Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch dissent from Supreme Court voting rights order
The court's latest shadow docket move is at least a temporary reprieve for Native American tribes and individuals who sued over a North Dakota legislative map under part of the act called Section 2, which bars discriminatory voting practices.
It's also a temporary reprieve, of sorts, for the Voting Rights Act itself.
A divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit had ruled that private parties (as opposed to the government) can't use federal law to enforce Section 2. That led the plaintiffs to seek emergency high court relief, warning that the St. Louis-based circuit's stance would 'knee-cap Congress's most important civil rights statute.' They wrote to the justices that the situation is especially dire in this case because North Dakota 'has a long and sad history of official discrimination against Native Americans that persists to this day.'
In typical shadow docket fashion, neither the Supreme Court majority nor the dissenting justices explained themselves in the unsigned order.
At any rate, the court's decision to grant temporary relief isn't entirely surprising, due to the 8th Circuit's unusual position on the Voting Rights Act in contrast with other federal appeals courts. Each circuit can rule differently on a given issue unless and until the Supreme Court sets a nationwide standard.
Also, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh have previously aligned with the Democratic appointees on voting rights. Going the other way, Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch have previously stood apart from their colleagues in election litigation.
Unsuccessfully opposing the pause on the circuit ruling, state officials urged the justices to 'follow the normal course' and let the circuit ruling take effect.
To be sure, this is only a temporary measure, and the Supreme Court can weigh in later in the litigation with a fuller ruling that's more restrictive of voting rights. But for now, the circuit's outlier ruling is halted.
Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration's legal cases.
This article was originally published on MSNBC.com
Solve the daily Crossword
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
5 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Trump claims Democrats are denying Republicans congressional districts in Mass. See the maps for yourself.
But that's not the only way Massachusetts has come into the conversation. Advertisement Amid Texas' ongoing redistricting controversy this week, and plenty of Democratic backlash, Trump Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'If you look at what's going on with the redistricting, or whatever you want to call it, the Democrats have done it long before we started,' he said following an executive order signing Tuesday afternoon. 'I got 40 percent [of the presidential vote] in Massachusetts, and yet they have 100 percent of the vote in terms of Congress. So there's no Republican, there's no anything. So I should, we should, have 40 percent. You know why? They redistricted.' Is there any truth to Trump's claims, and would it even be possible to draw a congressional district in Massachusetts with a Republican majority? In short, not really. Advertisement Trump won 36 percent of the Massachusetts presidential vote in 2024 (about 1.2 million votes), not 40 percent or 41 percent as he claimed Tuesday morning in a Trump did not win the majority of votes as of 2023. Massachusetts has not elected a Republican to the House for 31 years. In that time, the state's congressional districts have been redrawn three times, following the 2000, 2010, and 2020 censuses, as is required of states by the Constitution. The most drastic change to the state's congressional districts occurred following the 2010 census, when Massachusetts lost its 10th district (also a Democratic seat) due to low population growth. The state's current congressional districts were signed into law by Republican former governor Charlie Baker Under federal law, districts within a state must have roughly equal populations. Based on the 2020 census, the average population for each House seat is a little over 760,000 people. Districts must also be one, uninterrupted shape. The federal Voting Rights Act also dictates that congressional districts cannot be drawn with the intent of suppressing the voting rights of people of color. Advertisement In Massachusetts, the majority of registered voters — In 2024, five of Massachusetts' nine House members Though there are plenty of Republican-leaning voters in Massachusetts, it would be practically impossible to create a Republican-controlled congressional district because the state's major population hubs tend to vote Democratic. A red congressional district, no matter how wonkily drawn, would likely lack the required population size to qualify. When Democratic Secretary of State Bill Galvin was asked Tuesday if Massachusetts might draw a new Congressional map before the next census as Texas is attempting to do, Galvin said it is unlikely. 'We have no Republicans to give,' he said. Julian E.J. Sorapuru can be reached at
Politico
6 minutes ago
- Politico
About that Jack Smith investigation
