Mississippi’s related appeal over its state legislative map is being sent back for reconsideration, following the Court’s action in the North Dakota case and broader enforcement questions under Section 2.

Mississippi’s case carries broader implications as other jurisdictions consider similar enforcement arguments under Section 2.

The Supreme Court has ordered lower courts to revisit a North Dakota Voting Rights Act case brought by Native American tribes after the Court weakened the Act in a recent ruling, which had undermined a key enforcement mechanism allowing lawsuits by voters and advocacy groups.

Mississippi officials contend Congress intended private enforcement to be limited and emphasize the attorney general’s enforcement mechanism, not private litigation.

Previously, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that only the federal government could sue to enforce Section 2, a stance seen as inconsistent with decades of case law and temporarily offset by a prior Supreme Court move allowing tribes’ preferred maps to stand for a time.

Tribal and civil rights advocates argue this departs from decades of private enforcement under Section 2, highlighting private plaintiffs’ prominence in Section 2 litigation since 1982.

This summary is based on Associated Press reporting from May 18, 2026, on the Court’s decision and related cases.

Experts warn these developments could have broader implications for voting rights groups and individual voters seeking to file Section 2 lawsuits.

The core question is who may sue to enforce Section 2—private individuals and groups or only the government—potentially limiting private enforcement.

The developments underscore ongoing tensions over how Voting Rights Act protections apply to redistricting and who can sue to enforce them, with advocacy groups and Native American tribes remaining central players.

Mississippi’s case involves the state NAACP chapter and 14 voters, while North Dakota’s case involves the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians, Spirit Lake Tribe, and three Native American voters.

An Eighth Circuit panel held that Section 2 cannot be enforced by private plaintiffs under Section 1983 within its circuit, aligning with North Dakota officials’ position.