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.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Black America Web
32 minutes ago
- Black America Web
Trump Complains About Juneteenth, X Shows Off His Hypocrisy
Source: Sean Rayford / Getty President Donald Trump's complaint about federal holidays on Juneteenth prompted social media to show his past support for it while campaigning. As the nation observed Juneteenth on Thursday (June 19), the most noticable action — or inaction — was in the federal government save for a Truth Social post by President Donald Trump. He stated that he would get rid of 'non-working holidays', complaining that 'Soon we'll end up having a holiday for every once working day of the year,' without acknowledging Juneteenth by name, concluding 'It must change if we are going to, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!' Juneteenth observes June 19th, 1865, the day when those Black Americans enslaved in Galveston, Texas were informed by a Union Army general that the Civil War had ended and that they had been freed by President Abraham Lincoln's signing of the Emancipation Proclamation two and a half years before. It was made a federal holiday by President Joe Biden in 2021, and it cannot be revoked without an act of Congress. Trump's stance was echoed by White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt during her press conference. After answering a question concerning a potential proclamation for Juneteenth, she replied: 'I'm not tracking his signature on a proclamation today. I want to thank all of you for showing up to work. We are certainly here.' Trump had signed up to eleven proclamations in the past week alone for Father's Day, Flag Day as well as the 250th anniversary of the U.S. Army, which are not among the 11 annual federal holidays. According to reporting from The Guardian, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth requested a 'passive approach to Juneteenth messaging' in an email sent out earlier this week. The news comes after Hegseth has obeyed orders from Trump to carry out his elimination of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), seen in renaming military installations like Fort Bragg and warships such as one named after the slain Civil Rights leader Medgar Evers. But Trump's social media post was swiftly called out by many on social media who noted that during his presidential campaign in 2020, he promoted Juneteenth becoming a federal holiday as part of his 'Platinum Plan' geared towards earning votes among the Black community. Former President Joe Biden spent the day on Galveston Island, attending the Juneteenth Emancipation March and Service held at Reedy Chapel AME, where he also paid homage to the late Texas Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee who worked to make Juneteenth a federal holiday. Trump Complains About Juneteenth, X Shows Off His Hypocrisy was originally published on Black America Web Featured Video CLOSE
New York Times
an hour ago
- New York Times
Live Updates: Fears Run High as Iran Weighs Response to U.S. Strikes
Demonstrators hold signs against the U.S. strikes against Iran in Washington outside the White House on Sunday. Before he ordered strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities, President Trump did not seek permission from Congress, to which the U.S. Constitution grants the sole power to declare war. Many Democrats and even some Republicans say that the attack was tantamount to a declaration of war and that Mr. Trump acted illegally. Several Trump aides say they disagree, calling the strike a limited action aimed solely at Iran's nuclear capabilities that does not meet the definition of war. 'This is not a war against Iran,' Secretary of State Marco Rubio told Fox News on Sunday. Vice President JD Vance argued that Mr. Trump had 'clear authority to act to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.' However, later on Sunday, Mr. Trump wrote online that his military aims could be much more expansive: 'If the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!' Criticisms of the attack, which came less than two weeks after Israel began its bombing campaign against Iran, include Mr. Trump not giving American policymakers, lawmakers and the public enough time to debate a role in a conflict that experts warn could grow quickly if Iran retaliates. The furor over the sudden strikes follows years of bipartisan efforts in Congress to try to place greater limits on a president's ability to order military action, efforts that arose because of disastrous American wars in the Middle East and Central Asia. So is the United States at war with Iran? And did Mr. Trump have the authority to order his attack without consulting Congress? What does the U.S. Constitution say about war? Image A demonstrator holds a shredded copy of the Constitution of the United States on Sunday. Credit... Eric Lee for The New York Times Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution assigns Congress dozens of powers like collecting taxes and creating post offices, as well as the power to 'declare war' and to 'raise and support armies.' The Constitution's framers considered that clause a crucial check on presidential power, according to an essay by the law professors Michael D. Ramsey and Stephen I. Vladeck for the National Constitution Center. Early in American history, Congress approved even limited conflicts, including frontier clashes with Native American tribes. But the question is complicated by Article II of the Constitution, which delineates the powers of the president, and which designates the U.S. leader as the 'commander in chief' of the U.S. military. Presidents of both parties, relying heavily on legal opinions written by executive-branch lawyers, have cited that language to justify military action without congressional involvement. Congress tried asserting itself with the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which says the American president must 'consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances.' But presidents have repeatedly disregarded that language or argued for a narrow definition of the 'introduction' of forces. Congress has done little to enforce the resolution. What are members of Congress saying about the U.S. strikes? Image President Trump walking across the South Lawn as he returned to the White House on Sunday. Credit... Anna Rose Layden for The New York Times Democrats have almost uniformly criticized Mr. Trump for acting without legislative consent, and a few Republicans have as well. 