Federal appeals court deals major blow to Voting Rights Act

A federal appeals court on Wednesday shut down the ability of private individuals to bring Voting Rights Act lawsuits challenging election policies that allegedly discriminate based on race in several states, a major blow to the civil rights law that has long been under conservative attack.
The ruling, which leaves enforcement of the VRA's key provision to the US attorney general, comes as the Trump Justice Department is gutting its civil rights division and pivoting away from the traditional voting rights work. The DOJ, for instance, dropped major lawsuits previously brought against Texas and Georgia.
The new ruling from the 8th US Circuit Court of Appeals covers the seven midwestern states covered in the St. Louis-based Circuit. The opinion means that in those states, only the Justice Department can bring lawsuits enforcing a key provision of the Voting Rights Act, which was passed by Congress in 1965 to address racial discrimination in election policies.
The 2-1 ruling from the 8th Circuit said that a separate civil rights law, known as Section 1983, did not give private individuals the right to bring VRA cases. That question had been left unanswered in a previous ruling from the circuit that said the VRA itself conferred no private right of action.
Those rulings cut against decades of cases successfully brought by individual voters to challenge election policies that violate the VRA by discriminating based on race. Several of the cases traveled up to the Supreme Court and produced rulings affirming the lower court decisions in the voters' favor, supporting the long-term understanding that the VRA gave private individuals ability to enforce the law with lawsuits.
While some conservative justices have questioned whether such private lawsuits could be brought under the VRA, the high court has never addressed the question directly.
The 8th Circuit's Wednesday opinion, written by George W. Bush-appointee Raymond Gruender and joined by Donald Trump appointee Jonathan Kobes, concluded that Congress had not 'unambiguously' conferred a private right of action in the VRA text, while asserting that it needed to do so under Supreme Court precedent.
A dissent from 8th Circuit Chief Judge Steve Colloton, a George W. Bush appointee, pushed back on that reasoning.
'Since 1982, private plaintiffs have brought more than 400 actions based on §2 that have resulted in judicial decisions. The majority concludes that all of those cases should have been dismissed because §2 of the Voting Rights Act does not confer a voting right,' Colloton wrote.
The new ruling stems from a lawsuit alleging that North Dakota discriminated against Native Americans in its state legislative redistricting plan.
'If left intact, this radical decision will hobble the most important anti-discrimination voting law by leaving its enforcement to government attorneys whose ranks are currently being depleted,' Mark Graber, senior director for redistricting at Campaign Legal Center, which is representing the Native Americans, said in a statement. 'The immediate victims of today's decision are North Dakota's Native American voters, who a trial court found were subjected to a map that discriminated against them on account of race.'
North Dakota's Secretary of State office, which was defending the maps, did not respond to CNN's inquiry.
If they seek to appeal the ruling, the Native American voters could seek a review by the full 8th Circuit – a court made up of almost entirely of GOP appointees – or they could take it straight to the Supreme Court, and its 6-3 conservative majority.
The latter path risks the gamble that the conservative majority would adopt the conclusions of the 8th Circuit panel, which would end nationwide privately brought lawsuits under the VRA's relevant provision and leave that provision's enforcement to the US attorney general alone.
Meanwhile, there has been a mass exodus under the second Trump administration of career officials in the DOJ Civil Rights Division, which houses the department's voting section, and the Department has been backing out of longstanding voting rights cases.
In 2013, the Supreme Court's conservative majority gutted a separate section of the VRA that required states with a history of racial discrimination in voting practices to get federal approval for changes in election policy.
CNN's Ethan Cohen contributed to this report.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Politico

