Latest news with #Section2
Yahoo
04-08-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
The Supreme Court Just Signaled Something Deeply Disturbing About the Next Term
Sign up for the Slatest to get the most insightful analysis, criticism, and advice out there, delivered to your inbox daily. Reading the tea leaves from cryptic Supreme Court orders can be perilous business because the justices are not bound by the questions they ask at oral argument, the offhand comments they make at a judicial conference, or even their monumental 'shadow docket' rulings on emergency petitions that have become all too common. But a technical briefing order in a long pending case out of Louisiana, posted on the Supreme Court's website after 5 p.m. on a Friday in August, was ominous. The order was likely intended to obscure that the court is ready to consider striking down the last remaining pillar of the Voting Rights Act, known as Section 2. Such a monumental ruling, likely not coming until June 2026, would change the nature of congressional, state, and local elections, all across the country, and likely stir major civil rights protests as the midterm election season heats up. Louisiana v. Callais, the case that was the subject of last Friday's cryptic order, is a voting case over the drawing of Louisiana's six congressional districts. Louisiana has about a one-third Black population, but after the 2020 census the state legislature drew a districting plan, passed over a Democratic governor's veto, that created only one district in which black voters would be likely to elect their candidate of choice. Before Callais, Black voters had successfully sued Louisiana in a case called Robinson v. Ardoin, arguing that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act required drawing a second congressional district giving black voters that opportunity. Section 2 says minority voters should have the same opportunity as other voters to elect their candidates of choice, and courts have long used it to require new districts when there is a large and cohesive minority population concentrated in a given area, when white and minority voters choose different candidates, and when the minority has difficulty electing its preferred representatives. After Robinson and more litigation, the Louisiana legislature drew up a new plan which created the second congressional district. The state drew the second district to otherwise favor Republicans in the state overall, including House Speaker Mike Johnson. A new group of voters then sued in the Callais case, arguing that Louisiana's drawing of the second district violated the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Clause by being a racial gerrymander. Since the 1993 case of Shaw v. Reno, the Supreme Court has found racial gerrymanders when race is the predominant factor in drawing district lines, and the state has no compelling interest in drawing such lines. When the Supreme Court first held oral argument in the Callais case in March, it appeared to be another in a long series of cases (many out of Louisiana) in which the court considered whether race or partisanship predominated in the drawing of district lines. I've long written that this is an impossible exercise in places like Louisiana where the factors overlap —most white voters in Louisiana are Republicans and Black voters are Democrats, so when the state discriminates against Democrats it is also discriminating against Black voters. It appeared from the initial March oral argument that the court was going to once again determine whether race or party predominated. But instead of deciding the case at the end of June when the court ordinarily disposes of the cases heard during the term, the court set the case up for re-argument. That's rare but not unheard of. Back in 2010, the Supreme Court set the Citizens United case up for re-argument the following September. But when the court issued its June order in Citizens United for re-argument, the same order told the parties that the court wanted something new to be briefed and argued on re-argument: whether to overrule a line of cases allowing limits on corporate spending in elections. The court the following January then overruled these cases in one of the most consequential election law cases of our time that has had significant reverberations for our politics ever since. Fifteen years later, something similar seems to be happening with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. In June of this year, rather than deciding the case it heard in March, the court issued an order in Callais setting the case for re-argument and stating that 'in due course, the Court will issue an order scheduling argument and specifying any additional questions to be addressed in supplemental briefing.' Justice Clarence Thomas impatiently dissented from the order, saying now was the time to recognize that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the court's racial gerrymandering case are on a collision course and to kill off Section 2 or rewrite it to be toothless. We waited weeks for the court to issue its rescheduling order and when it came this past Friday it was a doozy. The court pointed specifically to a set of pages in plaintiffs' brief which argue that Section 2 is unconstitutional, at least as applied in this case, and that the Voting Rights Act cannot serve as a compelling interest to defeat a racial gerrymandering claim when race predominates. 