 1983 enables people to take legal action against government officials in federal court if they believe their rights have been violated.

By supporting North Dakota officials, a three-judge panel from the 8th Circuit referenced a previous decision where it determined that when Congress created the Voting Rights Act, its intention was for the attorney general, not individuals, to enforce Section 2. The 8th Circuit's ruling applied exclusively to the states under its jurisdiction: Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota.

However, attorneys representing the Native American tribes contended that the decision deviates from over 40 years of continuous practice where individuals have filed lawsuits in courts across the nation to protect their rights under Section 2.

A review of casesincluded under Section 2 by Ellen Katz, a professor at the University of Michigan Law School, revealed that from 1982 onward, private individuals have been involved in 96.4% of Section 2 cases that resulted in published rulings, and were the sole parties in 86.7% of those decisions.

Furthermore, between 1982 and early 2024, over 400 cases were filed by private individuals claiming breaches of Section 2, resulting in court rulings, while the Department of Justicebrought more than 40, government attorneys under the previous administration of President Joe Bidensaid in 2024.

"In every other part of the country, private plaintiffs can depend on a continuous history of Supreme Court and circuit rulings to uphold the individual rights granted by Congress through the Voting Rights Act. However, this is not the case in the Eighth Circuit," attorneys for the tribes stated in a Supreme Court filing.filing.

The appellate court stated, "eliminated the last opportunity for private enforcement of Section 2 of the VRA within its jurisdiction."

At the same time, the Mississippi case was ruled on by a three-judge panel, enabling state officials to immediately file an appeal with the Supreme Court.

Repeating the 8th Circuit's ruling, Mississippi officials stated that Congress established a method for enforcing Section 2: legal actions initiated by the attorney general.

"Even though Congress had high goals for the Voting Rights Act, its intentions did not include supporting private lawsuits," they wrote in afilingCongress recognized that private lawsuits had not successfully protected voting rights. It took a different approach with the VRA — adopting strong remedies, but without relying on private enforcement.

Share :