Supreme Court Declines to Settle Private Right of Action Under Voting Rights Act

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to resolve whether private individuals and groups can bring lawsuits under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, instead sending two cases back to lower courts for further review. The Court did not address the question of a "private right ofaction" and instructed lower courts to reconsider the cases in light of a recent ruling that raised the bar for Voting Rights Act redistricting challenges.

Case Details

The two cases involved challenges to redistricting plans brought by individual voters in Mississippi and North Dakota.

Mississippi case: A lower court had ruled that individuals have the right to sue under Section 2. Three majority-Black state legislative districts were upheld by that ruling.

North Dakota case: The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had held that only the U.S. Department of Justice may bring lawsuits under Section 2. The Supreme Court had previously put that ruling on hold, allowing tribal-preferred maps to remain temporarily.

The Court vacated the lower court rulings in both cases and ordered them to be reconsidered in light of the Court's April decision in Louisiana v. Callais, which limited Voting Rights Act claims to maps intentionally designed to discriminate.

Dissenting Opinion

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented from the Court's order. She stated that she would have summarily resolved the cases to make clear that individuals could bring claims under Section 2. She wrote that the Callais ruling did not address the enforceability question and that there was no basis for vacating the lower court judgments.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Samuel Alito have previously indicated that they consider the private right of action under Section 2 to be an open question.

Background

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act prohibits voting practices that discriminate on the basis of race. Enforcement of the provision has historically relied on lawsuits filed by private individuals and groups, as well as by the Department of Justice.

Republican officials in Mississippi and North Dakota argued that only the U.S. Attorney General can enforce Section 2. The 8th Circuit is the only federal appeals court to have broken with precedent on this issue, also finding no private right of action under Section 2.

Implications

The Court's decision leaves the question of private enforcement under Section 2 unresolved for now. If the interpretation that only the attorney general can enforce Section 2 becomes widespread, the number of voting rights lawsuits may decline, as the Justice Department has limited resources and shifting priorities under different administrations.

Statements

• Lenny Powell, attorney for the Native American Rights Fund, 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.

Related Case

A separate case from Arkansas challenges private enforcement of Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act, 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.