Latest news with #8thCircuit
a day ago
- Politics
Court restricts who can bring voting rights challenges in a case involving voters with disabilities
WASHINGTON -- A federal appeals court panel on Monday ruled that private individuals and organizations cannot bring voting rights cases under a section of the law that allows others to assist voters who are blind, have disabilities or are unable to read. It's the latest ruling from the St. Louis-based 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, saying only the government can bring lawsuits alleging violations of the Voting Rights Act. The findings upend decades of precedent and will likely be headed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The case centered on whether an Arkansas law that limits how many voters can be assisted by one person conflicts with Section 208 of the landmark federal law. The opinion from the three-judge panel followed the reasoning of another 8th Circuit panel in a previous case from 2023. That opinion held that the Arkansas State Conference NAACP and the Arkansas Public Policy Conference could not bring cases under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. 'Like the provision at issue in Arkansas State Conference, we conclude the text and structure of (Section) 208 do not create a private right of action,' said the decision written by Judge L. Steven Grasz, a nominee of President Donald Trump. 'Likewise, we conclude no private right of action is created by the Supremacy Clause.' In the previous case, the district court judge said he could not reach an opinion on the merits because the plaintiffs did not have standing under Section 2 and gave the Justice Department five days to join the case. The circuit court panel agreed with his reasoning in a 2-1 decision. The 8th Circuit, which covers Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota, has issued three rulings holding that individuals and private entities don't have standing to bring challenges against voting laws. The other came in May in a lawsuit over North Dakota redistricting. In that case, the Spirit Lake Tribe and Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians, with reservations 60 miles apart, argued that the state's 2021 legislative map violated the Voting Rights Act by diluting their voting strength and ability to elect their own candidates. The appeals court ruled in a 2-1 decision that only the U.S. Department of Justice could bring such lawsuits, and the full circuit declined to take up the case. The U.S. Supreme Court blocked the ruling last week while it decides whether to hear the case. The Justice Department declined to comment on whether it would be intervening in the Arkansas case. It earlier declined to comment on the case involving the two North Dakota tribes. Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin applauded the decision by the 8th Circuit panel, saying the 2009 state law revolving around voters with disabilities 'protects the right to vote free from undue influence or manipulation.' In the statement, he said Monday's ruling 'means that officials can continue to enforce Arkansas's laws and voters can have confidence in our elections.' The Mexican American Legal Defense Fund, which is representing the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, declined to comment. Sophia Lin Lakin, director of the Voting Rights Project for the ACLU, said she wasn't surprised by the ruling given the decisions in the earlier cases. 'I think it's important to keep focus on the fact that the 8th Circuit's decisions are radical and completely at odds with decades of precedent, including from the Supreme Court itself, as well as the text, history and purpose of the Voting Rights Act,' said Lakin, who was one of the attorneys in the initial Arkansas State Conference case. 'Private litigants have been the engine of enforcement of the Voting Rights Act for sixty years.' Section 2 is considered one of the more consequential parts of the Voting Rights Act that remains intact, after a 2013 Supreme Court decision removed Section 5. That section required that all or parts of 15 states with a history of discrimination in voting get approval from the federal government before changing their voting and election laws.
