The Supreme Court declined Monday to review an Arkansas case challenging voter assistance limits, leaving in place a lower court ruling that bars private individuals and groups from suing under Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act in seven Midwestern states.
Section 208 generally allows voters with disabilities or inability to read or write to receive help casting ballots from a person of their choice. The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last July that private parties have no right to enforce this provision, meaning only the Department of Justice can bring lawsuits to protect these voters.
The Supreme Court’s order leaves that 8th Circuit decision in place across Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota. Arkansas United, an immigrant advocacy group that has provided Spanish-language interpreters at polling sites, challenged an Arkansas law limiting non-poll-workers to assisting only six voters per election. The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund represented the group.
The ruling comes two months after the Supreme Court issued a major decision in Louisiana v. Callais on April 29, 2026, that weakened Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act—the provision barring racially discriminatory redistricting. That decision narrowed how courts can consider race when evaluating whether voting maps dilute minority representation, according to reporting from AP News and multiple voting rights advocates.
Thomas A. Saenz, MALDEF’s president and general counsel, said the combination of rulings leaves the 8th Circuit with no voting rights enforcement available to private parties. “The impact is there’s no voting rights enforcement because this administration is hostile to voting rights, so they won’t be doing any enforcement of the Voting Rights Act,” he said, according to the Arkansas Advocate.
For decades, private plaintiffs have brought the vast majority of voting rights lawsuits. A 2026 Fordham Law Review study calculated that more than 90 percent of Voting Rights Act Section 2 cases have been brought by private plaintiffs, according to Democracy Docket. Without a private right of action, enforcement depends entirely on the Justice Department’s resources and political priorities—which shift with each presidential administration.
The 8th Circuit is the only federal appeals court to find no private right of action under Section 208. Other circuits have long allowed private enforcement of this provision. Arkansas Republican Attorney General Tim Griffin called the Supreme Court’s decision “a victory for the state,” saying the high court was “following the plain meaning of the language in the Voting Rights Act.”
The Supreme Court may revisit this issue through a pending North Dakota case brought by the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa and other tribal voters challenging restrictions on who can help disabled voters cast ballots. The Supreme Court last month ordered the 8th Circuit to reconsider that case under new legal standards, suggesting the justices may eventually weigh in on whether private citizens have a right to sue under the Voting Rights Act.
Sources
- Democracy Docket — Supreme Court’s decision to decline the Arkansas case; 8th Circuit ruling on Section 208; impact on voting rights enforcement in seven states
- NPR — Details on Section 208 protections; private right of action issues; Arkansas United case background; MALDEF’s plans for future litigation
- Arkansas Advocate — MALDEF’s statement on enforcement; context on the broader Voting Rights Act weakening; Louisiana v. Callais decision in April 2026; expert analysis from UCLA Voting Rights Project
