Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch dissented Thursday as the Court stepped in to block a controversial federal appeals court decision that would have further undermined the Voting Rights Act — offering, for now, a temporary lifeline to Native American plaintiffs and the landmark civil rights law itself.
In an unsigned order issued via the Court’s “shadow docket,” the justices halted a ruling by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that would have prevented private citizens and civil rights groups from bringing lawsuits under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act — a provision that prohibits racial discrimination in voting.
The high court’s decision preserves, at least for now, the ability of private plaintiffs to challenge allegedly discriminatory voting laws, pending further litigation. The ruling directly affects a legal battle over North Dakota’s legislative maps, which Native American plaintiffs say dilute Indigenous voting strength in violation of federal law.
The plaintiffs had warned the justices that allowing the 8th Circuit’s ruling to stand would “cripple Congress’s most important civil rights statute,” especially in states like North Dakota, where they say “a long and sad history of official discrimination against Native Americans… persists to this day.”
As is typical in shadow docket matters, the Court did not provide an explanation for its decision, and the dissenting justices also issued no written opinions.
Still, the intervention wasn’t entirely unexpected. The 8th Circuit’s decision stands out as a national outlier — federal courts across the country have long recognized that individuals and organizations can sue under Section 2, not just the government.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the majority in granting the emergency relief, continuing their occasional alignment with Democratic-appointed justices on voting rights matters. In contrast, Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch have consistently taken a more restrictive view of election law protections.
Attorneys for North Dakota officials had urged the Court to let the appeals court decision go into effect, arguing that the normal legal process should play out. But the justices declined, preserving the status quo — for now.
While Thursday’s move is only temporary, it signals that the Supreme Court may eventually take up the broader issue of who can enforce the Voting Rights Act. Until then, private citizens remain able to bring Section 2 lawsuits in at least most of the country.