'His actions are a clear violation of our Constitution — ignoring the requirement that only the Congress has the authority to declare war,' Senator Chris Van Hollen, Democrat of Maryland, said in a statement echoed by many of his colleagues. Representative Thomas Massie, Republican of Kentucky, told CBS News that there was no 'imminent threat to the United States' from Iran. Senator Tim Kaine, Democrat of Virginia, said on the same CBS program that Congress must act this week to assert a role in any further U.S. military action. 'Would we think it was war if Iran bombed a U.S. nuclear facility? Of course we would,' Mr. Kaine said. 'This is the U.S. jumping into a war of choice at Donald Trump's urging, without any compelling national security interests for the United States to act in this way, particularly without a debate and vote in Congress.' Some Democrats say Mr. Trump has already gone unforgivably far. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York called on Saturday night for Mr. Trump's impeachment. Hawkish Republicans rejected such talk. 'He had all the authority he needs under the Constitution,' Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina told NBC News on Sunday. Mr. Graham cited Mr. Trump's power as commander in chief under Article II of the Constitution. 'Congress can declare war, or cut off funding. We can't be the commander in chief. You can't have 535 commander-in-chiefs,' Mr. Graham said, referring to the combined number of U.S. representatives and senators. 'If you don't like what the president does in terms of war, you can cut off the funding.' Mr. Graham noted that Congress has made formal war declarations in only five conflicts, and none since World War II. However, there has been a legal equivalent from Congress that President George W. Bush was the last American leader to successfully seek: an authorization for the use of military force, often called an A.U.M.F. What are legal scholars saying? Image Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi of Iran called the U.S. attack an 'outrageous, grave and unprecedented violation' of international law and of the United Nations charter. Credit... Khalil Hamra/Associated Press Several lawyers and scholars who have studied the international law of armed conflict say the United States is without a doubt at war with Iran for purposes of application of that law, and that Mr. Trump acted in violation of international conventions. 'The short answer is that this is, in my view, illegal under both international law and U.S. domestic law,' said Oona Hathaway, a professor of international law at Yale Law School who has worked at the Defense Department. Brian Finucane, a former lawyer at the State Department, agreed that Mr. Trump needed to ask Congress for authorization beforehand. He also said 'there is certainly a U.S. armed conflict with Iran, so the law of war applies.' On Sunday, Iran's foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, called the U.S. attack an 'outrageous, grave and unprecedented violation' of international law and of the United Nations charter, which forbids U.N. members from violating the sovereignty of other members. Mr. Araghchi did not specifically say that his country is now at war with America. Mr. Finucane also said the United States had violated the U.N. charter. Ryan Goodman, a law professor at New York University who has also worked at the Defense Department, said 'one important matter for both domestic law and especially international law is the issue of 'imminence.'' The Trump administration is justifying the U.S. attack by saying Iran's development of a nuclear weapon was imminent, Mr. Goodman noted. But 'the law would require that the attack would be imminent,' he said, and 'it is very hard to see how the administration can meet that test under even the most charitable legal assessment.' Even if one were to focus on the question of a nuclear bomb, U.S. intelligence agencies have assessed that Iran had not yet decided to make such a weapon, even though it had developed a large stockpile of the enriched uranium necessary for doing so. How often have presidents sought congressional approval for war? Image The furor over the sudden strikes also follows years of bipartisan efforts in Congress to try to place greater limits on a president's ability to order military action, efforts that arose because of disastrous American wars in the Middle East and Central Asia. Credit... Eric Lee/The New York Times In the decades since Congress declared war on Japan and Germany in 1941, U.S. presidents have repeatedly joined or started major conflicts without congressional consent. President Harry S. Truman sent U.S. forces into Korea. President Ronald Reagan ordered military action in Libya, Grenada and Lebanon; President George H.W. Bush invaded Panama; President Bill Clinton ordered the bombing of mostly Serbian targets in Yugoslavia during the Kosovo War; President Barack Obama joined a 2011 NATO bombing campaign against the government of Muammar Qaddafi in Libya and led a military campaign against the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq. Mr. Obama broke with this trend in September 2013 when he decided against launching a planned strike against Syria without first seeking congressional authorization. The strike was unpopular in Congress, which never