Supreme Court Voting Rights Act decision: Why did Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissent on Native American voting protections and North Dakota redistricting?

The U.S. Supreme Court temporarily blocked a lower court ruling that would have weakened the Voting Rights Act’s protections for Native American voters in North Dakota. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch dissented, signaling their willingness to restrict private enforcement of the law.

The case stems from a redistricting plan allegedly diluting Native American voting strength, with tribal nations warning the decision could cost a Native legislator her seat. The Court’s intervention preserves Section 2 enforcement—for now—as the legal battle continues.

Why did Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissent on Voting Rights Act protections for Native Americans?

The U.S. Supreme Court temporarily blocked a lower court ruling that would have weakened Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in seven Midwestern states, including North Dakota. The case involved two tribal nations challenging North Dakota’s 2021 redistricting plan, which they argued diluted Native American voting strength. While the majority granted a stay, Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch dissented, signaling their willingness to limit private enforcement of the landmark civil rights law.

The dissenters’ position raises fundamental questions about access to justice for minority voters. If private citizens and groups cannot bring Voting Rights Act challenges, enforcement would depend entirely on the Justice Department – whose approach changes dramatically with each administration. This could create instability in voting rights protection.

The dissent reflects a long-standing judicial philosophy among some conservatives that the Voting Rights Act’s private right of action was never explicitly authorized by Congress. They see this as a separation of powers issue.

But doesn’t that interpretation ignore decades of precedent and the practical reality that the Justice Department can’t possibly monitor every local voting law change?

How does this North Dakota case threaten Native American representation?

The case stems from North Dakota’s legislative redistricting plan, which tribal nations argue packed Native American voters into a single district while splitting other Indigenous communities. Native Americans constitute about 5% of North Dakota’s population but have historically faced barriers to political participation.

The practical impact became clear when the 8th Circuit’s ruling endangered the seat of Collette Brown, a Native American woman serving in North Dakota’s House of Representatives. If the lower court’s decision stands, it could eliminate one of the few voices representing Indigenous communities in the state legislature.

Historical context of Native voting rights

Native Americans weren’t guaranteed U.S. citizenship until 1924, and some states continued restricting Indigenous voting into the 1950s. Even today, many reservations face challenges like lack of street addresses and distant polling places that disproportionately affect Native voters.

What does this mean for the future of the Voting Rights Act?

The Supreme Court’s temporary stay doesn’t resolve the underlying legal question about private enforcement of Section 2. Legal experts warn that if the Court ultimately sides with the 8th Circuit’s reasoning, it could:

• Dramatically reduce Voting Rights Act cases nationwide
• Shift enforcement power exclusively to the Justice Department
• Create uncertainty during redistricting cycles
• Disproportionately impact minority communities

The Voting Rights Act has been weakened in recent years, most notably after the Supreme Court’s 2013 Shelby County decision eliminated the preclearance requirement. This new challenge threatens another critical enforcement mechanism.

We’re seeing a judicial movement to return voting rights enforcement to the political branches of government rather than the courts. The question is whether that’s consistent with Congress’s original intent.

But with partisan gridlock in Congress, wouldn’t that effectively mean no enforcement at all in many cases? Especially when administrations change and have different priorities?

Which Supreme Court justices might switch sides in the final decision?

While Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch have indicated their position, the ultimate outcome may hinge on Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who joined the majority in granting the stay but might still vote differently in a final ruling. Chief Justice John Roberts has shown mixed positions on Voting Rights Act cases in the past.

How could this affect the 2026 midterm elections?

If the Supreme Court ultimately eliminates private enforcement of Section 2, the impact could be felt quickly in states redistricting for the 2026 midterms. Without private lawsuits challenging questionable maps, partisan gerrymanders and racially discriminatory districts might face fewer legal obstacles.

This could particularly affect states with large minority populations and histories of voting rights violations, potentially shaping the balance of power in state legislatures and Congress for years to come.

What are Native American tribes doing to protect voting rights?

Beyond litigation, tribal nations are pursuing multiple strategies to safeguard voting access:

• Increasing voter registration drives on reservations
• Working with local officials to establish polling places
• Educating members about voting rights
• Supporting Native candidates running for office

Even if the Supreme Court ultimately restricts Voting Rights Act lawsuits, these grassroots efforts may help mitigate some of the potential damage to Indigenous political representation.

Tribal nations have survived centuries of attempts to marginalize them. They’ll continue adapting strategies to protect their people’s democratic rights regardless of what the Supreme Court decides.

That’s true, but it’s frustrating that they have to keep fighting these battles over and over. Shouldn’t voting rights be guaranteed in 2025?