Welcome to POLITICO's West Wing Playbook: Remaking Government, your guide to Donald Trump's unprecedented overhaul of the federal government — the key decisions, the critical characters and the power dynamics that are upending Washington and beyond. Send tips | Subscribe | Email Sophia | Email Irie | Email Ben JACK SMITH's time has finally come. The U.S. Office of Special Counsel last week launched an investigation into the man who brought two federal criminal cases against DONALD TRUMP in 2023. But the investigation appears to be a thinly veiled political stunt aimed at placating the president, who has promised to seek retribution against the former Justice Department special counsel. The probe focuses on whether Smith used his position as a federal government employee to engage in political activities in violation of the Hatch Act. It comes after Senate Intelligence Chair TOM COTTON (R-Ark.) requested that OSC investigate Smith for 'unprecedented interference in the 2024 election.' The office, an independent agency in the executive branch, investigates whistleblower complaints and alleged violations of civil service laws. It is separate from DOJ special counsels who are appointed by the attorney general to handle politically sensitive cases. The inquiry raises a number of questions, including: what conduct, if any, by Smith might be considered political; how the OSC could even punish him; and what Trump's ultimate aim could be. What did Smith say or do that could be considered political activity? Smith appeared to go to great lengths during his investigations to avoid saying anything publicly that could be construed as political. During the prosecution of Trump for his effort to subvert the 2020 election, Smith avoided any mention of the looming 2024 election. And he made no mention of the contest in court briefs urging the Supreme Court to quickly take up the election subversion case. Smith referenced the country's 'compelling interest' in determining the outcome of the case, writing that the public interest demands 'prompt resolution' without 'undue delay.' Cotton said Smith's push for a speedy trial and what he described as a 'procedurally irregular' brief in September 2024 'were the actions of a political actor masquerading as a public official.' The brief, which Smith filed at the direction of a federal judge, included large swaths of evidence to argue the case was still salvageable in the wake of the Supreme Court's immunity ruling. Trump balked about the inclusion of derogatory details of the case being made public in the final weeks of the election. But RICHARD PAINTER, who served as the chief White House ethics lawyer for former President GEORGE W. BUSH, said that 'absent Smith giving interviews, making public statements referring to the 2024 election,' his behavior wouldn't merit a Hatch Act violation. Justice Department policies prohibit indicting a candidate close to an election, but 'if you have a previously indicted candidate, and you're just going through the steps you know that lawyers go through in these cases,' that is permissible activity, Painter said. 'I've never heard of a Hatch Act case being premised on court filings,' he said, adding: 'I just don't see the evidence there.' A lawyer for Smith didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. A spokesperson for OSC declined to comment. How might OSC punish Smith if it were to find a violation occurred? There's virtually no way to punish Smith. Federal employees who are found to violate the Hatch Act primarily lose their jobs, but Smith is no longer employed by the federal government. Other penalties include suspension, formal reprimand and a $1,000 fine. So, what does Trump get out of this? One possibility is that Trump's disdain for Smith, whom he has described as 'mentally deranged,' is satisfied merely by seeing headlines about Smith under investigation. And even if Smith is ultimately cleared, Trump may take pleasure in dragging Smith through the burdens of an investigation — including the legal expenses. And it is possible for OSC to take the rare step of escalating the inquiry into a criminal matter, according to Painter. The office can make a criminal referral if it finds that someone ordered or coerced a federal employee to engage in partisan politics. 'I don't see any evidence, quite frankly, that he violated that,' said Painter, who added that he isn't aware of the OSC ever having made such a referral. MESSAGE US — West Wing Playbook is obsessively covering the Trump administration's reshaping of the federal government. Are you a federal worker? A DOGE staffer? Have you picked up on any upcoming DOGE moves? We want to hear from you on how this is playing out. Email us at westwingtips@ Did someone forward this email to you? Subscribe! POTUS PUZZLER Which presidents have donated their salaries? (Answer at bottom.) WHO'S IN, WHO'S OUT LABOR SHEDS CIO: THOMAS SHEDD left his role as chief information officer at the Department of Labor last week, Nextgov/FCW's NATALIE ALMS reports, a move that comes as the agency has lost about 20 percent of its total workforce and about 40 percent of its tech office to voluntary departures. The former Tesla engineer still appears to hold positions at the General Services Administration and the Federal Acquisition Service. FEMA TO ICE: The Department of Homeland Security has reassigned dozens of employees with the Federal Emergency Management Agency to Immigration and Customs Enforcement to assist in vetting and processing new hires for the government's mass deportation efforts, WaPo's BRIANNA SACKS reports. DHS stressed that the moves are temporary and won't impact disaster relief, but five current and former FEMA officials told WaPo that losing that many people, even for a few months, will slow down operations for an agency that has already been significantly gutted. DHS Assistant Secretary TRICIA McLAUGHLIN confirmed the reassignments, saying that 'through the One Big Beautiful Bill, DHS is adopting an all-hands-on-deck strategy to recruit 10,000 new ICE agents.' She added that 'to support this effort, select FEMA employees will temporarily be detailed to ICE for 90 days to assist with hiring and vetting.' Agenda Setting TOP SECRET NO MORE: The Trump administration overrode concerns from the CIA and other intelligence agencies' officials in its push to release a lightly redacted version of a highly classified document on Russia's interference in the 2016 election, WaPo's WARREN P. STROBEL reports. The officials were specifically concerned that more of the document should remain classified to obscure U.S. spy agencies' sources and methods. The document that Director of National Intelligence TULSI GABBARD, with the president's blessing, ordered released last month is a 46-page report stemming from a review that began in 2017 by Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee. The report takes issue with U.S. intelligence agencies' finding earlier that year that Russian President VLADIMIR PUTIN developed a preference for Trump over Democratic candidate HILLARY CLINTON and looked to help him win the election. The document contains multiple references to CIA human sources reporting on Putin's plans. Those sources are among the agency's most closely guarded secrets — so much so that after the report was completed in 2020, it was considered sensitive enough to be stored at the CIA rather than on Capitol Hill. The White House did not respond to a request for comment. A CIA spokesperson said Director JOHN RATCLIFFE 'strongly supports' the release of the report. ANOTHER ONE: UCLA is at risk of losing more than half a billion dollars in federal research funding as the Trump administration continues its pressure on higher education institutions to address allegations of antisemitism on campuses, our NICOLE NORMAN reports. UCLA officials announced today that the administration is withholding $584 million. The sum is far more than what was initially estimated when the DOJ announced last week it was investigating the school. In a University-wide letter sent this morning and shared with POLITICO, UCLA Chancellor JULIO FRENK confirmed the grant money, aimed at funding hundreds of research projects in a wide array of fields, is 'suspended and at risk.' UNION CUTS: The Department of Veterans Affairs announced today it had canceled several agreements with unions, including the American Federation of Government Employees; National Association of Government Employees; National Federation of Federal Employees; National Nurses Organizing Committee/National Nurses United; and the Service Employees International Union. The agency said the move follows Trump's March executive order revoking federal bargaining rights from some federal workers. The thousands of VA police officers, firefighters and security officers will retain their bargaining rights. 'Too often, unions that represent VA employees fight against the best interests of Veterans while protecting and rewarding bad workers,' VA Secretary DOUG COLLINS said in a statement. 'We're making sure VA resources and employees are singularly focused on the job we were sent here to do: providing top-notch care and service to those who wore the uniform.' LET'S SLOW DOWN: The Trump administration is directing the Bureau of Land Management to cut spending associated with several key agency programs, including renewable energy and land acquisitions, POLITICO's E&E News' SCOTT STREATER reports. The guidance, sent Monday from the Office of Management and Budget, directs BLM to cut spending on these programs 'outside of Federal salary and payroll expenses, minimum expenses to maintain safe operations, or payments otherwise required by law.' Representatives at the Interior Department and BLM did not respond to requests for comment. What We're Reading 'You're Asking Me to Contemplate the Nuclear Scenario' (POLITICO's Victoria Guida) Trump's War on Big Law Means It's Harder to Challenge the Administration (ProPublica's Molly Redden) Trump Amps Up an Obama Strategy to Crack Down on Colleges (NYT's Jeremy W. Peters) POTUS PUZZLER ANSWER Trump today claimed to be the only president to donate his salary, but two others have as well: former Presidents HERBERT HOOVER and JOHN F. KENNEDY, according to the National Archives.
UPI
6 minutes ago
- UPI
Ex-Guatemalan mayor has initial U.S. court hearing on drug charge
Aug. 6 (UPI) -- An ex-Guatemalan mayor could spend the rest of his life in jail if convicted for allegedly working to import more than five kilos of cocaine into the United States from his Latin American nation. The U.S. Department of Justice said Wednesday in a statement that Romeo Ramos Cruz, 57, was extradited from Guatemala on Monday and present for an initial court hearing on Tuesday in federal court in Washington, D.C. Ramos Cruz, formerly the mayor of Santa Lucia in Guatemala's Escuintla Department in the south-central part of the country only miles to the Pacific Ocean, allegedly abused his authority to coordinate cocaine shipment logistics destined for the illicit U.S. drug market. He was charged on one count of conspiracy. Guatemala has a long history of politicians who either pilfer the public coffers or join the cartel that in recent years has shifted its illegal drug operations into Guatemala via Mexico. DOJ says from 2002 to last year the former chief of the Guatemalan city of nearly 59,000 inhabitants served as a "key" player in a Guatemala-based trafficking cartel that's sole purpose was to transport cocaine to the United States. According to court records, in one instance he agreed to help disguise a cocaine shipment from Venezuela to Guatemala as cement, and prepared an official letter on government letterhead in order to evade inspection by Guatemalan authorities. The United States has maintained a more dynamic relationship with Guatemala over the last 25 years following the end to its bloody 35-year-long civil war, but issues of inequality and exploitation of its native population still persist. "I don't understand why the US supports corrupt politicians that later are against their own policies and want to govern forever changing laws and constitutions," Carlos Torrebiarte, VP of Guatemala's right-leaning Association for the Defense of Private Property, posted last Tuesday on social media. "It happened with Noriega, Sadam, Ortega, Lula, Petro, in Afghanistan, etc.," he said. He claimed that it's "happening in Guatemala with Arevalo," in reference to the country's center-left President Bernardo Arevalo. The arrest of and extradition of Ramos Cruz was a coordinated international effort by law enforcement from the FBI, DEA, ICE, INTERPOL and Guatemalan authorities part of the so-called "Operation Take Back America" initiative in the Trump administration's crackdown on migration. The former Guatemalan politician faces a maximum penalty of life in prison if convicted.