Winnipeg Free Press
a day ago
- Politics
- Winnipeg Free Press
Court restricts who can bring voting rights challenges in a case involving voters with disabilities
WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal appeals court panel on Monday ruled that private individuals and organizations cannot bring voting rights cases under a section of the law that allows others to assist voters who are blind, disabled or unable to read. It's the latest ruling from the St. Louis-based 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, saying only the government can bring lawsuits alleging violations of the Voting Rights Act. The findings upend decades of precedent and will likely be headed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The case centered on whether an Arkansas state law that limits how many voters can be assisted by one person conflicts with Section 208 of the landmark federal law. The opinion from the three-judge panel followed the reasoning of another 8th Circuit panel in a previous case from 2023. That opinion held that the Arkansas State Conference NAACP and the Arkansas Public Policy Conference could not bring cases under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. 'Like the provision at issue in Arkansas State Conference, we conclude the text and structure of (Section) 208 do not create a private right of action,' said the decision written by Judge L. Steven Grasz, a nominee of President Donald Trump. 'Likewise, we conclude no private right of action is created by the Supremacy Clause.' In the previous case, the district court judge said he could not reach an opinion on the merits because the plaintiffs did not have standing under Section 2 and gave the Justice Department five days to join the case. The circuit court panel agreed with his reasoning in a 2-1 decision. The 8th Circuit, which covers Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota, has issued three rulings holding that individuals and private entities don't have standing to bring challenges against voting laws. The other came in May in a lawsuit over North Dakota redistricting. In that case, the Spirit Lake Tribe and Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians, with reservations 60 miles apart, argued that the state's 2021 legislative map violated the Voting Rights Act by diluting their voting strength and ability to elect their own candidates. The appeals court ruled in a 2-1 decision that only the U.S. Department of Justice could bring such lawsuits, and the full circuit declined to take up the case. The U.S. Supreme Court blocked the ruling last week while it decides whether to hear the case. The Justice Department declined to comment on whether it would be intervening in the Arkansas case. It earlier declined to comment on the case involving the two North Dakota tribes. The Mexican American Legal Defense Fund, which is representing the plaintiffs in the lawsuit revolving around voters with disabilities, declined to comment on Monday's ruling. Sophia Lin Lakin, director of the Voting Rights Project for the ACLU, said she wasn't surprised by the ruling given the decisions in the earlier cases. 'I think it's important to keep focus on the fact that the 8th Circuit's decisions are radical and completely at odds with decades of precedent, including from the Supreme Court itself, as well as the text, history and purpose of the Voting Rights Act,' said Lakin, who was one of the attorneys in the initial Arkansas State Conference case. 'Private litigants have been the engine of enforcement of the Voting Rights Act for sixty years.' Section 2 is considered one of the more consequential parts of the Voting Rights Act that remains intact, after a 2013 Supreme Court decision removed Section 5. That section required that all or parts of 15 states with a history of discrimination in voting get approval from the federal government before changing their voting and election laws. ___
Hamilton Spectator
a day ago
- Politics
- Hamilton Spectator
Court restricts who can bring voting rights challenges in a case involving voters with disabilities
WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal appeals court panel on Monday ruled that private individuals and organizations cannot bring voting rights cases under a section of the law that allows others to assist voters who are blind, disabled or unable to read. It's the latest ruling from the St. Louis-based 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, saying only the government can bring lawsuits alleging violations of the Voting Rights Act. The findings upend decades of precedent and will likely be headed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The case centered on whether an Arkansas state law that limits how many voters can be assisted by one person conflicts with Section 208 of the landmark federal law. The opinion from the three-judge panel followed the reasoning of another 8th Circuit panel in a previous case from 2023 . That opinion held that the Arkansas State Conference NAACP and the Arkansas Public Policy Conference could not bring cases under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. 'Like the provision at issue in Arkansas State Conference, we conclude the text and structure of (Section) 208 do not create a private right of action,' said the decision written by Judge L. Steven Grasz, a nominee of President Donald Trump. 