41 minutes ago

• Politico

US attack on Iran creates dividing line in final days of New York mayoral race

NEW YORK — New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani condemned the United States' bombing campaign in Iran Saturday, while rival Andrew Cuomo raised red flags about the Middle-Eastern country. The split-screen reactions were the latest indication of the diametrically opposed worldviews of the top contenders heading into Tuesday's Democratic primary, in a race that's featured Israeli politics. 'These actions are the result of a political establishment that would rather spend trillions of dollars on weapons than lift millions out of poverty, launch endless wars while silencing calls for peace, and fearmonger about outsiders while billionaires hollow out our democracy from within,' Mamdani — a staunch critic of Israel — posted on X Saturday, shortly after President Donald Trump gave a national address explaining his decision to join in Israel's attack on Iran. After initially declining to answer a question about Iran outside a Brooklyn church Sunday morning, Cuomo later addressed the subject with reporters in Midtown. 'Iran cannot have nuclear capability. That's number one,' he said. 'It's dangerous, not only for the region, it's dangerous internationally. It's dangerous for the United States.' Despite the animus, they two agreed Trump abused his authority by not seeking the authorization of Congress before approving the bombing of three Iranian nuclear sites. 'Donald Trump ran for President promising to end wars, not start new ones,' Mamdani said in his statement. 'Today's unconstitutional military action represents a new, dark chapter in his endless series of betrayals that now threaten to plunge the world deeper into chaos.' Cuomo told reporters Sunday he supported taking out Iran's nuclear facilities, but not Trump's decision to do so unilaterally. 'I don't support the way he did it. I do believe he should have consulted Congress,' Cuomo said. 'I believe this is more of the same: This is Trump saying I don't have to follow the rules.' The former governor also said New Yorkers should get ready for a retaliation from Iran and said he would be on high alert for an attack at an airport, for example. 'Who do you want in charge in that situation?' he asked, suggesting he would be the best candidate to respond. 'Who's handled situations like hurricane Sandy and COVID and terrorist threats? This is not a job for on-the-job training.' Meanwhile, Mayor Eric Adams said he and his team met with NYPD liaisons posted in Middle Eastern countries, including Israel, to discuss the potential fallout of the bombing. The mayor likened the situation to the Russian invasion of Ukraine and said the city was on watch to make sure the conflict did not manifest among the various communities living in the five boroughs with a stake in the fate of the Middle East. 'We will keep New Yorkers updated as we move forward, but at this time there is no one, clear, credible threat,' he said. While voters rank affordability and public safety among their top concerns, the Israel-Hamas war has nevertheless become a flashpoint in the New York City mayoral race. Cuomo readily campaigns against antisemitism, criticizes his opponents who haven't visited Israel and is backed by major Orthodox Jewish leaders. On Sunday, he campaigned in the religious Borough Park section of Brooklyn as GOTV weekend came to a close. A super PAC supporting him has spent millions of dollars going after Mamdani — who would become the city's first Muslim mayor — in ads and mailers, many of which call him antisemitic. Mamdani rejects those claims and says the PAC has engaged in bigotry. Jeff Coltin contributed to this report.

Bloomberg

an hour ago

• Bloomberg

Iran Strikes Risk Dividing GOP at Crucial Time for Trump Agenda

By and Steven T. Dennis Save Donald Trump's unilateral decision to strike Iran's key nuclear sites on Saturday notably sidelined Congress just as he needs Republicans lawmakers to unite around one thing he can't do without them: Pass his legislative agenda. Senate Republicans are still planning to move ahead this week with votes on Trump's massive tax and spending bill, Stacey Daniels, a spokeswoman for Majority Leader John Thune, said Sunday.