held a vote, and Mr. Obama did not act. President George W. Bush won separate congressional authorizations for the use of military force against Afghanistan and Iraq before ordering invasions of those countries in 2001 and 2003. In the years since the Al Qaeda attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, several presidents have also ordered countless airstrikes and special operations raids on foreign soil to kill accused terrorists. Those have largely relied on broad interpretations of the two authorizations for the use of military force that Congress granted the executive branch for the so-called war on terror. Emma Ashford, a scholar of U.S. foreign policy at the Stimson Center, said that in the post-9/11 wars, 'some presidents have largely stopped asking permission at all.' In January 2020, Mr. Trump chose not to consult Congress before ordering an airstrike that killed a senior Iranian military commander, Qassim Suleimani, while he was visiting Iraq. Many members of Congress called that a clear act of war that was likely to begin wider hostilities. Iran responded by firing 27 missiles at U.S. forces in Iraq, inflicting traumatic brain injuries on about 100 U.S. troops. But the conflict did not expand further. Last year, President Joseph R. Biden Jr. ordered U.S. airstrikes against the Houthi militia in Yemen without getting congressional permission, and Mr. Trump did the same this year. Advances in military technology, including drones and precision-guided munitions, have allowed presidents to take action with minimal initial risk to U.S. forces. Military officials say that Saturday's strike in Iran, carried out by B-2 stealth bombers, encountered no resistance. But critics say the action invites Iranian retaliation that could escalate into full-scale war. What happens next Image Advances in military technology, including drones and precision-guided munitions, have allowed presidents to take action with minimal initial risk to U.S. forces. Credit... Eric Lee for The New York Times G.O.P. leaders in the House and Senate have signaled support for the strike, but Democrats and a few Republicans are demanding that Congress approve any further military action. Mr. Kaine, who serves on the committees on armed services and foreign relations, introduced a Senate resolution last week requiring that Mr. Trump get explicit congressional approval before taking military action against Iran. Mr. Kaine on Sunday said the measure was still relevant and that he hoped it would come to a vote this week. Mr. Massie, the Kentucky Republican, introduced a similar war powers resolution last week in the House with Ro Khanna, Democrat of California. 'When two countries are bombing each other daily in a hot war, and a third country joins the bombing, that's an act of war,' Mr. Massie wrote on social media on Sunday. Mr. Massie said he was 'amazed at the mental gymnastics' Mr. Trump's defenders have employed to argue the United States was not entering a war by attacking Iranian nuclear facilities. Megan Mineiro contributed reporting.
2 hours ago
Clerk who denied same-sex marriage licenses in 2015 is still fighting Supreme Court's ruling
The Kentucky county clerk who became known around the world for her opposition to the U.S. Supreme Court's 2015 ruling that legalized same-sex marriage is still arguing in court that it should be overturned. Kim Davis became a cultural lightning rod 10 years ago, bringing national media and conservative religious leaders to eastern Kentucky as she continued for weeks to deny the licenses. She later met Pope Francis in Rome and was parodied on 'Saturday Night Live.' Davis began denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples after the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges on June 26, 2015. Videos of a same-sex couple arguing with Davis in the clerk's office over their denial of a license drew national attention to her office. She defied court orders to issue the licenses until a federal judge jailed her for contempt of court in September 2015. Davis was released after her staff issued the licenses on her behalf but removed her name from the form. The Kentucky Legislature later enacted a law removing the names of all county clerks from state marriage licenses. Davis said her faith forbade her from what she saw as an endorsement of same-sex marriage. Faith leaders and conservative political leaders including former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and then-Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin rallied to her cause. After her release from jail, Davis addressed the media, saying that issuing same-sex marriage licenses 'would be conflicting with God's definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman. This would be an act of disobedience to my God.' Davis declined a request for an interview from The Associated Press for this story. In 2018, one of the men who had confronted Davis over her defiance ran for her office. David Ermold said he believed people in Rowan County were sick of Davis and wanted to move on. When he went to file his papers for the Democratic primary, Davis, a Republican, was there in her capacity as clerk to sign him up. Sitting across a desk from each other, the cordial meeting contrasted the first time they met three years earlier. Both candidates lost; Ermold in the primary and Davis in the general election. She has not returned to politics. Davis' lawyers are attempting again to get her case before the Supreme Court, after the high court declined to hear an appeal from her in 2020. A federal judge has ordered Davis to pay a total of $360,000 in damages and attorney fees to Ermold and his partner. Davis lost a bid in March to have her appeal of that ruling heard by a federal appeals court, but she will appeal again to the Supreme Court. Her attorney, Mat Staver of the Liberty Counsel, said the goal is affirm Davis' constitutional rights and 'overturn Obergefell.'
