Latest news with #BrettKavanaugh
NBC News
a day ago
- 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.
Newsweek
16-07-2025
- Politics
- Newsweek
Supreme Court May Weaken 1965 Voting Rights Act Further
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The U.S. Supreme Court has been asked to intervene in a case that could significantly limit the scope of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), the 1965 law that prohibits racial discrimination in elections. Why It Matters On Tuesday, two North Dakota tribes—the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians and the Spirit Lake Tribe—alongside three Native American voters, petitioned the Supreme Court to block a lower court ruling and preserve their ability to enforce voting rights through private lawsuits. "Everywhere else in the country, private plaintiffs can rely on an unbroken line of Supreme Court and circuit precedent to enforce the individual rights given to them by Congress in the Voting Rights Act," the tribes wrote. "But the decision below extinguished the only remaining pathway for private enforcement of Section 2 of the VRA in the Eighth Circuit. ... There is a reasonable probability this Court will grant review of the Eighth Circuit's decision to ensure uniform application of the law." The appeal followed a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which holds that only the federal government, not private citizens or organizations, can sue under Section 2 of the VRA in its jurisdiction of seven Midwestern states. This legal battle stands to reshape how the VRA—a critical civil rights law for 60 years—can be enforced, particularly across North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska and Arkansas. Section 2 of the VRA has long enabled private citizens and advocacy groups to challenge discriminatory redistricting or voting laws in federal court. Leonard Powell, staff attorney for the Native American Rights Fund, told Newsweek via email on Wednesday that he and plaintiffs are glad that Justice Brett Kavanaugh issued an order on Wednesday staying the Eighth Circuit's mandate pending further order of Kavanaugh or the High Court. "The Eighth Circuit's ruling wrongly deprives voters of their ability to sue when they are racially discriminated against in violation of the Voting Rights Act," Powell said. "We accordingly have asked the Supreme Court to stay that decision." Newsweek reached out to North Dakota Secretary of State Michael Howe's office for comment. What To Know From 1982 to August 2024, about 96.4 percent of successful Section 2 claims were brought by private plaintiffs, not the U.S. Department of Justice, according to the tribes. They were also the sole litigants in 86.7 percent of such decisions. With the 8th Circuit's May decision, this avenue is closed in its jurisdiction, potentially removing a major enforcement tool for minority voters and undermining Congress' strongest civil rights statute. Voting rights activists rally outside the U.S. Supreme Court during oral arguments in Moore v. Harper on December 7, 2022, in Washington, D.C. Voting rights activists rally outside the U.S. Supreme Court during oral arguments in Moore v. Harper on December 7, 2022, in Washington, Garber, counsel in the Brennan Center's Voting Rights and Elections Program, told Newsweek on Wednesday that Section 2 of the VRA allows private individuals and groups to bring lawsuits to argue discrimination in voting. That doesn't have to prove intent; rather, just the result of a law or policy or map being discriminatory. "In this case the tribes challenged a state legislative map drawn by North Dakota, and their argument was basically that the map was drawn to minimize the voting power of native voters, to make sure that districts were cracked and packed to make sure as few of the districts would represent the will of native voters as opposed to white voters," Garber said. In 2023, U.S. District Court Judge Peter Welte sided with the tribes, ruling the map discriminatory and ordering new district lines. Elections with Welte's map in place led to three Native American lawmakers being elected from District 9 in 2024—including a historic first, Spirit Lake Nation's Collette Brown. North Dakota appealed the decision, and the 8th Circuit in May ruled that private plaintiffs have no authority to enforce Section 2 of the VRA—contradicting decades of established practice and decisions in other circuits. The court instructed the district court to dismiss the lawsuit, making the 8th the only circuit in the country where private enforcement of the VRA is barred. The legal dispute began after North Dakota adopted a 2021 legislative redistricting map that the plaintiffs argued diluted the voting power of Native American communities. "If this ruling holds the immediate and really jarring ramification is that Section 2 with Voting Rights Act will basically not be enforced in seven states in the center of the country, because private individuals and groups can't bring these lawsuits," Garber said. "Right now, the federal Department of Justice clearly isn't going to be bringing any Section 2 lawsuits. "And even when there's a motivated DOJ...