Latest news with #8thU.S.CircuitCourtofAppeals
USA Today
24-07-2025
- Politics
- USA Today
Supreme Court pauses ruling that weakened 1965 Voting Rights Act
A lower court severely limited who can bring discrimination challenges under the landmark 1965 law. WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court paused a lower court's ruling limiting who can sue under the under the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act, a move backed by civil rights groups and other advocates. Over the objections of three conservative justices, the high court on July 24 put a ruling by the St. Louis-based 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on hold while two Native American tribes appeal it. If allowed to stand, the appeals court's decision would severely undermine enforcement of the law. It said only the U.S. attorney general is authorized to sue under a key section of the law, meaning voters, Native American tribes and groups like the NAACP would be barred from doing so. In this case, the tribes and three voters challenged a state legislative map in North Dakota they said dilutes the voting power of Native Americans. A federal district judge agreed, but the appeals court said vote dilution claims cannot be enforced through lawsuits brought by individual voters or groups. The Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians and the Spirit Lake Tribe called that decision a 'knee-cap' to the nation's 'most important civil rights statute.' Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act bars voting practices or procedures that discriminate on the basis of race, color or other characteristics. In a brief supporting the tribes, the NAACP said the history of that section 'has been written largely through private enforcement.' But North Dakota's attorney general argues Congress did not clearly intend a private enforcement right when the act became law decades ago. The state also said the Supreme Court should keep the appeals court's decision in effect for now to allow the 2026 elections to be conducted under the map challenged by the tribes. That map eliminated two of the three legislative districts in which Native American voters could elect their preferred candidates. Three justices − Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch − said they would have kept the decision in place while the Supreme Court considers whether to hear the tribes' appeal. The appeals court's decision affects voting rights litigation in seven states: Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota. Republican attorneys general in most of those states and a few others filed a brief backing the appeals court's decision. More: Supreme Court defers decision on challenge to Louisiana congressional map The Supreme Court is still deciding how to resolve a dispute over Louisiana's congressional districts that involves an interplay between the Voting Rights Act and a racial gerrymandering challenge. Instead of issuing a decision, the court announced in June that it will hear new arguments in its next term.
The Hill
24-07-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Supreme Court halts ruling that limits Voting Rights Act enforcement
The Supreme Court on Thursday halted an appeals ruling that prevents private groups from challenging election maps under the Voting Rights Act in seven states. Neither the majority nor the three public dissenters — conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch — explained their reasoning. The case arose from a lawsuit brought by two Native American tribes, who argue that North Dakota's state legislative map denied them an equal opportunity to elect their candidates of choice. The case entered the national spotlight after an 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruled 2-1 that the tribes and other private parties have no legal right to enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. It mimicked an earlier 8th Circuit ruling concerning a redistricting case in Arkansas. The Supreme Court's emergency ruling lifts the 8th Circuit's ruling until any appeals are resolved. It does not reflect the court's final decision on the matter. It comes as the justices prepare to rehear a major redistricting case in Louisiana next term, which legal observers have closely watched as several conservative justices signal a desire to make it more difficult to bring Voting Rights Act lawsuits. The high court has not yet announced the legal question it will consider when it rehears the case. The tribes, backed by the NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, argued the 8 th Circuit's recent decision is at odds with decades of history and takes away a key pathway to challenge discrimination in the seven states the 8th Circuit covers. 'They likewise contradict every circuit court and three-judge district court—all unanimous unlike the divided decision below—ever to have considered the question of private enforcement of Section 2,' the tribes wrote in court filings. North Dakota urged the justices to turn away the appeal, stressing the tribes' 'assumptions are not holdings.' 'And the fact that Section 2's private enforceability was not previously challenged does not mean Congress spoke with the clarity needed to create a privately enforceable right, as members of the Court have recognized,' the state wrote in court filings.
NBC News
24-07-2025
- Politics
- NBC News
Supreme Court blocks ruling that would undermine the Voting Rights Act
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday blocked an appeals court ruling that would gut a key provision of 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.
Yahoo
23-07-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Trump ally Lindell wins appeal in lawsuit over $5 million 2020 election contest
By Mike Scarcella (Reuters) -Donald Trump ally and chief executive Mike Lindell on Wednesday persuaded a U.S. appeals court to throw out a judge's order requiring him to pay $5 million to a software developer who said he debunked Lindell's 2020 election fraud claims. The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis said an arbitration panel improperly interpreted the rules of a contest Lindell set up and oversaw challenging anyone to disprove his claims that Trump won the election. The appeals court panel reversed a federal judge who last year confirmed the arbitrators' 2023 award to Robert Zeidman. A lawyer for Zeidman, Brian Glasser, in a statement said the 8th Circuit's ruling contradicted the 'unanimous contrary decision of three arbitrators who heard all the evidence, including one appointed by Mr. Lindell.' MyPillow general counsel Jeremiah Pilon in a statement welcomed the court's ruling for Lindell, "especially considering the extraordinary rarity of arbitration award reversals." Lindell was among many Trump allies who advanced claims of fraud in the 2020 election that were rejected by multiple courts. In 2021, Lindell created the 'Prove Mike Wrong' challenge as part of an effort to establish that Democrat Joe Biden owed his election win over Trump to foreign interference. Contestants were asked to prove data on 11 files provided by Lindell were not 'related to' the election. The private judges overseeing the challenge did not declare a winner. Zeidman later convinced an arbitration panel that he deserved the $5 million award. Circuit Judges James Loken, Lavenski Smith and L. Steven Grasz concluded on Wednesday that the arbitration panel improperly amended the contest's contract terms, putting new obligations on Lindell concerning the data at issue. 'Fair or not, agreed-to contract terms may not be modified by the panel or by this court,' the appeals court said.
Axios
18-07-2025
- Politics
- Axios
Court upholds Arkansas' school indoctrination bans
Arkansas' bans on critical race theory instruction and "indoctrination" in schools held up in court this week. The big picture: A three-judge panel from the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the bans do not violate students' free speech rights because the government can lawfully dictate what is taught in schools, the Arkansas Advocate reported. Zoom in: Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders' sweeping education law, the LEARNS Act of 2023, includes a section on "prohibited indoctrination." It's defined as communication by a public school employee or guest speaker that compels a person to adopt, affirm or profess an idea that people of a legally protected group like race, sex or religion are inherently superior or inferior or that people of a protected group should be discriminated against. The law specifically calls critical race theory "prohibited indoctrination." Context: Critical race theory holds that racism is baked into the formation of the nation and ingrained in the U.S. legal, financial and education systems, Axios' Russell Contreras writes. It was developed in law schools in the late 1970s and early 1980s and does not teach that members of any race, group, religion or nationality are superior. Some scholars argue that race-based policies, like affirmative action, or those that take race into account, like redistricting protections, are needed to address racial inequity. Flashback: U.S. District Court Judge Lee Rudofsky temporarily halted implementation of the indoctrination section of LEARNS from going into effect in May 2024. What they're saying: The First Amendment right to receive information doesn't authorize a court to require the state to retain curriculum materials or instruction, even if information was removed for political reasons the Arkansas Advocate reported.
