News
‘Terrible, Wrong and Brutal for Minorities’: Appeals Court Guts Voting Rights Act
Legal experts are sounding the alarm over Monday’s Appeals Court ruling they warn “decimates” the Voting Rights Act and will be “brutal” for minority voters.
In a 2-to-1 ruling, the highly-conservative Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled private plaintiffs, for example, voters and civil rights groups, do not have the right to sue to have section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) enforced. Only the U.S. Dept. of Justice, the court ruled, can sue under section 2.
“It will be a devastating near-death blow to the Voting Rights Act if it remains the law,” Wendy Weiser, the director of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, told The New York Times. “Radical theories that would previously have been laughed out of court have been taken increasingly seriously by an increasingly radical judiciary.”
The ruling appears to only apply to the Eight Circuit’s jurisdiction, which is Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota, NBC News reports.
“It’s hard to overstate how important and detrimental this decision would be if allowed to stand,” warned UCLA professor of law Rick Hasen, the pre-eminent voice on election law and campaign finance. He added, “the vast majority of claims to enforce section 2 of the Voting Rights Act are brought by private plaintiffs, not the Department of Justice with limited resources. If minority voters are going to continue to elect representatives of their choice, they are going to need private attorneys to bring those suits.”
READ MORE: ‘Careful Scalpel’: Appeals Court Likely to Uphold Trump Gag Order but Narrow It Experts Say
In his headline Hasen wrote the ruling “Would Decimate the Rights of Minority Voters; Supreme Court Review Almost Certain.”
Professor of law Steve Vladeck, a CNN contributor, noted that not only has the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed section 2 case from private plaintiffs before, it has specified the Voting Rights Act is still operable because private plaintiffs have the ability to sue under section 2. Until now.
#SCOTUS in Shelby County: We don’t need preclearance to enforce the Voting Rights Act because private suits remain available to challenge specific violations of the Act directly under section 2.
Eighth Circuit: About those private suits… https://t.co/if8tw3ZZki
— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) November 20, 2023
“The 8th Circuit has gutted the last remnants of the Voting Rights Act,” declared MSNBC legal analyst Joyce Vance, a professor of law and former U.S. Attorney.
NPR called suing under section 2, “a key path for enforcing the Voting Rights Act.” Similarly to Hasen, they wrote the ruling “may set up the next U.S. Supreme Court fight that could further limit the reach of the Voting Rights Act’s protections for people of color.”
“Private individuals and groups, who did not represent the U.S. government, have for decades brought the majority of Section 2 cases to court,” NPR added. “Those cases have challenged the redrawing of voting maps and other steps in the elections process with claims that the voting power of people of color has been minimized.”
Indeed, Marc Elias, the top Democratic attorney who won all but one of more than 60 lawsuits brought by Trump and his allies in the 2020 election, explained: “In past 40 years, there have been at least 182 successful Section 2 cases–only 15 were brought solely by DOJ.”
Professor of law Eric Segall, author of “Originalism as Faith,” and “Supreme Myths: Why the Supreme Court Is Not a Court and Its Justices Are Not Judges,” issued a dire warning.
READ MORE: Hate Group Stages Boycott of Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade Over Nonbinary Broadway Actors
“Terrible, wrong and brutal for minorities,” Segall called it, noting that in that ruling the Eight Circuit was “trying to finish what Justice Roberts and Judge Bill Pryor wanted for decades: the eventual judicial repeal of the entire VRA.”
Monday’s ruling was written by a Trump-appointed judge, and upholds a lower court ruling also written by a Trump-appointed judge.
“Jesus Christ,” exclaimed The Nation’s justice correspondent Elie Mystal. “This is THE WAY the Voting Rights Act works. It’s THE WAY we enforce the 15th freaking amendment. I think [Chief Justice John] Roberts and [Justice Amy Coney] Barrett will join the liberals to reverse this when it gets to SCOTUS, but my God, letting Trump judges on the federal bench was a terrible plan.”
Image by GPA Photo Archive/US Dept. of State via Flickr and a CC license
Enjoy this piece?
… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.
NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.
Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.
 |
New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan found Donald Trump in criminal contempt of court for nine violations of his gag order, and served up a threat of time behind bars if he continues down that path. Some legal experts say Merchan’s punishment could have been broader or stronger, while others called it a “smart move.”
Justice Merchan fined Trump $1000 per violation, the maximum allowed under New York law, and warned the ex-president he could face time in jail if he continues to violate the order.
“Defendant is hereby warned that the Court will not tolerate continued willful violations of its lawful orders and that if necessary and appropriate under the circumstances, it will impose an incarceratory punishment,” Justice Merchan wrote.
Merchan also gave Trump until 2:15 PM to remove the nine social media and campaign website posts that violated his gag order.