[it] has never been able to enforce this law alone; they always needed private enforcement as well. That's really, really damaging to voters of color in those states. Some of these states, including the Dakotas, Nebraska, Minnesota have a lot of native voters, really strong native communities." Somewhat ironic is that such native voters have "winning claims" in that they're continuing to face racial discrimination in voting, Garber added, yet they wouldn't even be able to bring those claims at all if this case moves forward as intended. Plaintiffs argue that losing the ability to challenge discriminatory maps directly endangers the representation of Native American legislators and could set a precedent for other states to follow. They warned that, absent Supreme Court action, the 2021 map—which was previously deemed discriminatory—could be used in the 2026 elections, potentially resulting in the removal of current Native American lawmakers. Garber said whether or not the Supreme Court takes up this case is still in question. In 2023, the High Court ruled in favor of Black registered voters and organizations in the Alabama case Allen v. Milligan, in which the plaintiffs successfully challenged their legislative map, arguing that the state had illegally packed Black voters into a single district while dividing other clusters across multiple districts. The court ultimately voted 5-4 to freeze a lower court ruling. "It's really hard to tell [if the Court will take up this case]," Garber said. "This Court has been extraordinarily unfriendly to the Voting Rights Act over the last couple of decades, gutted some of its key provisions. ... There is a lot at stake here, and the efforts to undermine Section 2 over the last decade-plus; sections have been attacked on all fronts. The kind of core idea of it has continued to survive." What People Are Saying New York City trial attorney Nicole Brenecki told Newsweek: "Given the Supreme Court's recent trajectory of limiting the scope of the Voting Rights Act, particularly in decisions like Shelby County v. Holder and Brnovich v. DNC, it's possible the Court may further curtail federal oversight of state election laws. "While the Court has occasionally maintained key provisions, such as in Allen v. Milligan, the broader trend suggests a willingness to defer to states even when voting protections are at risk. Any upcoming challenges could test how far the Court is willing to go in redefining the Act's core principles." What Happens Next The Supreme Court has directed North Dakota to respond to the plaintiffs' emergency motion by July 22. The justices have yet to decide whether to block the 8th Circuit ruling or grant full review of the case. Legal observers expect that the court's decision could profoundly affect enforcement of voting rights protections in the United States, especially for minority communities.
Washington Post
16-07-2025
- Politics
- Washington Post
Supreme Court justice pauses ruling weakening Voting Rights Act
Supreme Court Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh on Wednesday paused a ruling by a federal appeals court that bars individuals in some Midwestern states from filing lawsuits claiming that voting laws discriminate on the basis of race under a provision of the landmark Voting Rights Act. The administrative stay will allow the Supreme Court more time to consider whether to take up an appeal by Native American tribes in North Dakota who claim the ruling endangers a powerful tool to ensure equitable voting laws. It's unclear when the high court might issue a decision to hear the case. 'They knee-cap Congress's most important civil rights statute,' the tribes wrote in their application asking the high court to intervene. 'That blow is especially harmful to Native Americans and these Plaintiffs in particular. North Dakota — like many states — has a long and sad history of official discrimination against Native Americans that persists to this day.' The Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians and Spirit Lake Tribe filed suit in 2022 under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, claiming a new North Dakota voting map diluted the power of indigenous voters by reducing from three to one the number of seats they had 'an equal opportunity to elect.' A federal judge ruled for the tribes, but a divided Eighth Circuit overturned that decision. The panel did not rule on the substance of the tribes' arguments, but instead found that individuals had no right to bring challenges under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act that bars racially discriminatory voting laws. The panel found only the Justice Department can bring such suits. The tribes said individuals have brought more than 400 challenges to voting laws under the provision since 1982. The Eighth Circuit, which covers North Dakota, South Dakota, Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri and Nebraska, is the only one in the nation that has found individuals cannot sue under Section 2. The Eighth Circuit's ruling could force a Native American woman serving in North Dakota's House of Representatives to lose her seat. Collette Brown, the legislator, is also a plaintiff in the lawsuit brought by the tribes.