The Hill

2 hours ago

• The Hill

Trump hits Iran: 5 questions on what comes next

President Trump's decision to authorize a military strike on Iran is a seismic moment that could reshape the future of the Middle East and his presidency. The administration on Sunday signaled it wants to contain the conflict, underscoring that it does not want an all-out war with Iran but will not accept a world where Tehran has a nuclear weapon. Whether it can contain the fallout is a different proposition and one that may depend largely on Iran. Politically, the vast majority of Republicans are sticking with Trump, while many Democrats are expressing outrage over what they see as a lack of strategy, as well as a lack of notification to Congress ahead of the strikes. The move by Trump is, in some ways, a surprise, as he came to office promising to keep the U.S. out of foreign conflicts. Now, less than six months into his second term, he is on the brink of a larger battle. Here are five big questions. This is the most important question. Administration officials on Sunday signaled that they are hopeful Iran will return to the negotiating table, but signs quickly emerged of a more aggressive response from Tehran. Iranian television reported that Iran's parliament had approved a measure to close the Strait of Hormuz, a key shipping route between Iran and Oman. State-run Press-TV said a final decision on doing so rested with Iran's Supreme National Security Council. Shutting off the waterway could have major implications for global trade, leading to increased oil and gas prices in the U.S. That would bite at Trump, who vowed to bring down prices after years of high inflation under former President Biden in the post-COVID era. It also risks turning the conflict into a broader war. Iran could also launch strikes against U.S. military targets, though its abilities to do so have been hampered by more than a week of strikes by Israel, which has allowed U.S. and Israeli planes more security to fly over Iranian skies. Another widely-discussed possibility is that Iran could back terror attacks around the world on U.S. targets. Of course, there would be serious risks to such actions by Iran. Just taking steps to move forward with its nuclear program, let alone striking out at the U.S., would lead to negative consequences, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned on Sunday. 'Look, at the end of the day, if Iran is committed to becoming a nuclear weapons power, I do think it puts the regime at risk,' he said during an appearance on Fox Sunday Futures. 'I really do. I think it would be the end of the regime if they tried to do that.' Before this week, Trump's Make America Great Again movement looked divided on a strike on Iran. Trump has long criticized past U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a big part of his draw to many voters was his promise to keep the U.S. out of foreign conflicts. MAGA voices from Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) to political pundit Tucker Carlson to former Trump strategic adviser Steve Bannon have all cast doubt on getting the U.S. more directly involved in the Iran-Israeli conflict. In the immediate aftermath of the strikes, Republicans were notably united, with Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) being a notable exception. And administration officials with non-interventionist records were taking rhetorical steps to keep the doubters in line. A chief example was Vice President Vance, who said the U.S. was at war with Iran's nuclear program, not Iran as a country. Iran may not see things that way, and if Tehran takes steps to hurt the U.S., GOP voices who doubted the wisdom of a strike may get louder. That will be something the administration watches closely going forward. Trump, in a Sunday Truth Social post, also touted 'great unity' among Republicans following the U.S. strikes and called on the party to focus on getting his tax and spending legislation to his desk. On the left, Democrats have hit Trump hard over the strike on Iran. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), speaking at a rally on Saturday night, reacted to unfolding events live, arguing Trump's action was unconstitutional as a crowd changed 'no more wars.' Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said Trump's action was an impeachable offense. That was a bold statement in that Democrats largely have avoided impeachment talk with Trump after twice voting to impeach him during his first term. Both of those efforts ultimately ended with Senate acquittals and, finally, with Trump's reelection last year. Presidents in both parties have taken limited military strikes without first seeking permission from Congress, but Democrats have also brought up the War Powers Act, saying Trump went too far with the strikes. At the same time, many Democrats are concerned about Iran's potential to go nuclear, and the party does not want to be cast as soft on Tehran. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), a vociferous opponent of Iran, called for his GOP counterpart, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.), to put the War Powers Act on the floor so senators could vote to authorize Trump's actions. Going a step further, Schumer said he would vote for it. 'No president should be allowed to unilaterally march this nation into something as consequential as war with erratic threats and no strategy,' Schumer said in the statement. 'Confronting Iran's ruthless campaign of terror, nuclear ambitions, and regional aggression demands strength, resolve, and strategic clarity. The danger of wider, longer, and more devastating war has now dramatically increased.' 'We must enforce the War Powers Act, and I'm urging Leader Thune to put it on the Senate floor immediately. I am voting for it and implore all Senators on both sides of the aisle to vote for it,' he said. Another Democrat further to the center, Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, retweeted Trump's Truth Social post on the attack and said he fully agreed with it. In general, the strikes on Iran may further divide Democrats on liberal-centrist and generational lines. Yet much, again, depends on events. A successful Gulf War by former President George H.W. Bush did not save his presidency in 1992. And the second Gulf War ended disastrously for the Republican Party led by Bush's son, former President George W. Bush. Trump justly had a reputation as a president who is averse to foreign conflicts, given his criticism of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and his repeated calls that he would keep the U.S. out of such wars. So how did this Trump end up bombing Iran, becoming the first president to authorize the dropping of some of America's most lethal non-nuclear bombs? It's more likely Trump's shift is a bit of a one-off based on current world events than a complete change in philosophy. After Israel's initial strike on Iran on June 13, the administration distanced itself from the decision. Trump previously has been seeking to get Iran to agree to a nuclear deal, and many reports suggested he was not keen on an aggressive Israel attack. But that attack happened, and it went well. Israel had control of Iranian airspace, potentially clearing the way for U.S. B-2 bombers. Action by Russia was unlikely given its own war with Ukraine — something that was not part of the political fabric in Trump's first term. Iran's backers in Hamas and Hezbollah also have been devastated by Israel since Hamas launched its attack on Oct. 7, 2023, an event that has had a number of serious repercussions. Some U.S. officials on Sunday called for peace, a sign that Trump is not seeking a prolonged conflict. That could also be a message to his supporters who did not think they were voting for a leader who risked getting the country into a Middle East War. At least some of those voters may be asking questions in the days and weeks to come, and what comes next will make a big difference in shaping their views. Trump's decision to attack Iran and enter the Israeli-Iran war is a big win for hawkish supporters and allies of the president, most notably Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). It is also, oddly, something that will be cheered by certain Republicans who are more often critics of Trump, such as former National Security Adviser John Bolton and former Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). It seems clear Trump is listening to the voices of Graham, Rubio and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, despite the sometimes-tense relationship between the U.S. and Israeli leaders. Vance is clearly a part of the president's inner circle, and it was notable that he, Rubio and Hegseth were at Trump's side when he announced the strikes on Saturday night. Trump 2.0 has been notable for having few voices that offer pushback to Trump's decisions. It is difficult to see Hegseth pressing Trump to move in a different direction on a national security issue, for example. And Trump twice this week described assessments by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard that Iran was not close to developing a nuclear weapon as wrong. So, who has Trump's ear? Most of these key people surround Trump and others, like White House chief of staff Susie Wiles. But Trump is his own decider-in-chief, and the Iran strikes are a reflection of his own unpredictability.