Judge says SCOTUS weakening of VRA left little choice but to uphold North Carolina voter suppression law

A federal court Thursday upheld a North Carolina law requiring strict photo ID to vote, citing recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions that have made it harder to block such restrictions under the Voting Rights Act (VRA).

It’s the latest stark, real-world example of how the Court’s campaign to chip away at the VRA is leading to increased barriers for voters of color.

The plaintiffs, led by the NAACP, argued the law was discriminatory and disproportionately burdened minority voters — citing data showing disparities in who has qualifying identification and a long history of racial discrimination in North Carolina elections. 

The court did not dispute that history but concluded that current legal standards set by higher courts prevented them from finding the law violates the Constitution or federal law.

The ruling showcases how recent Supreme Court decisions have weakened one of the last major tools for challenging voter suppression — just as the court prepares to weigh another case that could further gut the VRA.

“The law of the United States Supreme Court and Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals related to the issues presented by the instant case have undergone, and continue to undergo, dramatic change,” the court wrote. “Consequently, this Court concludes that it is compelled by controlling case law to render Judgment in favor of the Defendants.”

That language points directly to a growing reality in voting rights litigation. Even when courts acknowledge disparities or a long history of discrimination, recent Supreme Court precedent is making it far harder to block suppressive voting laws.

For decades, Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act has served as a powerful safeguard against policies that disproportionately burden minority voters. It allows plaintiffs to challenge laws that result in racial discrimination — even if lawmakers did not explicitly say that was their goal.

But the Supreme Court has steadily narrowed how that provision can be enforced.

“The Supreme Court’s approach to defining appropriate challenges under section 2 of the VRA has evolved and continues to evolve,” the court wrote. “Although section 2 still remains as a mode of review for claims against facially neutral time, place, and manner voting rules, it has become increasingly clear that the intended force of section 2 of the VRA has been lessened.”

The high court’s anti-voting shift was at the heart of this decision.

“The parties do not dispute that North Carolina has a history of extensive official discrimination against African Americans, and that this history in the area of voting is well documented,” the court wrote. “Over the last century-and-a-half, North Carolina legislators and private citizens have employed a variety of measures to limit the rights of racial and ethnic minorities to register to vote, to exercise the vote, and to participate in the democratic process.”

Still, the district court determined that under current legal standards set by the Supreme Court, that wasn’t enough.

In recent years, the Supreme Court has made it significantly harder for voting rights advocates to sustain claims of discrimination under the Voting Rights Act.

The court’s decision in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee (2021), which is directly referenced in the North Carolina ruling, created new hurdles for proving discrimination under Section 2, emphasizing factors like the size of the burden imposed and the availability of alternative ways to vote.

Earlier rulings also referenced by the court, such as Abbott v. Perez (2018), strengthened the presumption that lawmakers act in good faith, raising the bar for proving discriminatory intent. And Shelby County v. Holder (2013), which eliminated federal preclearance requirements for states with histories of voter suppression, opened the door for laws like North Carolina’s in the first place.

Together, those decisions among others have reshaped the legal landscape on voting rights — and the North Carolina ruling shows how lower courts are already applying them in practice, making it much harder for advocates to challenge discriminatory voting laws.

The decision arrives at a pivotal moment.

The Supreme Court is expected to rule soon in Callais v. Louisiana, a high-stakes case that could further weaken Section 2. Advocates have warned the court could severely limit when race can be considered in drawing and remedying political maps and otherwise narrow the VRA’s reach.

If that happens, unfavorable outcomes like the one in North Carolina may become more common as the Court continues to narrow how the VRA is applied overall.

After the Supreme Court struck down the VRA’s preclearance system in 2013, Section 2 became the primary tool for challenging discriminatory voting laws. Now, with that tool itself being narrowed, courts are increasingly constrained — even when plaintiffs present clear evidence of discriminatory impact.

The North Carolina ruling lays that tension bare.