Friday, September 20, 2024
HomePoliticsA federal court declines to revisit a ruling that could weaken the...

A federal court declines to revisit a ruling that could weaken the Voting Rights Act

Published on

spot_img


Activists take part in a voting rights protest in front of the White House in Washington, D.C., in 2021.

Alex Wong/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Alex Wong/Getty Images


Activists take part in a voting rights protest in front of the White House in Washington, D.C., in 2021.

Alex Wong/Getty Images

A federal appeals court has denied a request to revisit a ruling that could undermine a key tool for enforcing the Voting Rights Act’s protections against racial discrimination in the election process.

It’s the latest move in an Arkansas state legislative redistricting case, filed by civil rights groups representing Black voters in the southern state, that could turn into the next U.S. Supreme Court battle that limits the scope of the landmark civil rights law.

The full 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals released its decision Tuesday after attorneys led by the American Civil Liberties Union appealed the ruling by a three-judge panel last year.

That panel found that federal law does not allow private groups and individuals — who have for decades brought the majority of lawsuits under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act — to sue because that law does not explicitly name them. Only the head of the Justice Department, the panel found, can bring these kinds of lawsuits.

For now, the panel’s ruling, which upheld a lower court ruling by U.S. District Judge Lee Rudofsky, applies only to the seven states in the 8th Circuit, which includes Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota.

See also  Elon Musk hits back at press for 'anti-immigrant' label: 'Nothing could be further from the truth'

Other federal courts — including a 5th Circuit panel that weighed in on a congressional redistricting case in Louisiana last November — have disagreed with the 8th Circuit panel and Rudofsky, finding that there is what’s known in the legal world as a private right of action under Section 2.

Still, conservative Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas have signaled they’re interested in hearing a case that focuses on this issue.

Edited by Benjamin Swasey



Source link

Latest articles

Pancake breakfast aims to help keep Ocean Beach events calendar full – San Diego Union-Tribune

The 26th annual Near the Pier Pancake Breakfast lured flapjack fans to Saratoga...

Venice homicide investigation underway after man found dead off Lincoln Blvd

article The body was discovered shortly before 1 a.m. in...

Ashton Kutcher slammed as video of him laughing about Diddy’s parties resurfaces: ‘There’s a lot I can’t tell’

Ashton Kutcher's longtime friendship with Sean 'Diddy' Combs has come under scrutiny amid...

This 3-hour NYC Cruise Lets You Enjoy Fall Foliage Without Going to Upstate New York

With traces of leaves changing this week in New York state, now...

More like this

Pancake breakfast aims to help keep Ocean Beach events calendar full – San Diego Union-Tribune

The 26th annual Near the Pier Pancake Breakfast lured flapjack fans to Saratoga...

Venice homicide investigation underway after man found dead off Lincoln Blvd

article The body was discovered shortly before 1 a.m. in...

Ashton Kutcher slammed as video of him laughing about Diddy’s parties resurfaces: ‘There’s a lot I can’t tell’

Ashton Kutcher's longtime friendship with Sean 'Diddy' Combs has come under scrutiny amid...