Full story
Supreme Court remands Section 2
The U.S. Supreme Court acted in a Voting Rights Act case brought by Native American tribes on Monday, sending the dispute back for reconsideration after the high court weakened the Civil Rights-era law.
“The Supreme Court acted in a Voting Rights Act case brought by Native American tribes on Monday”
In the North Dakota case, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that only the federal government can sue to enforce the law, and the Supreme Court blocked that approach in July, allowing the tribes’ preferred maps to temporarily stay in place.
The decision jeopardizes three new majority-Black state legislative districts, though the effects likely won’t be felt until 2027, said Damon Hewitt, president and executive director of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.
An attorney for the Native American Rights Fund, Lenny Powell, said sending the case back was the right call and vowed to "keep fighting to ensure that Native voters have the ability to vote and effect change in their communities."
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, writing that both rulings should have been reversed, as the conservative majority had already diluted enforcement power with an April decision striking down a majority Black congressional district in Louisiana.
Competing interpretations and dissent
The Supreme Court’s Monday order set aside lower court decisions and told the courts to revisit the cases in light of the high court’s Louisiana v. Callais decision in late April.
In the North Dakota dispute, the 8th Circuit ruled that Section 2 cannot be enforced by private plaintiffs suing under a different civil rights law, known as Section 1983, and the Supreme Court’s action means the question of who can bring lawsuits is again before lower courts.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, and UPI reported that she said the high court should have summarily resolved the cases, making it clear that individuals can bring these lawsuits.
Mark Gaber, senior director for redistricting at the Campaign Legal Center, said, "Today, the Supreme Court agreed that courts cannot slam the courthouse doors on plaintiffs seeking equal representation."
Damon Hewitt also criticized the remand, saying, "On the heels of one of the most devastating voting rights rulings in decades, the Supreme Court has reached a new low."
What’s at risk next
The Supreme Court’s Monday action involved two voting discrimination cases challenging redistricting plans in Mississippi and North Dakota after the 2020 census, with both sets of plaintiffs having prevailed before district courts.
“The cases are the latest test of the 1965 law and threaten to sharply curtail who can sue”
In Mississippi, the case was brought by the state's chapter of the NAACP and 14 voters, while in North Dakota the plaintiffs were the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians, the Spirit Lake Tribe and three Native American voters.
CBS News said the cases threaten to sharply curtail who can sue to enforce Section 2, and it described how the 8th Circuit’s approach conflicted with decades of case law.
Ellen Katz, a professor at the University of Michigan Law School, found that since 1982, private plaintiffs were part of 96.4% of Section 2 lawsuits that led to published decisions and were the only litigants in 86.7% of those opinions.
The Supreme Court’s remand also comes as the conservative majority has already diluted enforcement power, with the AP reporting that the April decision in Louisiana limited Voting Rights claims to maps that are intentionally designed to discriminate, a very high standard.
