Supreme Court blocks ruling that would undermine the Voting Rights Act
The decision grants an application brought by Native American tribes, putting on hold the decision by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh had temporarily blocked the lower court ruling a day before it was due to go into effect, giving the justices more time to decide what next steps to take.
The brief, unsigned order noted that three conservative justices, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch, would have denied the application.
The case in question concerns a challenge by Native American tribes to a North Dakota legislative map that they claim violates the landmark 1965 voting rights law, which protects minority voters.
But the appeals court ruled that private plaintiffs like the tribes cannot sue to enforce Section 2 of the law, an interpretation that would have far-reaching effects.
If the Supreme Court were to embrace that approach and issue a ruling that would apply nationwide, it would mean only the federal government could bring such claims. But the decision to block the ruling suggests the court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, may not be inclined to do so.
Litigation will now continue in lower courts, with the case likely to again reach the justices at a later date through the normal appeals process.
Lawyers for the two tribes, Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians and Spirit Lake Tribe, and three individual plaintiffs argue that the 2021 state redistricting map diluted the voting strength of Native Americans by packing a large proportion of those voters in one district and distributing others around several other districts, an approach known as "packing and cracking."
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act prohibits such conduct, and a federal judge initially ruled in favor of the tribes in 2023. A new map was adopted for 2024 and three Native American candidates, including one of the plaintiffs, Collette Brown, were elected.
But in May this year, the appeals court reversed course and declined to put its ruling on hold.
The tribes' lawyers had warned that if the Supreme Court did not block the ruling, Brown's status as an elected representative would have been brought into question because if the 2021 map were reimposed, she would no longer live in her district as is required.
North Dakota Attorney General Drew Wrigley, representing the state, acknowledged that courts for decades "have uncritically assumed the existence of a private right of action for those claims."
That this issue had not be raised before "does not mean Congress spoke with the clarity needed to create a privately enforceable right," he added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
41 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Philippine Senate Chief Favors Dropping VP Duterte's Impeachment Case
The leader of the Philippine Senate has signaled there won't be an impeachment trial against Vice President Sara Duterte, saying a court ruling that voided the complaint should be followed. 'The decision of the Supreme Court is clear: the impeachment complaint is null and void,' Senator Francis Escudero said at a media briefing on Tuesday.
Politico
an hour ago
- Politico
Trump admin escalates its war with the courts — this time targeting Judge Boasberg
Boasberg's remarks at the conference came after weeks of Trump allies inside and outside the administration suggesting judges who rule against the president should be impeached and disfavored court orders should be ignored. Judges at every level — including justices of the Supreme Court — have raised the specter of defiance by the administration and urged officials to respect court orders regardless of which court or judge issues them. Jeffrey Sutton, the chief judge of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals who briefed journalists after the conference that day, said several lawmakers were in attendance, including Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), as well as Reps. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) and Hank Johnson (D-Ga.). It is unclear whether the lawmakers heard Boasberg's remarks. A spokesperson for Boasberg did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Mizelle's complaint falls to Sri Srinivasan, the chief judge of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington, who oversees judicial disciplinary matters for judges in that circuit. Federal judges are ordinarily barred from making out-of-court public comments about pending or impending matters. It's unclear whether Boasberg's remarks at the judges' meeting qualify and whether he was speaking about any case he knew to be pending or imminent. The complaint also makes more general claims that his statements undermined 'public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary.' Mizelle also filed a complaint earlier this year against Washington-based U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes for her sharp-elbowed comments about the Justice Department's arguments in a lawsuit seeking to block Trump's transgender military ban. In March, the Justice Department asked the D.C. Circuit to remove Boasberg from the deportation case and reassign it to another judge, an extraordinary step. The appeals court never acted on that request but has paused his orders related to potential contempt proceedings. After Boasberg's March ruling, Trump called for the judge's impeachment, labeling him a 'troublemaker and agitator.' The new complaint again asks for Boasberg's removal from the deportation case and for him to be reprimanded publicly. It also raises the prospect of his fellow judges calling for his impeachment over the remarks. The administration has recently escalated its fight with the judiciary in two other arenas. The Justice Department sued the entire federal bench in Maryland over a policy granting an automatic 48-hour hold on deportation cases. And the administration publicly attacked judges in New Jersey for appointing a veteran federal prosecutor as the state's U.S. attorney — an effort to push aside Trump's pick for the post, his former personal attorney Alina Habba.
an hour ago
Ghislaine Maxwell, convicted Jeffrey Epstein associate, makes pitch to Supreme Court
The U.S. Supreme Court should hear Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal of her 2021 sex trafficking conviction because the government has an "obligation to honor" a non-prosecution agreement with Jeffrey Epstein that inoculated Maxwell from any criminal charges, her lawyers argued in a brief to the Supreme Court Monday. "Plea and non-prosecution agreements resolve nearly every federal case. They routinely include promises that extend to others—co-conspirators, family members, potential witnesses. If those promises mean different things in different parts of the country, then trust in our system collapses," the brief said. Federal prosecutors have argued that the non-prosecution agreement applied only in Florida and did not bind New York, where charges against him, and subsequently Maxwell, were brought. Maxwell's attorneys argued the terms of the NPA Epstein signed were unqualified. "It is not geographically limited to the Southern District of Florida, it is not conditioned on the co-conspirators being known by the government at the time, it does not depend on what any particular government attorney may have had in his or her head about who might be a co-conspirator, and it contains no other caveat or exception. This should be the end of the discussion," the defense brief said. The Justice Department has urged the Supreme Court to reject Maxwell's petition even as Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche agreed to meet with Maxwell last week. Prosecutors have argued Maxwell cannot enforce the NPA because she was not a party to it. The defense disagreed. "Petitioner's alleged status as Epstein's co-conspirator was the entire basis of her prosecution," the defense brief said. "No one is above the law—not even the Southern District of New York. Our government made a deal, and it must honor it. The United States cannot promise immunity with one hand in Florida and prosecute with the other in New York. President Trump built his legacy in part on the power of a deal—and surely he would agree that when the United States gives its word, it must stand by it. We are appealing not only to the Supreme Court but to the President himself to recognize how profoundly unjust it is to scapegoat Ghislaine Maxwell for Epstein's crimes, especially when the government promised she would not be prosecuted," Maxwell's attorney David Oscar Markus said in a statement.
