Supreme Court Sends Native Voting Rights Case to Lower Court

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday vacated a controversial Eighth Circuit ruling that would have barred private individuals and organizations — including Native American tribes — from suing to enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, sending the case back to the lower court for reconsideration under a stricter legal standard. The decision, while procedural, carries significant implications for voting rights protections across the country.

In an unsigned order, the justices directed the Eighth Circuit to revisit its decision in Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians et al. v. Howe “in light of” the Supreme Court’s April 2026 ruling in Louisiana v. Callais, which weakened Section 2 by requiring plaintiffs to prove intentional discrimination rather than merely discriminatory results. The Court also sent a related Mississippi case, Mississippi NAACP v. State Board of Election Commissioners, back for the same reason.

The Case and Its Stakes

At the heart of the North Dakota dispute is whether private parties can sue to enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act — a mechanism that has been the primary driver of voting rights litigation for more than 40 years. The case began when the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians, the Spirit Lake Tribe, and individual Native voters challenged North Dakota’s 2021 legislative redistricting map, arguing it diluted Native voting strength in northeastern North Dakota.

A federal district court ruled in favor of the tribes in 2023, finding the map unlawfully weakened Native political representation. But the Eighth Circuit reversed, holding that only the U.S. Attorney General — not private individuals or organizations — can bring lawsuits under Section 2. That ruling broke with decades of precedent and threatened to upend voting rights enforcement across the seven states within the Eighth Circuit’s jurisdiction: Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota.

Research by University of Michigan Law Professor Ellen Katz found that since 1982, private plaintiffs have been party to 96.4% of Section 2 claims that led to published decisions and the only litigants in 86.7% of those opinions. Private plaintiffs have brought more than 400 Section 2 cases, while the Department of Justice has brought more than 40.

A Procedural Move With Real Consequences

The Supreme Court’s order vacates the Eighth Circuit’s ruling on the private enforcement question — meaning that ruling no longer stands as binding precedent. However, the remand under Callais means the tribes must now meet the higher bar of proving that North Dakota intentionally discriminated against Native voters, a significantly more difficult burden than showing discriminatory results.

“The Supreme Court was correct to vacate the Eighth Circuit’s decision, which wrongly prevented Native voters and Tribal Nations from vindicating their rights under the Voting Rights Act,” said Lenny Powell, a staff attorney with the Native American Rights Fund who represents the tribes. “On remand, we will keep fighting to ensure that Native voters have the ability to vote and effect change in their communities.”

Mark Gaber, senior director for redistricting at the Campaign Legal Center, which serves as co-counsel for the plaintiffs, said the Supreme Court agreed that “courts cannot slam the courthouse doors on plaintiffs seeking equal representation.”

Justice Jackson’s Dissent

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented from both orders, arguing the Court should have fully reversed the Eighth Circuit’s decision in the North Dakota case and left the Mississippi ruling in place. She noted that the question of private enforcement “was not addressed” by the Callais decision, and therefore she saw “no basis for vacating the lower court’s judgment.”

Jackson also warned more broadly about the Court’s direction, saying in a separate public appearance that the institution risks being seen as political. “Public confidence is really all the judiciary has,” she said at a talk before the American Law Institute in Washington, D.C. “Everyone believes the court system is outside the political sphere. I think that means it’s incumbent on us to do things, to act in ways, that shore up public confidence.”

Broader Implications for Voting Rights

The combined effect of the Callais decision and Monday’s remand orders represents a continuing erosion of the Voting Rights Act by the Court’s conservative majority. The 2013 Shelby County v. Holder decision already gutted Section 5’s preclearance requirement, which had forced jurisdictions with histories of discrimination to obtain federal approval before changing voting laws. Section 2 had been the primary remaining tool for challenging discriminatory voting practices.

Damon Hewitt, president and executive director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, said the Mississippi remand jeopardizes three new majority-Black state legislative districts, though the effects likely won’t be felt until 2027.

What’s Next

The case now returns to the Eighth Circuit, which must reconsider the tribes’ challenge under the stricter Callais standard. The Supreme Court did not definitively resolve whether private parties can enforce Section 2 — that question could return to the Court in a future term. If the Court eventually endorses the Eighth Circuit’s original position, it would fundamentally reshape voting rights enforcement nationwide, leaving the federal government as the sole enforcer of the landmark civil rights law.

For Native American communities, which face unique obstacles to voting — including lack of residential addresses, limited polling places on reservations, and voter ID requirements — the stakes are particularly high. NARF has successfully brought redistricting cases in Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, and North Dakota in just the last five years. The path forward under the new legal landscape remains uncertain.