Federal Judge Upholds North Carolina Photo Voter ID Law

📌 Key Facts

U.S. District Judge Loretta Biggs upheld North Carolina's photo voter ID mandate, saying she was compelled by controlling appellate case law to give "almost impenetrable deference" to the legislature's presumed good faith despite evidence of disparate impact and the state's history of discrimination.
In a 134-page opinion, Biggs acknowledged thousands of voters lack the required ID on Election Day and warned that for many "their vote will not count when the election is certified."
Biggs found the ID requirement disproportionately burdens Black and Hispanic voters but concluded that liberal voting‑rights groups failed to prove discriminatory intent, a legal standard that contributed to sustaining the law.
The statute has already been in force for multiple elections — including the November 2024 general election and the March 3, 2026 primary — and will remain in effect for the 2026 midterms after a seven‑year legal fight.
The ruling reverses Biggs' own 2019 preliminary injunction blocking the same statute, a turn shaped in part by subsequent 4th Circuit decisions that undercut her earlier order.
The NAACP has not yet decided whether to appeal Biggs' ruling.
Coverage links the decision to the broader national debate over voting rules, noting ties to President Trump's ongoing push for the federal SAVE America Act and Senate Minority/major-party rhetoric calling such measures "Jim Crow 2.0."

@SloanRachmuth hails the upholding of North Carolina's voter ID law as a significant victory after seven years of Democratic lawsuits, declaring photo ID requirements constitutional and permanent for elections.
@mitchkokai notes that Judge Loretta Biggs, who once blocked the state's voter ID law, has now upheld it in a ruling issued nearly two years post-trial, marking a shift in the ongoing legal saga.
@WLOS_13 reports that the federal judge dismissed claims from civil rights groups that the voter ID mandate was intentionally discriminatory against Black and Latino voters, allowing the law to stand.
@SKHaulenbeek explains that the judge rejected a long-standing challenge asserting North Carolina's voter ID rules disproportionately target and burden Black and Hispanic voters.
@MaxFlugrath recalls how a court previously described a North Carolina voter ID law as targeting Black voters with surgical precision, suggesting similar tactics in ongoing voter restriction efforts.

Based on 2 sources

Follow how coverage of this story developed over time

March 27, 2026

4:47 PM

Fox News

New information:

Fox article confirms Judge Loretta Biggs explicitly framed her decision as being 'compelled by controlling case law' and said she had to give 'almost impenetrable deference' to the legislature’s presumed good faith despite North Carolina’s history of discrimination.
It emphasizes that liberal voting-rights groups failed to prove discriminatory intent and that the law remains in force for the 2026 midterms after a seven‑year legal fight.
The piece more tightly links the ruling to President Trump’s ongoing push for the federal SAVE America Act and notes Chuck Schumer’s 'Jim Crow 2.0' rhetoric and characterization of the SAVE Act as 'a dagger to the heart of our democracy.'

March 26, 2026

11:38 PM

PBS News by Gary D. Robertson, Associated Press

New information:

Clarifies that Judge Loretta Biggs found evidence the ID requirement burdens Black and Hispanic voters disproportionately but held that recent appellate rulings force her to give 'almost impenetrable deference' to the legislature's presumed good faith and to assign less weight to North Carolina's history of discrimination.
Notes that Biggs' 134-page order explicitly acknowledges that thousands of voters will lack required ID on Election Day and, for many of them, 'their vote will not count when the election is certified.'
Reiterates that the law has already been in force for multiple elections, including the November 2024 general election and March 3, 2026 primary, after a separate state Supreme Court decision, and that the NAACP has not yet decided whether to appeal.
Contrasts this final ruling with Biggs' own 2019 preliminary injunction blocking the same statute, which the 4th Circuit later undercut, forcing her to reverse course despite her findings on disparate impact and history.

8:16 PM

ABC News