Forbes
16-07-2025
- Forbes
OSHA Seeks To Disclaim Authority Over Sports And Entertainment Workers
Photo byThe Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), a division of the United States Department of Labor, is tasked with enforcing the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act), a 1970 law meant to improve the health and safety of American workers and their workplaces. The law's application to the inherently dangerous occupation of professional sports has been unclear. However, OSHA has taken legal action in the entertainment world, including an effort that ended SeaWorld shows in which trainers went into the water with orcas, over the dissent of now Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Relying on Kavanaugh's dissent, OSHA has filed a proposed rule in which it now says it has no authority over 'known hazards that are inherent and inseparable from the core nature of a professional activity or performance.' Free Willy's Trainers Among other regulatory dictates, the OSH Act requires employers to provide their 'employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or likely to cause death or serious physical harm.' This requirement is known as the General Duty Clause. To establish a violation of the General Duty Clause, OSHA must establish that: (1) an activity or condition in the employer's workplace presented a hazard to an employee; (2) either the employer or the industry recognized the condition or activity as a hazard; (3) the hazard was likely to cause, or actually caused, death or serious physical harm; and (4) a feasible means to eliminate or materially reduce the hazard existed. In 2010, after the orca Tilikum caused the death of a SeaWorld trainer, OSHA cited SeaWorld for violations of the General Duty Clause. Following an evidentiary hearing, an administrative law judge found in OSHA's favor. That decision was upheld in 2014 by a split decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The majority held that eliminating 'waterwork' (trainers swimming with the whales) was a practical method of abating the known risks to the trainers without materially affecting SeaWorld's business. The case included a notable dissent from then-Judge Kavanaugh. In Kavanaugh's view: 'In the sports and entertainment fields, the activity itself frequently carries some risk that cannot be eliminated without fundamentally altering the nature of the activity as defined within the industry. Tackling is part of football, speeding is part of stock car racing, playing with dangerous animals is part of zoo and animal shows, and punching is part of boxing, as those industries define themselves.' Consequently, Kavanaugh argued, OSHA was without the authority to 'completely forbid an industry from offering its product' and stated further that 'in sports events and entertainment shows, there is no distinction between the product being offered and its production: the product is the production.' OSHA On The Sidelines OSHA has jurisdiction over almost all private sector employees in the United States, which would also include players in the major American professional sports leagues. However, despite the obvious and extensive injury risks associated with playing professional sports, OSHA has never taken any action in that arena. In fact, in the few instances in which OSHA has received inquiries concerning its regulatory authority over NFL players, it has declined to engage. In response to letters from an insurance company and fans, OSHA has implausibly stated that NFL players are independent contractors, and not employees, and therefore not within its jurisdiction. Additionally, in a 2008 letter, OSHA stated that it had 'no specific standards that address protection for professional athletes participating in athletic competitions,' and that '[i]n most cases . . . OSHA does not take enforcement action with regard to professional athletes.' Indeed, even amid and after the concussion crises and litigation concerning the NFL in the 2010s, OSHA did not seek to get involved. In a 2018 law review article, my co-authors and I examined at length OSHA's authority over the NFL workplace and the political and practical reasons for its non-involvement. Notably, it is difficult to assess how OSHA could regulate the NFL workplace, i.e., which activities (e.g., tackles, hits) it could ban or restrict, without fundamentally changing the nature of the game. Ultimately, given that NFL players are represented by a powerful union that has collectively bargained extensive health and safety provisions into the collective bargaining agreement with the league, OSHA's involvement was always highly questionable (though the use of Guardian Caps in the NFL is generally consistent with the General Duty Clause). OSHA Quits The Game On July 1, 2025, OSHA filed a proposed rule through which it seeks to interpret the General Duty Clause as excluding from its jurisdiction 'known hazards that are inherent and inseparable from the core nature of a professional activity or performance.' More specifically, OSHA says it cannot 'prohibit, restrict, or penalize inherently risky activities that are intrinsic to professional, athletic, or entertainment occupations.' In crafting the proposed rule, OSHA quoted extensively from Justice Kavanaugh's dissent in the SeaWorld case, though it did not analyze how its proposed rule would apply in practice. OSHA also claims that its regulation of the sports and entertainment industries invokes the major questions doctrine, through which, according to OSHA, regulatory agencies are not to act on questions of 'vast economic and political significance without a clear congressional mandate.' In OSHA's view, there is no indication that the General Duty Clause was intended by Congress to 'prohibit the core design of performances or sports.' OSHA concluded that its new rule would affect individuals classified as professional athletes, actors, dancers, musicians and singers, and other entertainers and performers. In total, there are an estimated 115,620 people employed in these roles. Confusingly, OSHA estimates that the rule will only affect 1% of these employees, or about 1,100 people. This estimate is hard to square with the fact that in any given year, there are about 2,000 players in the NFL, 1,000 players in MLB, 750 players in the NHL, and 500 players in the NBA. OSHA further estimates that 514 employers would be affected by the rule but did not explicitly reference or discuss any such employers. OSHA then estimated, without any explanation, that the rule would save each employer an average of $1,000 annually, resulting in a total estimated cost savings of $514,000. While professional sports have not faced OSHA action, entertainment productions – such as the Ringling Brothers circus and the Broadway production of Spider-Man – occasionally have. Consequently, OSHA's estimated cost savings seem to have at least some basis. Commentators At The Bat The public has until August 30, 2025 to submit comments on OSHA's proposed rule before OSHA can issue a final, binding rule. OSHA has specifically asked the public to weigh in on how many employees and employers would be affected by the rule and its potential benefits and costs. The NFLPA and MLBPA declined to comment about whether they intend to submit comments to OSHA. Given that OSHA has not previously involved itself in professional sports, the more likely commentary would come from employees and their unions in the entertainment world.
