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.
 |
The House Ethics Committee has reportedly announced that U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) is facing a review by the Office of Congressional Conduct.
The origin of the review was not been disclosed. Under committee rules, officials are prohibited from stating whether the matter constitutes a formal investigation or identifying its underlying cause. The Committee only stated that there is a “matter regarding Representative Nancy Mace.”
“The Committee notes that the mere fact of a referral or an extension, and the mandatory disclosure of such an extension and the name of the subject of the matter, does not itself indicate that any violation has occurred, or reflect any judgment on behalf of the Committee,” the Ethics Committee statement reads. It was posted to social media by congressional journalist Jamie Dupree.
The statement also says the committee will “announce its course of action in this matter on or before March 2, 2026.”
Congresswoman Mace is currently running for governor of South Carolina.
Earlier this month Mace warned that Republicans may lose control of the House, saying they have not “done enough” and could “do a lot more” to implement President Donald Trump’s agenda, The Hill reported.
Image via Shutterstock
A prominent Republican lawmaker is vowing to thwart any attempt by President Donald Trump to acquire Greenland through force or financial means.
Speaking from Copenhagen as part of a bipartisan delegation of U.S. congressional lawmakers, U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), told reporters it is “an important message for the people of the Kingdom of Denmark to understand” that the United States has “three separate but equal branches” of government.
Reminding them that under the U.S. Constitution it is Congress that controls spending, Senator Murkowski, who has broken ranks and stood up to President Trump at times, said, “In Congress, we have tools at our disposal under our constitutional authority that speaks specifically to the power of the purse through appropriations.”
She noted also that “Congress has a role. Certainly, when it comes to spending authorities, the Congress has a role in basically helping to facilitate the message that comes from our constituents, to be reflected in whether it’s legislation or appropriations, or actions or measures, that can indicate, again, the will of the Congress.”
READ MORE: Trump Dangles Another Insurrection Act Threat for Minnesota
The “vast majority” of Americans do not support the acquisition of Greenland, Senator Murkowski added, noting that “some 75 percent will say we do not think that that is a good idea.”
“Greenland needs to be viewed as our ally, not as an asset,” Murkowski also told reporters.
Politico reported that U.S. Senator Chris Coons (D-DE) “also took part in the visit by House and Senate lawmakers,” and “said he would push ahead with legislation to curb Trump’s power to act unilaterally.”
He also denied President Trump’s claims that Greenland is necessary to be owned by the U.S. for national security reasons.
“Are there real, pressing threats to the security of Greenland from China and Russia?” Coons said. “No, not today.”
Sen. Murkowski: “When you ask the American people whether or not they think it is a good idea for the United States to acquire Greenland, the vast majority, some 75%, will say, we do not think that that is a good idea. This senator from Alaska does not think it is a good idea.” pic.twitter.com/zfitY31LyF
— The Bulwark (@BulwarkOnline) January 16, 2026
READ MORE: With Shutdown Looming and Crises Growing Trump Heads Off for Long Mar-a-Lago Weekend
Image via Reuters
Just one day after threatening to invoke the Insurrection Act in Minnesota, which would allow him to unleash domestic military forces onto American streets, President Donald Trump once again on Friday hinted he would do so while suggesting he may be “forced” to take action.
Trump targeted Governor Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, both Democrats, claiming they “don’t know what to do” after he deployed roughly 3,000 federal troops to the city.
“In Minnesota,” Trump wrote on Truth Social, “the Troublemakers, Agitators, and Insurrectionists are, in many cases, highly paid professionals.”
“The Governor and Mayor don’t know what to do, they have totally lost control, and our currently being rendered, USELESS! If, and when, I am forced to act, it will be solved, QUICKLY and EFFECTIVELY!”
The Guardian labeled Trump’s claims that protesters are paid as baseless.
Attorney Aaron Reichlin-Melnick wrote: “Note that the Trump admin hasn’t yet been able to produce evidence of a SINGLE ‘paid protestor.’ They’ve had total control of the FBI and the DOJ and ICE HSI and yet despite all of that, they can’t even find ONE person who they can accuse of being paid to protest.”
Separately, The Steady State, a group of over 365 former national security officials, while not referring to Trump’s remarks from Friday morning, noted that the Insurrection Act is “an extraordinary power meant for true emergencies, not a shield for unconstitutional policing. Using it to silence dissent or justify unlawful paramilitary activity at the hand of ICE undermines the rule of law.”
READ MORE: With Shutdown Looming and Crises Growing Trump Heads Off for Long Mar-a-Lago Weekend
Image via Reuters
Ethics Committee Reveals Latest Republican to Come Under Review: Report
Republican Vows to Block Trump’s Greenland Push
Trump Dangles Another Insurrection Act Threat for Minnesota
With Shutdown Looming and Crises Growing Trump Heads Off for Long Mar-a-Lago Weekend
‘Unconstitutional Conspiracy’: Judge Blasts Trump Administration Officials
News3 days agoExpert Warns ‘People Will Die’ After Trump Induces ‘Armageddon’ With New Budget Cuts
News1 day agoEthics Committee Reveals Latest Republican to Come Under Review: Report
News3 days agoTrump on 2026 Midterms: ‘We Shouldn’t Even Have an Election’
News2 days ago‘Unconstitutional Conspiracy’: Judge Blasts Trump Administration Officials
News4 days agoFederal Officer Who Shot Renee Good ‘In Hiding’: Report
News2 days ago‘Take Vitamins’: Johnson and White House Scramble to Keep GOP Members Showing Up
News3 days agoHouse Majority Flip Could Trigger Sweeping Probes Into Trump Inner Circle: Democrat
News4 days agoHouse Republican Calls for Bondi to Testify Over Epstein Files ‘Failure to Comply’
