US appeals court curtails key avenue to enforce voting rights law
Source: Reuters
May 14, 2025 5:09 PM EDT Updated an hour ago
May 14 (Reuters) - A federal appeals court foreclosed on Wednesday one of the main remaining means by which civil rights activists could enforce a landmark voting rights law's protections against racial discrimination in seven mostly Midwestern states. The 2-1 panel of the St. Louis-based 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 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. Lawyers for the plaintiffs said the ruling, if allowed to stand, would weaken voters' ability in Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota to challenge unfair voting maps.
Those states are within the jurisdiction of the 8th Circuit, which had already 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.
Read more: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-appeals-court-curtails-key-avenue-enforce-voting-rights-law-2025-05-14/

The Mouth
(3,347 posts)No words
rsdsharp
(10,778 posts)Every other court that has considered the issue ruled the opposite way. The result may be different if Appellees seek en banc review.