The bedrock of American democracy, the right to vote, continues to be shaped by ongoing legal battles and legislative actions across the nation. A decade after a landmark Supreme Court decision significantly altered the landscape of voting rights, new challenges are emerging, particularly concerning the ability of private citizens to challenge discriminatory voting practices.
A pivotal moment arrived in 2013 with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Shelby County v. Holder. This decision struck down the coverage formula of Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965, effectively eliminating the preclearance requirement. Preclearance mandated that jurisdictions with a history of racial discrimination in voting obtain federal approval before implementing new voting procedures. The VRA, enacted in the aftermath of the Civil War, aimed to enforce the Fifteenth Amendment’s guarantee against denying or abridging the right to vote based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude, banning tools of disenfranchisement like literacy tests and poll taxes.
The Brennan Center for Justice reports that the removal of preclearance “opened the floodgates” for restrictive voting laws. Since the Shelby County decision, at least 94 restrictive voting laws have been passed in 29 states. Notably, 29 of these laws were enacted in 11 states that were previously subject to preclearance, meaning they would likely have faced federal scrutiny and potential rejection under the VRA’s original framework. These restrictions have targeted various aspects of voting, from making voter registration more difficult and curtailing early voting opportunities to closing polling places and limiting voter assistance. The initial wave of restrictions focused heavily on imposing strict voter ID requirements, with states like Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, and North Carolina implementing or enforcing such laws immediately after the Shelby County ruling. More recently, particularly after the 2020 election, the focus has shifted to mail voting, with 43 restrictive laws passed in 22 states since 2013. Research indicates that many of these laws disproportionately impact voters of color, contributing to widening gaps in turnout rates between white voters and voters of color in some jurisdictions.
Adding to the complexity, a new legal challenge has emerged regarding the “private right of action” under Section 2 of the VRA. Section 2 prohibits voting practices that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or membership in a language minority group. For decades, private individuals and civil rights groups have relied on this provision to challenge discriminatory voting maps and procedures. However, recent rulings by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2023 and 2025 have asserted that private parties cannot bring lawsuits directly under Section 2, arguing that only the U.S. Justice Department has this authority. These rulings apply to seven states: Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota.
The implications of these 8th Circuit decisions are profound. If upheld, they would severely limit the avenues for challenging discriminatory voting practices, placing the sole burden of enforcement on the Justice Department. This comes at a time when, as NPR reports, the Justice Department under the Trump administration has reportedly scaled back its involvement in voting rights cases. The issue recently reached the Supreme Court in a redistricting case from North Dakota, Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians v. Howe. In this case, two tribal nations successfully argued in a lower court that North Dakota’s 2021 legislative map diluted Native American voting power. The 8th Circuit, however, reversed this, citing its controversial stance on the private right of action.
On July 24, 2025, the Supreme Court issued an unsigned order extending a pause on the 8th Circuit’s ruling in the North Dakota case. This temporary stay allows the tribal nations time to file a petition for a full review of the ruling by the high court. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch indicated they would have denied the request, allowing the 8th Circuit’s decision to take immediate effect. The pause means that the 2024 voting map, which allowed for the election of three Native American legislators, will remain in place for the 2026 state legislative contests, providing a temporary reprieve for voting rights advocates. However, the underlying legal question of the private right of action remains unresolved and could be taken up by the Supreme Court in the future, potentially further limiting the VRA’s scope.
The ongoing legal battles underscore the fragility of voting rights protections. Civil rights organizations and advocates are urging Congress to take action to restore the VRA’s full strength, specifically by passing the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and the Freedom to Vote Act, which would establish nondiscriminatory national standards for elections. The future of voting rights in America hinges on these critical legislative and judicial developments.
