Supreme Court Sends Native Voting Rights Case Back to Lower Court

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ordered a federal appeals court to reconsider a closely watched Native American voting rights case from North Dakota, vacating a ruling that had stripped tribes and individual voters of the ability to sue under the Voting Rights Act. The decision, while procedural, offers a temporary reprieve for tribal plaintiffs who had been blocked from challenging a legislative map they argue dilutes their voting power.

The justices directed the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to revisit its May 2025 ruling in Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians v. Howe in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Louisiana v. Callais, which significantly narrowed the scope of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. According to AP News, the lower court had ruled that only the federal government — not private parties such as tribes or advocacy groups — can sue to enforce Section 2, a decision that conflicted with decades of legal precedent.

Background of the Dispute

The case stems from North Dakota’s 2021 redistricting map, which Native American voters from the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians and the Spirit Lake Nation challenged as discriminatory. Under the contested map, Native voters in northeastern North Dakota could elect only one preferred candidate to the state House instead of the usual two, and none to the state Senate where previously one had been elected.

A court-ordered remedial map was implemented in January 2024, and in the 2024 election, Turtle Mountain and Spirit Lake voters elected three preferred candidates. However, the state appealed, and in May 2025 the 8th Circuit ruled that private parties cannot bring lawsuits to enforce Section 2 — a finding that Indianz.com noted contradicted the Supreme Court’s own 1996 precedent in Morse v. Republican Party of Virginia.

A Procedural Move with Major Implications

Monday’s order was a “Grant, Vacate, and Remand” (GVR) — a procedural move that does not decide the merits of the case. Instead, the Supreme Court instructed the 8th Circuit to reconsider its decision in light of the Callais ruling, which in April limited Voting Rights Act claims to maps intentionally designed to discriminate — a much higher legal standard.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented from the order, arguing that the Callais decision had nothing to do with the private right of action question at the heart of the North Dakota case. “Thus I see no basis for vacating the lower court’s judgment,” Jackson wrote in a three-sentence dissent, adding that she would have summarily reversed the 8th Circuit based on the 1996 Morse precedent.

Reactions from Tribal Advocates

Lenny Powell, a staff attorney with the Native American Rights Fund, welcomed the Supreme Court’s action. “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,” Powell said. “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, said the Court “agreed that courts cannot slam the courthouse doors on plaintiffs seeking equal representation.”

Broader Voting Rights Landscape

The case is unfolding against a backdrop of aggressive Republican-led redistricting efforts across multiple states following the Callais decision. A related Mississippi case, Board of Election Commissioner v. NAACP, was also sent back for reconsideration, jeopardizing three new majority-Black state legislative districts. Damon Hewitt, president of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, told AP News that the effects likely won’t be felt until 2027.

Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-New Mexico), who serves on the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, said the Voting Rights Act “is a fundamental promise of fair representation, but under this Supreme Court and Republicans in Congress, that promise is being undermined at every turn.”

What Comes Next

The 8th Circuit must now determine how to apply the Callais standard to the North Dakota case. If it upholds its earlier ruling that only the federal government can enforce Section 2, the issue could return to the Supreme Court for a definitive ruling on the private right of action — a question the conservative majority has so far declined to address directly.

For Native American communities, the stakes are particularly high. Voting access on tribal lands has long been hampered by remote polling locations, voter ID laws, and address requirements that disproportionately affect reservation-based populations. The ability to bring private lawsuits under Section 2 has been a critical tool for challenging discriminatory maps.

Melody McCoy, a senior staff attorney at NARF, captured the broader concern earlier this year, noting that the current Supreme Court “is willing and able to rewrite everything — including the foundations of federal Indian law as we know it.” With the 2026 midterm elections approaching, the outcome of this case could have lasting consequences for voting rights across Indian Country.