Nov 20 (Reuters) - In a ruling on Monday, a federal appeals court stated that only the U.S. government, and not private parties, can file lawsuits under the Voting Rights Act, a significant decision that could limit challenges to racial discrimination in voting, access to ballots, voting rules, and redistricting.

The ruling, likely to be appealed, sets the stage for a potential voting rights battle at the U.S. Supreme Court. Most cases involving the Voting Rights Act are brought forth by private parties, with civil rights groups being at the forefront. For instance, the case that led the Supreme Court to strike down Alabama's congressional map earlier this year was initially filed by a coalition of civil rights organizations.

The decision upholds a 2022 ruling by U.S. District Judge Lee Rudofsky, a former Republican President Donald Trump appointee from Arkansas, which stated that only the U.S. attorney general has the authority to initiate lawsuits under section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. This provision prohibits voting rules that exhibit racial discrimination.

In a 2-1 decision, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals explained that the text of the Voting Rights Act does not explicitly grant a "private right of action" to individuals or organizations, despite courts, including the Supreme Court, accepting such cases for many years. Circuit Judge David Stras, who was appointed by former President Trump, stated in the majority opinion that discussing the existence of a private right of action is different from actually confirming its existence. Circuit Judge Raymond Gruender, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, joined Stras in the majority decision.

However, Chief Judge Lavenski Smith, also appointed by President Bush, dissented and expressed his intent to follow existing precedent unless Congress or the Supreme Court stated otherwise.

Sophia Lin Lakin, the director of the American Civil Liberties Union's voting rights project and one of the plaintiffs' lawyers, referred to the ruling as a "travesty for democracy" in a statement. The plaintiffs are currently exploring their legal options in light of this decision.