READ MORE: ‘Let’s Get a Warrant for Her Backyard’: Noem ‘Done Politically’ Right Wing Pundits Say
“Trump will see Justice Merchan’s $9,000 fine for violating the gag order as a reasonable cost for the ability to continue attacking the judge, court and rule of law. It won’t stop him,” warned Bloomberg Opinion executive editor Tim O’Brien, who is the author of a 2005 book on Trump.
Calling the opinion “well-reasoned” and “balanced,” professor of law Ryan Goodman, a former Special Counsel for the U.S. Dept. of Defense, made a point of noting its historic nature:
On this day in history:
A former president of the United States was held to be in Criminal Contempt for “willful disobedience of a court’s lawful mandate” by attacking witnesses and jurors in a criminal proceeding.
Court’s finding based on beyond a reasonable doubt.
— Ryan Goodman (@rgoodlaw) April 30, 2024
Professor of law and former FBI General Counsel Andrew Weissmann lamented Justice Merchan’s missed opportunity.
“Judge missed an opportunity to impose a monitor over his social media posts and to suggest the penalty will be considered at end of trial.”
But national security attorney Brad Moss praised the punishment in Merchan’s contempt finding.
“Smart move by Merchan. This is the first criminal contempt finding. It’s a warning to Trump that the games won’t be tolerated. If he does it again, and Merchan does have to cross the rubicon and jail him, it strengthens Merchan’s argument on appeal.”
READ MORE: Peter Navarro’s Latest Attempt to Get Out of Jail Smacked Down by SCOTUS
South Dakota Republican Governor Kristi Noem‘s bragging about dragging her 14-month old puppy into a gravel pit and shooting her to death because she “hated” the dog is likely the end of her political career, right-wing pundits are now saying.
On Friday when The Guardian broke the news in a preview of Noem’s upcoming book, outrage on the left was immediate, but outrage on the right trickled in, then increased. Even with Noem doubling down, declaring her killing of the puppy (and a goat that same day, same way) happened 20 years ago, people on the right are expressing anger.
A Democratic pollster says 81% of Americans oppose Noem killing her puppy, The Guardian later reported.
“After learning about Gov. Noem’s actions, only 14% consider her to be a good choice for vice president on the Republican ticket. By a 2:1 margin, even Republicans say the governor would not be a good choice (42% vs. 21%),” the pollster, New River Strategies, stated.
READ MORE: Hunter Biden Plans Lawsuit Against Fox News Amid ‘Conspiracy of Disinformation’
Noem’s book, “No Going Back,” to be released May 7, has a number one ranking at Amazon. Publisher Center Street, a Hachette Book Group imprint, also publishes other right-wing politicians including Ben Carson, Newt Gingrich, and Vivek Ramaswamy. Endorsing the book are other right-wingers, including Donald Trump, Fox News’ Rachel Campos-Duffy, athlete and anti-trans activist Riley Gaines, and anti-LGBTQ extremist group creator Chaya Raichik of Libs of TikTok.
On Monday, as Mediaite reported, two Fox News pundits had had it.
Jason Chaffetz, a former GOP Congressman, said, “she just destroyed her political career. I don’t think there’s anybody on any side of the aisle, any human being that thinks it’s acceptable to go to a gravel pit and shoot a dog in the face and kill it when it’s 14 months old. That’s. I mean, that’s just hideous. So she’s done politically, and I’m a friend of hers. I served with her, but politically, there’s no recovering from this.”
Fox News media analyst Joe Concha said, “as a dog owner my whole life,” the story of Noem shooting her dog “absolutely makes my blood boil.”
RELATED: Noem Defends Shooting Her 14-Month Old Puppy to Death, Brags She Has Media ‘Gasping’
“How utterly heartless do you have to be to shoot a 14-month-old dog in the face? Because look, if it wasn’t doing its job on the farm, or is attacking chicken or people, okay, you’re a public figure, or at least you have a platform in some way, shape, or form. Even if you’re a private citizen, you very easily could have posted somewhere, ‘I’m putting my dog up for adoption because maybe it’s not working out here on the ranch,’ and I can guarantee you many people would have raised their hand to take that dog in,” Concha said, adding, “she just destroyed any chance she had of being Donald Trump’s vice president, if she had any chance at all. There’s no going back from this.”
Right wing talk show host Megyn Kelly said Trump is “too smart” to “pick somebody who’s managed to do the impossible and unite Democrats and Republicans alike in their anger for this woman who shot her puppy in the face.”
At the right wing National Review, Jeffrey Blehar writes: “Let’s Get a Warrant for Kristi Noem’s Backyard.”
“I guess I just don’t like people who boast about shooting puppies,” Blehar adds on social media. “And goats. And horses. And who knows what else, until cops have done an aerial scan of the property and gotten a backhoe out to excavate the suspicious piles of dirt.”