Reuters
01-07-2025
- Politics
- Reuters
US Supreme Court dealt blows to EPA and environmental protections
WASHINGTON, July 1 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court delivered setbacks to environmental interests in a series of recent rulings including by further restricting the Environmental Protection Agency's authority and relaxing requirements for environmental impact studies for proposed projects. While cases involving President Donald Trump's policies on immigration and other issues captured attention during its just-completed nine-month term, the court also continued its years-long trend of narrowing federal protections for the environment in several rulings that could be a boon for businesses. Wendy Park, a lawyer with the Center for Biological Diversity environmentalist group, said those rulings "dealt huge blows to the environment and public health and safety." "We'll all suffer from unhealthier air, less safe water and more climate warming," Park added. Park's organization was on the losing side of perhaps the term's biggest environmental decision, one that involved a proposed Utah railway intended to transport crude oil. The 8-0 ruling, authored by conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh, let federal agencies scale back their environmental reviews of projects they regulate, bolstering the project. The ruling narrowed the scope of environmental obligations for federal agencies under a 1970 federal law called the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, passed by Congress with the intention of preventing environmental harms that might result from major projects. "Depending on how lower courts interpret it, the NEPA case may pose the greatest threat of a major change in the law," University of California, Berkeley, law professor Daniel Farber said, referring to the court's recent environmental rulings. "The other decisions continue a process of chipping away at federal protection of the environment," Farber added. "The big concern is that these add to a strong trend against environmental protection in the Supreme Court." A coalition of seven Utah counties and an infrastructure investment group have sought to construct an 88-mile (142-km) railway line in northeastern Utah to connect the sparsely populated Uinta Basin region to an existing freight rail network. The National Environmental Policy Act mandates that agencies examine the "reasonably foreseeable" effects of a project. Kavanaugh wrote that agencies need only consider environmental effects of a project at hand and not the "effects from potential future projects or from geographically separate projects." Lower courts must offer agencies "substantial deference" regarding the scope of these assessments, Kavanaugh added. "Agencies approving a pipeline or oil railroad now have more leeway when it comes to involving and informing communities about the harms," Park said, "but the court is giving way more scrutiny to agencies in charge of protecting us from those harms." Kavanaugh was joined by four other conservative justices, while the three liberal justices filed a separate opinion concurring in the outcome. Justice Neil Gorsuch did not take part in the case. University of Minnesota Law School professor James Coleman said the ruling could mark a turning point after lower courts for 50 years have used the National Environmental Policy Act "to raise higher and higher hurdles to new infrastructure." The ruling, Coleman added, signaled to lower courts that they must defer to agencies when these agencies exercise discretion given to them by Congress. "The court demanded a 'course correction' from lower courts, highlighting how courts' failure to defer to environmental reviews conducted by agencies is holding up crucial infrastructure projects," Coleman said. "It remains to be seen whether the lower courts will accept this course correction," Coleman added. The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has taken a skeptical view toward broad authority for federal regulatory agencies and has restricted the powers of the EPA in some important rulings in recent years. In 2024, it blocked the EPA's "Good Neighbor" rule aimed at reducing ozone emissions that may worsen air pollution in neighboring states. In 2023, it hobbled the EPA's power to protect wetlands and fight water pollution. In 2022, it imposed limits on the EPA's authority under the Clean Air Act anti-pollution law to reduce coal- and gas-fired power plant carbon emissions. The court hemmed in the agency again in March in a case involving an EPA-issued permit for a wastewater treatment facility owned by the city of San Francisco that empties into the Pacific Ocean. The city had sued to challenge certain restrictions the EPA included in the permit. The 5-4 ruling, authored by conservative Justice Samuel Alito, found that the EPA had exceeded its authority under the Clean Water Act anti-pollution law by imposing overly vague requirements on permit-holders related to water quality standards in the receiving body of water. Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett and the three liberal justices dissented. Howard University School of Law professor Carlton Waterhouse said the ruling stripped the EPA of an effective mechanism commonly used to restrict the discharge of pollutants into federally regulated waters at the level needed for such waters to meet their designated use. "The court dealt a major setback to the EPA and all of us who need clean water," Waterhouse said. "For example, under the ruling, the EPA lost an important tool used to make sure that fishable and swimmable waters remain clean enough for those activities to continue." Waterhouse, who was an EPA official during Democratic President Joe Biden's administration, said some parts of the United States could experience diminished water quality while a workaround is devised "to protect state water quality standards without a major tool they have used for decades." In June, the justices in a 7-2 ruling authored by Kavanaugh sided with fuel producers that had opposed California's standards for vehicle emissions and electric cars under a federal air pollution law, agreeing that their legal challenge to the mandates should not have been dismissed. The ruling overturned a lower court's decision to throw out the lawsuit by a Valero Energy (VLO.N), opens new tab subsidiary and fuel industry groups. The lower court had concluded that the plaintiffs lacked the required legal standing to challenge a Biden-era EPA decision to let California set its own regulations. "Allowing these parties into the litigation is not surprising," Waterhouse said. "The court has a history of expanding standing for businesses."