'The parties are directed to file supplemental briefs addressing the following question raised [in that brief]: Whether the State's intentional creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violates the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments to the U. S. Constitution.' Although the court's order did not explicitly mention Section 2 or even the Voting Rights Act more generally—unquestionably to obscure things further—there is no doubting what's going on here. The court is asking the parties to consider whether Louisiana's compliance with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by drawing a second majority-minority district—as the earlier Ardoin case seemed to require—was unconstitutional under a view of the Constitution as requiring colorblindness. If the Supreme Court moves forward with this interpretation it would be a sea change to voting rights law. A reading of the Constitution as forbidding race-conscious districting as mandated by Congress to deal with centuries of race discrimination in voting is at odds with the text of the Constitution, with the powers granted directly to Congress to enforce the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, and with numerous precedents of the Supreme Court itself. It would end what has been the most successful way that Black and other minority voters have gotten fair representation in Congress, state legislatures and in local bodies. It would be an earthquake in politics and make our legislative bodies whiter and our protection for minority voters greatly diminished. Even if the court less drastically says that Section 2 could not be used to require the second congressional district in this case, such a superficially more minimal ruling would mean the quick unraveling of most Section 2 districts because if the facts in Louisiana don't justify drawing a second district, most other Section 2 claims would fail too. A ruling killing or crippling Section 2 would be in line with what we have come to expect from the Roberts Court. Back in 2013, the court struck down as unconstitutional the other main pillar of the Voting Rights Act, the one requiring that jurisdictions with a history of race discrimination in voting get federal approval before making changes in voting laws that could decrease minority voting power. When the court did that in Shelby County, holding that the formula for deciding which jurisdictions had to get preclearance was outdated, Chief Justice John Roberts left open the possibility that Congress could write a new formula, knowing full well that it wouldn't be able to write one that would satisfy both a majority in Congress and the Supreme Court. He further assured us that 'Our decision in no way affects the permanent, nationwide ban on racial discrimination in voting found in § 2.' And now, that second pillar could well fall too. Court conservatives likely thought teeing up the issue of overruling Section 2 on a hot summer weekend would avoid public notice. But that's a short term strategy. Come next June, any decision to strike down what's left of the Voting Rights Act could kick off the start of a new civil rights movement and more serious talk of Supreme Court reform in the midst of crucially important midterm elections. A court fundamentally hostile to the rights of voters places the court increasingly at odds with democracy itself. Solve the daily Crossword
Irish Daily Mirror
30-07-2025
- Irish Daily Mirror
Pictured: Moment Gardai swooped on man accused of assaulting woman in Dublin
This is the moment Gardai swooped on a man accused of assaulting a woman near Dublin's Fairview Park Hoyda Hamad appeared before Judge Shalom Binchy at Cloverhill District Court on Wednesday. Our exclusive photos show the moment he was arrested - he today proclaimed 'I want to plead guilty' after appearing in court. The accused, of no fixed abode, was arrested on the East Wall Road in north Dublin after the alleged incident on Saturday, July 26 and charged with a Section 2 assault. The Irish Mirror's Crime Writers Michael O'Toole and Paul Healy are writing a new weekly newsletter called Crime Ireland. Click here to sign up and get it delivered to your inbox every week In addition, he was also charged with providing a false or misleading name and address to a member of An Garda Síochána. Hamad was also charged with using or engaging in threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour. The accused appeared in person in the dock wearing a navy jacket and a pair of grey tracksuit bottoms. Judge Binchy ordered disclosure to be supplied to Hamad's defence team but before leaving the dock, the accused declared "I want to plead guilty". Hoyda Hamad pictured during his arrest (Image: Irish Mirror) After letting the matter stand, Hamad was returned to the dock where his barrister confirmed he was pleading guilty to all three charges. The Garda courts presenter told Judge Binchy that there was a named person on the charge sheet and should be given the opportunity to provide a victim impact statement if she so wishes. Judge Binchy agreed and remanded Hamad in custody until August 6 for a sentencing hearing Full facts of the case are expected to be read out then. Any mitigation will also be raised and a victim impact statement will be read out if provided. A person convicted of Section 2 assault faces up to six months in prison, a fine or both. Sign up to the Irish Mirror's Courts and Crime newsletter here and get breaking crime updates and news from the courts direct to your inbox.
Yahoo
24-07-2025
- 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
Boston Globe
24-07-2025
- Politics
- Boston Globe
Supreme Court blocks North Dakota redistricting ruling that would gut key part of Voting Rights Act
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. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 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. Advertisement 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. Advertisement 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.
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.
