WASHINGTON - FEBRUARY 05:  The U.S. Supreme Court is shown February 5, 2009 in Washington, DC. It was announced today that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had surgery after being diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON - FEBRUARY 05: The U.S. Supreme Court is shown February 5, 2009 in Washington, DC. It was announced today that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had surgery after being diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)
PHOTO: Win McNamee/Getty Images
Now playing
01:13
Supreme Court won't hear NC appeal on voter ID
WASHINGTON - FEBRUARY 05:  The U.S. Supreme Court is shown February 5, 2009 in Washington, DC. It was announced today that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had surgery after being diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON - FEBRUARY 05: The U.S. Supreme Court is shown February 5, 2009 in Washington, DC. It was announced today that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had surgery after being diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)
PHOTO: Win McNamee/Getty Images
Now playing
01:32
SCOTUS: States can force tax on online shoppers
Jack Phillips Today Show
Jack Phillips Today Show
PHOTO: NBC
Now playing
02:18
Colorado baker: I couldn't create this cake
A wedding cake with statuettes of two men is seen during the demonstration in West Hollywood, California, May 15, 2008, after the decision by the California Supreme Court to effectively greenlight same-sex marriage. AFP PHOTO / GABRIEL BOUYS (Photo credit should read GABRIEL BOUYS/AFP/Getty Images)
A wedding cake with statuettes of two men is seen during the demonstration in West Hollywood, California, May 15, 2008, after the decision by the California Supreme Court to effectively greenlight same-sex marriage. AFP PHOTO / GABRIEL BOUYS (Photo credit should read GABRIEL BOUYS/AFP/Getty Images)
PHOTO: GABRIEL BOUYS/AFP/AFP/Getty Images
Now playing
02:04
SCOTUS rules for baker in same-sex cake case
People wait in line to enter the U.S. Supreme Court, on April 23, 2018 in Washington, DC.
People wait in line to enter the U.S. Supreme Court, on April 23, 2018 in Washington, DC.
PHOTO: Mark Wilson/Getty Images
Now playing
01:44
SCOTUS wipes away lower court ruling
how the supreme court picks cases_00000000.jpg
how the supreme court picks cases_00000000.jpg
Now playing
01:39
How the Supreme Court picks its cases
Now playing
01:31
Supreme Court allows parts of travel ban
WASHINGTON - JUNE 25: The exterior view of the U.S. Supreme Court is seen June 25, 2007 in Washington, DC. The Supreme Court has ruled to give more freedom for interest groups and unions to run TV ads before elections, and also ruled to limit taxpayers
WASHINGTON - JUNE 25: The exterior view of the U.S. Supreme Court is seen June 25, 2007 in Washington, DC. The Supreme Court has ruled to give more freedom for interest groups and unions to run TV ads before elections, and also ruled to limit taxpayers' rights to challenge government initiatives as unconstitutionally promoting religion. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)
PHOTO: File/Alex Wong/Getty Images
Now playing
01:05
Supreme Court throws out NC redistricting maps
Pro-choice activist, Alissa Manzoeillo, of Washington, D.C. waits for rulings in front of the U.S. Supreme Court  on June 27, 2016 in Washington, DC. A ruling is expected in Whole Woman
Pro-choice activist, Alissa Manzoeillo, of Washington, D.C. waits for rulings in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on June 27, 2016 in Washington, DC. A ruling is expected in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, a Texas case the places restrictions on abortion clinics, as well as rulings in the former Virginia Governor's corruption case and a gun rights case.
PHOTO: Pete Marovich/Getty Images
Now playing
01:25
Supreme Court rules on Texas abortion law
Obama Supreme Court immigration ruling_00000000.jpg
Obama Supreme Court immigration ruling_00000000.jpg
Now playing
01:16
Obama responds to immigration ruling
The U.S. Supreme Court is shown as the court meets to issue decisions May 23, 2016 in Washington, D.C.
The U.S. Supreme Court is shown as the court meets to issue decisions May 23, 2016 in Washington, D.C.
PHOTO: Win McNamee/Getty Images
Now playing
01:11
Supreme Court upholds affirmative action at university
WASHINGTON, DC - JUNE 25: A gay marriage waves a flag in front of the Supreme Court Building June 25, 2015 in Washington, DC. The high court is expected rule in the next few days on whether states can prohibit same sex marriage, as 13 states currently do. (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON, DC - JUNE 25: A gay marriage waves a flag in front of the Supreme Court Building June 25, 2015 in Washington, DC. The high court is expected rule in the next few days on whether states can prohibit same sex marriage, as 13 states currently do. (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)
PHOTO: Mark Wilson/Getty Images
Now playing
01:36
GOP hopefuls denounce marriage ruling
The Justices of the US Supreme Court sit for their official photograph on October 8, 2010 at the Supreme Court in Washington, DC. Front row (L-R): Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Associate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy and Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Back Row (L-R): Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice Stephen Breyer, Associate Justice Samuel Alito Jr. and Associate Justice Elena Kagan. AFP PHOTO / TIM SLOAN (Photo credit should read TIM SLOAN/AFP/Getty Images)
The Justices of the US Supreme Court sit for their official photograph on October 8, 2010 at the Supreme Court in Washington, DC. Front row (L-R): Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Associate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy and Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Back Row (L-R): Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice Stephen Breyer, Associate Justice Samuel Alito Jr. and Associate Justice Elena Kagan. AFP PHOTO / TIM SLOAN (Photo credit should read TIM SLOAN/AFP/Getty Images)
PHOTO: TIM SLOAN/AFP/Getty Images
Now playing
01:21
Supreme Court rules on EPA emissions limits
The U.S. Supreme Court is shown March 29, 2016 in Washington, DC following the first 4-4 tie in a case before the court.
The U.S. Supreme Court is shown March 29, 2016 in Washington, DC following the first 4-4 tie in a case before the court.
PHOTO: Win McNamee/Getty Images
Now playing
01:09
Supreme Court rules 7-1 in favor of death row inmate
A general view of the US Supreme Court in Washington, DC, June 18, 2015. AFP PHOTO/JIM WATSON (Photo credit should read JIM WATSON/AFP/Getty Images)Supreme Court building exterior
A general view of the US Supreme Court in Washington, DC, June 18, 2015. AFP PHOTO/JIM WATSON (Photo credit should read JIM WATSON/AFP/Getty Images)Supreme Court building exterior
PHOTO: JIM WATSON/AFP/Getty Images
Now playing
01:37
Supreme Court rules in favor of lethal injection drug
WASHINGTON, DC - MARCH 26: The exterior of the U.S. Supreme Court on March 26, 2012 in Washington, DC. Today the high court, which has set aside six hours over three days, will hear arguments over the constitutionality President Barack Obama
WASHINGTON, DC - MARCH 26: The exterior of the U.S. Supreme Court on March 26, 2012 in Washington, DC. Today the high court, which has set aside six hours over three days, will hear arguments over the constitutionality President Barack Obama's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)
PHOTO: Getty Images
Now playing
01:14
Supreme Court rules on congressional districting

