Latest news with #EighthU.S.CircuitCourtofAppeals
Epoch Times
24-07-2025
- Business
- Epoch Times
Mike Lindell Wins Appeal in Lawsuit Over $5 Million Election Contest
The MyPillow CEO told news outlets this week he was pleased with the ruling. MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell gestures as supporters of President Donald Trump gather outside Capital One Arena for a rally a day before he is scheduled to be inaugurated for a second term, in Washington on Jan. 19, 2025. REUTERS/Daniel Cole/File Photo MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell gestures as supporters of President Donald Trump gather outside Capital One Arena for a rally a day before he is scheduled to be inaugurated for a second term, in Washington on Jan. 19, 2025. REUTERS/Daniel Cole/File Photo A U.S. appeals court threw out a lower court order that required MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell to pay $5 million to a man who said he debunked Lindell's arguments about fraud during the 2020 general election, as part of a contest that was set up by the pillow magnate. The Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis said in a ruling on Wednesday that an arbitration panel improperly interpreted the rules of a contest Lindell set up and oversaw. The contest challenged anyone to disprove his claims that President Donald Trump won the election. It reversed a federal judge's order that confirmed the arbitrator's award to Robert Zeidman, a software developer who said he proved Lindell wrong. Story continues below advertisement Lindell created the challenge as part of an effort to establish that then-presidential candidate Joe Biden actually lost to Trump during the 2020 election, which Trump and Lindell said was marred by fraud. As part of a 2021 'Cyber Symposium' Lindell hosted in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, he offered $5 million to anyone who could prove that 'packet captures,' and other data he released there, were not valid data from the 2020 election. Zeidman entered a 15-page report that he claimed proved the data wasn't what Lindell claimed. Contest judges declined to declare Zeidman a winner, so he filed for arbitration under the contest rules. A panel of three arbitrators concluded that Zeidman had satisfied the rules and awarded him $5 million. But appeals court Judges James Loken, Lavenski Smith, and L. Steven Grasz said in their Wednesday order that the arbitration panel improperly amended the contest's contract terms, putting new obligations on Lindell concerning the data at issue. Story continues below advertisement 'Fair or not, agreed-to contract terms may not be modified by the panel or by this court,' the appeals court said in its Wednesday order. 'Whatever one might think of the logic of the panel's reasoning, it is contrary to Minnesota law.' The judges then remanded the case to the lower court with instructions to vacate the award to Zeidman. Previously, U.S. District Judge John R. Tunheim ruled in favor of Zeidman and wrote in his order that in certain cases, 'arbitration awards are not entirely free from judicial review,' and that the arbitration panel 'did not modify the contract or exceed its scope' by giving the award to him. 'Even though the Court may have reached a different outcome given an independent initial review of the information, the Court fails to identify evidence that the panel exceeded its authority. Under the Court's narrow review, it will confirm the arbitration award,' the judge added. Story continues below advertisement Lindell and his attorneys later appealed the judgment to the Eighth Circuit. In documents submitted to the appeals court in mid-2024, Zeidman's attorneys argued that Lindell's appeal of Tunheim's order is meritless because 'neither the record nor the law supports Lindell's claim that the district court erred.' 'To the contrary, the record establishes the Panel acted within its authority, considered evidence, applied the law, and issued an award consistent with the parties' agreement,' the attorneys added. 'A contrary result in this case would create unwarranted uncertainty about the finality of arbitrators' decisions.' Story continues below advertisement In response, Lindell told Reuters in an interview on Wednesday, 'All I want to do is secure our elections—period.' 'It's a great day for our country,' Lindell also said in an interview with The Associated Press. 'This is a big win,' he said, adding that the appeals court order could lead to widespread usage of 'paper ballots' that are 'hand-counted' in elections. The Epoch Times contacted Lindell's attorneys for additional comment on Thursday. Reuters and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Yahoo
16-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Appeals ruling curtails voting rights cases in Iowa, six other states
A federal appeals court has blocked one of the main remaining means for civil rights activists to seek enforcement of a landmark voting rights law's protections against racial discrimination in Iowa and six other mostly Midwestern states. The 2-1 panel of the St. Louis-based Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday, May 14, that private plaintiffs cannot use an 1871 civil rights law as a means to enforce protections enshrined in the Voting Rights Act. The court reached that conclusion as it reversed a judge's ruling finding that Republican-led North Dakota's 2021 legislative redistricting plan unlawfully diluted the voting power of Native Americans. More: Iowa Supreme Court overturns ruling, forbids non-English voting documents, such as ballots Lawyers for the plaintiffs said the ruling, if allowed to stand, would weaken voters' ability to challenge unfair voting maps in Iowa, Arkansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska and South Dakota, as well. Those states are within the jurisdiction of the Eighth Circuit, which already had severely restricted the ability of their voters to file lawsuits challenging voting maps when it held in 2023 that only the government and not private plaintiffs can pursue cases enforcing Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Two members of the U.S. Supreme Court's 6-3 conservative majority have suggested in past cases that private plaintiffs do not have a right to pursue such cases, even though the vast majority of Voting Rights Act lawsuits for decades have been filed by private parties, not the U.S. Department of Justice. Against that backdrop, civil rights advocates last year opted against appealing the 2023 ruling to the Supreme Court, citing the availability of an alternative mechanism for plaintiffs to still pursue voting rights cases. That avenue was Section 1983, an 1871 law enacted in the post-Civil War Reconstruction Era, which gives people the power to sue in federal court when state officials violate their constitutional or statutory rights. A federal judge in North Dakota relied on it when he sided with the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians, the Spirit Lake Tribe and three voters in holding that the state's 2021 redistricting plan unlawfully diluted Native Americans' voting strength. More: After flagging 2,000+ ballots, Iowa secretary of state says 35 noncitizens voted in 2024 But U.S. Circuit Judge Raymond Gruender, writing for the majority in Wednesday's decision, said Congress did not speak with a "clear voice" to unambiguously confer an individual right in the Voting Rights Act's Section 2 that could be enforced through Section 1983. Mark Gaber, a lawyer for the plaintiffs at the Campaign Legal Center, said in a statement that "this radical decision will hobble the most important anti-discrimination voting law." His group did not say whether it would pursue further appeals, but the plaintiffs could either ask the full 8th Circuit to rehear the case or ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review it. Republican presidents appointed all three judges who heard the appeal, including U.S. Circuit Judge Steve Colloton, the lone dissenter. He said the majority was wrong and that, under its logic, the more than 400 lawsuits that have resulted in judicial decisions brought under the Voting Rights Act's Section 2 since 1982 should have been dismissed. This article originally appeared on Des Moines Register: Seven-state ruling curtails voting rights cases in Iowa