'Likewise, we conclude no private right of action is created by the Supremacy Clause.' In the previous case, the district court judge said he could not reach an opinion on the merits because the plaintiffs did not have standing under Section 2 and gave the Justice Department five days to join the case. The circuit court panel agreed with his reasoning in a 2-1 decision. The 8th Circuit, which covers Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota, has issued three rulings holding that individuals and private entities don't have standing to bring challenges against voting laws. The other came in May in a lawsuit over North Dakota redistricting. In that case, the Spirit Lake Tribe and Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians, with reservations 60 miles apart, argued that the state's 2021 legislative map violated the Voting Rights Act by diluting their voting strength and ability to elect their own candidates. The appeals court ruled in a 2-1 decision that only the U.S. Department of Justice could bring such lawsuits, and the full circuit declined to take up the case. The U.S. Supreme Court blocked the ruling last week while it decides whether to hear the case. The Justice Department declined to comment on whether it would be intervening in the Arkansas case. It earlier declined to comment on the case involving the two North Dakota tribes. The Mexican American Legal Defense Fund, which is representing the plaintiffs in the lawsuit revolving around voters with disabilities, declined to comment on Monday's ruling. Sophia Lin Lakin, director of the Voting Rights Project for the ACLU, said she wasn't surprised by the ruling given the decisions in the earlier cases. 'I think it's important to keep focus on the fact that the 8th Circuit's decisions are radical and completely at odds with decades of precedent, including from the Supreme Court itself, as well as the text, history and purpose of the Voting Rights Act,' said Lakin, who was one of the attorneys in the initial Arkansas State Conference case. 'Private litigants have been the engine of enforcement of the Voting Rights Act for sixty years.' Section 2 is considered one of the more consequential parts of the Voting Rights Act that remains intact, after a 2013 Supreme Court decision removed Section 5 . That section required that all or parts of 15 states with a history of discrimination in voting get approval from the federal government before changing their voting and election laws. ___ Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch dissent from Supreme Court voting rights order
Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented Thursday from the court's decision to halt an outlier federal appeals court ruling that would have further limited the Voting Rights Act. 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 Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme Court blocks North Dakota redistricting ruling that would gut key part of Voting Rights Act
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Thursday blocked a lower-court ruling in a redistricting dispute in North Dakota that would gut a landmark federal civil rights law for millions of people. The justices indicated in an unsigned order that they are likely to take up a federal appeals court ruling that would eliminate the most common path people and civil rights groups use to sue under a key provision of the 60-year-old Voting Rights Act. The case could be argued as early as 2026 and decided by next summer. Three conservative justices, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas, would have rejected the appeal. The court also has a separate redistricting case over a second majority Black congressional district in Louisiana. The justices heard arguments in March, but took the rare step of calling for a new round of arguments in their term that begins in October. They have yet to spell out what issues they want discussed. In the North Dakota case, the Spirit Lake Tribe and Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians, with reservations 60 miles apart, argued that the state's 2021 legislative map violated the act by diluting their voting strength and ability to elect their own candidates. The case went to trial in 2023, and a federal judge later ordered the use of a map of the area, including the reservations that led to the election last year of three Native Americans, all Democrats, to the Republican-supermajority Legislature. But in a 2-1 ruling issued in May, a three-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that only the Justice Department can bring such lawsuits under the law's Section 2. The 8th Circuit also had ruled in an Arkansas case in 2023 that private individuals can't sue under the same provision. More than 90 percent of Section 2 cases have been brought through private enforcement, UCLA law professor Richard Hasen wrote on the Election Law blog. The 8th Circuit rulings conflict with decades of decisions by appellate courts that have affirmed the rights of private individuals to sue under Section 2. The Supreme Court often will step in when appeals courts around the country come to different decisions on the same legal issue. In a statement, Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians Chairman Jamie Azure said, 'We are relieved that Native voters in North Dakota retain the ability to protect ourselves from discrimination at the polls. Our fight for the rights of our citizens continues. The map enacted by the North Dakota legislature unlawfully dilutes the votes of Native voters, and it cannot be allowed to stand.' North Dakota Secretary of State Michael Howe, a Republican, who is named in the lawsuit, said his office 'will continue to follow election laws set by the North Dakota legislature or as directed by any final decisions by the courts.' The 8th Circuit covers seven states: Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota. In the wake of the Arkansas decision, Minnesota and other states moved to shore up voting rights with state-level protections. ___ Dura reported from Bismarck, North Dakota.