Story highlights

The law was challenged by civil rights groups and the Obama administration

North Carolina's new governor, Democrat Roy Cooper, moved to dismiss the appeal

(CNN) —  

The Supreme Court is letting stand a lower court opinion from last summer that struck down North Carolina’s voter ID law.

The law was challenged by civil rights groups and the Obama administration, which argued that the law’s photo ID requirement had a disparate impact on minority voters.

The North Carolina General Assembly had urged the court to review a lower court decision that held the law targeted “African-Americans with almost surgical precision.” The Supreme Court declined to weigh in, but Chief Justice John Roberts wrote separately to stress that the denial should not be read as an endorsement of the lower court’s decision.

The case was complicated by the fact that after the election, North Carolina’s new governor, Democrat Roy Cooper, moved to dismiss the appeal that was first filed when Republican Pat McCrory was governor, while lawyers for the General Assembly urged the court to move forward.

“Given the blizzard of filings over who is and who is not authorized to seek review in the court under North Carolina law, it is important to recall our frequent admonition that the denial of writ of certiorari imports no expression of opinion on the merits,” Roberts wrote in a statement.

It would have taken four justices to take up the case, but Roberts’ separate statement reflects the fact that the court saw a procedural obstacle and will instead likely wait for another similar case to come to the court before giving any more guidance on the divisive issue of identification for voters at the polls.

Last summer, before the election, the justices signaled they were closely divided when they split 4-4 on a request to allow the provision of the law to go into effect for the election.

The Supreme Court’s order meant provisions of the law – concerning a tightening in voter ID requirements, cutbacks on early voting and the preregistration of 16-year-olds – remained off the books for November’s election.

“Today’s announcement is good news for North Carolina voters,” Cooper said in a statement. “We need to be making it easier to vote, not harder – and the court found this law sought to discriminate against African-American voters with ‘surgical precision.’ I will continue to work to protect the right of every legal, registered North Carolinian to participate in our democratic process.”

The North Carolina GOP said in a statement that it plans to “continue to fight” for the voter ID measures.

“Republicans will continue to fight for common sense and constitutional voter ID measures, similar to what many other states already have,” Chairman Robin Hayes said in a statement. “While Governor Cooper and Attorney General (Josh) Stein have stymied voter ID for now, they will ultimately lose in their efforts to block North Carolina citizens from having these protections.”

And Republican leaders of the General Assembly, House Speaker Tim Moore and President Pro Tempore Sen. Phil Berger, vowed to “continue fighting to protect the integrity of our elections by implementing the commonsense requirement to show a photo ID when we vote.”

The ACLU applauded the Supreme Court’s decision to let a lower court opinion stand in a statement Monday.

“This law, enacted with what the appeals court called discriminatory intent and ‘almost surgical precision’ targeting African-American voters, is meeting its much-deserved demise,” Dale Ho, the director of the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project, said in a statement. “An ugly chapter in voter suppression is finally closing.”

And Kristen Clarke, the president and executive director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, said the court’s move “now renders North Carolina’s law null and void, and brings to a close a long and protracted battle over a law deemed one of the most egregious voter suppression measures of its kind.”

“Now is the time for North Carolina lawmakers to restore access to democracy for its citizens,” Clarke added.

Meanwhile, Democratic National Committee chair Tom Perez called the court’s move “a huge victory.”

“This is a huge victory for voters and a massive blow to Republicans trying to restrict access to the ballot, especially in communities of color,” he said in a statement. “Across the country, the GOP has rammed through laws like this one to make it harder, not easier, for Americans to exercise their constitutional right to vote.”

But the conservative Heritage Foundation said it was “disappointing that the Supreme Court did not accept for review an obviously wrong decision by a 4th Circuit panel that doesn’t follow the court’s own precedent and other decisions on voter ID by other federal courts.”