A far-right pro-Trump streaming media outlet has retracted what it now states was a “false” story alleging former Trump personal attorney Michael Cohen and adult film star Stormy Daniels had a sexual relationship for years and engaged in an “extortion” conspiracy plot against the ex-president.
The statement and apology from One America News Network (OAN) comes just one day before the New York criminal trial of Donald Trump is set to begin its third week. Cohen is one of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s top witnesses in the case. Defense attorneys are expected to try to attack Cohen’s credibility.
“OAN today has retracted its March 27 article entitled ‘Whistleblower: Avenatti Alleged Cohen Daniels Affair Since 2006, Pre-2016 Trump Extortion Plan,’ and is taking it down from all sites and removing it from all social media. This retraction is part of a settlement reached with Michael Cohen. Mr. Avenatti has denied making the allegations. OAN apologizes to Mr. Cohen for any harm the publication may have caused him,” a statement on OAN’s website reads.
It then states in all-caps: “NO PERSON SHOULD RELY ON THE MARCH 27 ARTICLE OR THE ALLEGATIONS CONTAINED THEREIN.”
READ MORE: Hunter Biden Plans Lawsuit Against Fox News Amid ‘Conspiracy of Disinformation’
“The article, quoting a source, falsely claimed that Mr. Cohen and Ms. Daniels ‘were having an affair since 2006’ and that, according to a source, ‘the whole hush money scheme was cooked up by [Mr. Cohen] to extort the Trump Organization before the 2016 election.’ These statements were false. OAN regrets their publication.”
The New York Times reports there are “no monetary damages,” and adds one of Cohen’s attorneys, “Justin Nelson, had represented Dominion Voting Systems in a suit against Fox News that cost that network $787.5 million to settle. Mr. Nelson worked with Mr. Cohen’s longtime lawyer, Danya Perry, in what was a remarkably quick about-face by OAN.”
Danya Perry, also one of Cohen’s attorneys in this case, declared the settlement was “a total vindication for Mr. Cohen — and a warning: Mr. Cohen is telling the truth, and there will be legal consequences for those who lie about him.”
“Mr. Trump has repeatedly attacked Mr. Cohen,” The Times adds, “despite a gag order issued by the judge overseeing the case, Juan M. Merchan, barring him from attacking witnesses and others. Justice Merchan is currently weighing whether Mr. Trump is in contempt of the gag order as a result of that invective.”
READ MORE: Noem Doubles Down With ‘Legal Cover’ For Shooting Her Puppy to Death
“In particular, Mr. Trump has attacked Mr. Cohen’s credibility, which will also be how Mr. Trump’s lawyers approach his former fixer during trial. The story by OAN, which has been a consistent booster of Mr. Trump’s political agenda, bolstered that strategy.”
Cohen called it, “The first apology in a long line of lies about me by media outlets.”
Professor of law, MSNBC legal analyst, and former FBI General Counsel Andrew Weissmann called the settlement a “big win” for the attorneys and Cohen.
‘Let’s Get a Warrant for Her Backyard’: Noem ‘Done Politically’ Right Wing Pundits Say
Far Right Media Outlet Retracts ‘False’ Story About Michael Cohen and Stormy Daniels
‘Won’t Stop Him’: Judge Threatens Trump With Jail for Gag Order Breach
Trump Would Not Oppose State Pregnancy Surveillance or Abortion Prosecution
‘Pretty Strong Views’: Trump Vows ‘Big Statement’ on Abortion Pill in the ‘Next Week or Two’
‘Pretty Strong Views’: Trump Vows ‘Big Statement’ on Abortion Pill in the ‘Next Week or Two’
Trump Would Not Oppose State Pregnancy Surveillance or Abortion Prosecution
‘Won’t Stop Him’: Judge Threatens Trump With Jail for Gag Order Breach
‘Let’s Get a Warrant for Her Backyard’: Noem ‘Done Politically’ Right Wing Pundits Say
Far Right Media Outlet Retracts ‘False’ Story About Michael Cohen and Stormy Daniels
News1 day agoNoem Doubles Down With ‘Legal Cover’ For Shooting Her Puppy to Death
News1 day agoHunter Biden Plans Lawsuit Against Fox News Amid ‘Conspiracy of Disinformation’
News1 day agoPeter Navarro’s Latest Attempt to Get Out of Jail Smacked Down by SCOTUS
News21 hours ago‘Let’s Get a Warrant for Her Backyard’: Noem ‘Done Politically’ Right Wing Pundits Say
News22 hours agoFar Right Media Outlet Retracts ‘False’ Story About Michael Cohen and Stormy Daniels
News5 hours ago‘Won’t Stop Him’: Judge Threatens Trump With Jail for Gag Order Breach
OPINION3 hours agoTrump Would Not Oppose State Pregnancy Surveillance or Abortion Prosecution
OPINION24 mins ago‘Pretty Strong Views’: Trump Vows ‘Big Statement’ on Abortion Pill in the ‘Next Week or Two’