On November 11, 2021, North Dakota adopted new state legislative boundaries, completing its decennial redistricting cycle. While the map was largely uncontroversial, three districts drew intense scrutiny for their indigenous population compositions. A few months later, a coalition of tribes and Native American residents filed suit in the federal District Court of North Dakota, contending that the new boundaries diluted their collective voting power. In the ensuing case, which became known as Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians v Howe, the state vehemently rejected these accusations, offering myriad explanations in defense of their new lines. Most prominently, North Dakota argued that the coalition’s desire for another majority-minority seat would exceed the requirements imposed by the Supreme Court’s Thornburg v Gingles decision, which grants racial minorities certain protections in the redistricting process. In November 2023, Chief Judge Peter Welte comprehensively refuted this assertion, holding that the state’s legislative maps discriminated against two tribes. In its opinion, the District Court addressed how North Dakota failed to properly apply the Supreme Court’s precedent, noting how the legislature prevented “Native American voters from having an equal opportunity to elect candidates of their choice.” While many may interpret this decision as a straightforward application of Gingles, the ruling implicitly undermined future attempts to dilute indigenous voting strength. By emphasizing how geography, low turnout rates, and discrimination impact indigenous voters, the court demonstrated how tribal nations are entitled to districts that better accentuate their political concerns.