Supreme Court allows a ruling that ends a tool to protect minority voters in 7 states

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: NPR

Updated June 22, 2026 3:37 PM ET


By declining to take up a lower court ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court has dealt another blow to the Voting Rights Act.

The court announced Monday that it will not review an Arkansas-based lawsuit, leaving in place a 2025 appeals panel ruling that ends a long-used tool for protecting minority voters from discrimination under the landmark law in seven mainly Midwestern states.

That ruling found that in the states covered by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals — Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota — private individuals and groups do not have the right to sue to enforce what's known as Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act, which generally allows voters with a disability or inability to read or write to get help with voting from a person of their choice.

The Supreme Court's move comes almost two months after its conservative supermajority issued a major ruling that further weakened the Voting Rights Act, setting off a groundswell in redistricting across the country.

Read more: https://www.npr.org/2026/06/22/nx-s1-5863532/supreme-court-voting-rights-act-private-right-arkansas

---

Link to ORDER (PDF) - https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/062226zor_g314.pdf

[tavernier]

1. No surprise.

In other news, SCOTUS takes up issue of modern new robes, preferring something lighter and cooler. The final vote was 6 - 3 for white robes and a stylish pointed cap which could be worn at night when traveling to cross burnings, to assure privacy from reporters and angry citizens.

[hookaleft]

2. lol

They need to be disrobed. They are a disgrace. They have taken it upon themselves not to interpret the Constitution and it's Amendments but to reinterpret and destroy them. The ruling to give Trump total immunity has no basis in the Constitution. Quite the contrary. The job of the President according to the Article II section 3:

The Take Care Clause is found in Article II, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution and requires the President to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed". It serves as the constitutional foundation for the President's enforcement power, ensuring that all federal statutes are properly administered and obeyed.

They have totally abandoned their responsibility to their oath.

[Lonestarblue]

3. I'm not sure what this means for voters with disabilities.

For example, if someone lost both hands in an accident or war, could that person no longer have someone drive them to the polls or operate the voting machine? Without hands or with medical conditions that prevent you from filling out a mail ballot clearly, you no longer get to vote? The SC is discriminating against people with disabilities in those states.

[wolfie001]

5. Looks like the racist folk (tRUMPers) will single voters out based on skin color

Just like America before 1965. Sick nasty mf'ers.

[FBaggins]

14. It doesn't impact a disabled voter from getting assistance from someone else

It means that the person offering that assistance cannot sue the state if the state limits the number of people that they can so assist.

In Arkansas, the law requires poll workers to keep track of everyone assisting voters and limits the number of people that each one can help to six. I think that's limited to actually helping cast a ballot - not transportation. A group representing such people tried to sue and was told that the VRA provides them no basis for such a claim.

The appeal was denied cert without any justice indicating that they would grant it

[Lonestarblue]

15. Thank you!

[wolfie001]

4. Of course it's the christo-fascist "Shit-6"

Not a shock. Expected.

[bluestarone]

6. Kind of tells us what our future looks like.

Our problems are just beginning i fear!

[dave99]

7. U.S. Supreme Court packed with White Racists

Their just doing their daily normal. No empathy for any person but themselves.

Need to have 6 accidentally ___ in the week

[FakeNoose]

8. I don't get it - this has to be ruled separately in each district?

Our mailed ballots in Pennsylvania are regularly printed in a way that allows a care-giver to sign for the handicapped person, if they are unable to sign for themselves. This is the standard practice in most states, if I'm not mistaken.

I don't understand why the 8th district has to rule differently, and why it applies to only a few states in the country. SCOTUS should have shot this down immediately.

[BumRushDaShow]

10. This is only applicable to states in the 8th Circuit for now

But I believe the issue is that they only want a government entity to sue, not individuals or 3rd party orgs.

I.e., from the article -

(snip)

For decades, enforcement of these sections of the Voting Rights Act has mainly been driven by lawsuits by private individuals and groups.

But after conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch issued a single-paragraph opinion in 2021 questioning a private right of action, Republican officials in multiple states have raised a novel legal argument: Only the U.S. attorney general, they contend, has the right to bring lawsuits under these parts of the Voting Rights Act.

(snip)

This is why these laws need to be completely redone. Democrats did draft 2 new Voting Rights Acts but they will probably need to add clarification about who can file a lawsuit.

[Polybius]

9. Maybe it's good that they didn't take the case

Because if they did, we know how they'd rule.

[BumRushDaShow]

11. Upholding the Appellate court basically was their ruling.

[Martin68]

12. With this SCOTUS in charge, and this Congress in session, the Voting Rights Act is dead.

[CaptainTruth]

13. Should we call it FCOTUS, Fascist Court of the United States?