Appeals court rules against North Dakota tribes in voting rights case
A federal appeals court on Wednesday found that the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa and Spirit Lake Nation don't have standing to bring a voting discrimination claim against the state of North Dakota.
The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision overturned a 2023 decision by a North Dakota federal judge that found the state's 2021 redistricting plan unlawfully diluted the tribes' voting power.
Attorneys representing the tribes say the appellate court's ruling eliminates voters' ability to challenge racial discrimination under the Voting Rights Act in North Dakota and the six other 8th Circuit states.
The Campaign Legal Center in a Wednesday statement called the decision a 'stunningly antidemocratic move.'
'This decision severely undermines the Voting Rights Act and is contrary to both the intent of Congress in enacting the law and to decades of Supreme Court precedent affirming voters' power to enforce the law in court,' said Mark Gaber, senior director for redistricting at the Campaign Legal Center.
Tribes, state argue redistricting case to federal appeals court
The appellate court already limited voters' ability to challenge potential violations of the Voting Rights Act in 2023, when it decided private citizens cannot bring lawsuits under Section 2 of the law, which protects voters against racial discrimination. Only the U.S. attorney general can file such claims, the court ruled.
For a time, the question remained open as to whether voters have the right to bring those same allegations under a separate federal civil rights law: Section 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code.
On Wednesday, a panel of 8th Circuit judges decided the answer is no. The language of the Voting Rights Act does not authorize citizens to file race discrimination claims through Section 1983, Judge Raymond Gruender wrote in the majority opinion.
Chief Judge Steven Colloton dissented. He noted that Section 1983 says people may sue for 'the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.'
'The reference to 'and laws' encompasses any law of the United States,' Colloton wrote.
His dissent also criticizes the court's 2023 decision, writing that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act 'expressly forbids 'a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.'' Since 1982, private plaintiffs have brought more than 400 actions based under Section 2, he wrote.
The lawsuit originated from a legislative redistricting plan approved by the North Dakota Legislature in 2021 following the 2020 Census that put the Turtle Mountain and Spirit Lake reservations in new districts.
Judge selects legislative district map in tribal voting rights case
The Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa, Spirit Lake Nation and three Native North Dakota voters in 2022 filed a federal lawsuit against the North Dakota Secretary of State's Office over the map, arguing the plan was discriminatory because it weakened the power of Native voters. The lawsuit was brought under both Section 1983 and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
U.S. District Judge Peter Welte in 2023 ruled in favor of the tribes and in January 2024 ordered the map be substituted with one that placed the reservations in the same voting district.
The Secretary of State's Office appealed the ruling, asking the 8th Circuit to overturn Welte's decision on the basis that the tribes don't have standing to sue and that the redistricting plan was not discriminatory. The parties presented oral arguments to the 8th Circuit in October.
North Dakota Attorney General Drew Wrigley and Secretary of State Michael Howe did not immediately respond to requests for comment Wednesday.
In October, North Dakota Solicitor General Philip Axt argued on behalf of the Secretary of State's Office. He told the judges that the plaintiffs want 'to go back to an ancient regime where private rights were inferred from congressional silence.'
The 8th Circuit in its Wednesday order sent the case back to Welte and directed him to dismiss the lawsuit. It was not immediately clear what impact the decision could have on the voting districts. The appellate court's opinion does not speak to the validity of the redistricting plan itself, only that the plaintiffs lack the right to sue in the first place.
'Today's ruling wrongly forecloses voters disenfranchised by a gerrymandered redistricting map, as Native voters in North Dakota have been, from challenging that map under the Voting Rights Act,' Native American Rights Funds Staff Attorney Lenny Powell said in a Wednesday statement published by the Campaign Legal Center.
Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Chairman Jamie Azure and Spirit Lake Nation Chairperson Lonna Jackson-Street did not respond to requests for comment Wednesday.
The court's decision is only binding in the 8th Circuit, which includes North Dakota, South Dakota, Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri and Nebraska.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


New York Post
20 minutes ago
- New York Post
Team Trump is right to sue NYC over its ‘sanctuary' laws — but Mayor Adams isn't the one to blame
Team Trump had no choice but to sue New York City over its disastrous sanctuary-city laws, especially after a pair of illegal immigrants were accused of shooting an off-duty Border Patrol agent in a Manhattan park. But if President Trump, Attorney General Pam Bondi or Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem think Mayor Eric Adams, the NYPD or any other city agency is in any way responsible for those laws, they're badly mistaken. The suit names Adams, the police and other agencies and officials as well as the City Council as defendants. Citing Adams might be a legal necessity; it explicitly lists him 'in his official capacity,' and it concedes that he has opposed Gotham's sanctuary laws. Advertisement Yet Team Trump has also expressed anger at the mayor personally for the city's failure to cooperate with ICE in rounding up illegal immigrants, particularly criminal ones. Noem blasted Adams outright, along with the council, after Saturday night's border-guard shooting. 'This officer is in the hospital today, fighting for his life, because of the policies of the mayor of the city and the City Council,' Noem roared. Advertisement 'When I look at what Mayor Adams has done to New York City, it breaks my heart to see the families that have suffered because of his policies.' Noem is right to be mad at the council, but she couldn't be more wrong about Adams. Again, he's fought to roll back sanctuary laws. He tried to allow ICE agents back into Rikers so they can take custody of illegal immigrants in the safety of the jails, rather than on the streets, where the dangers are greater and more agents are required. Advertisement He has been cooperating with border czar Tom Homan, and is on record saying he wants to work with the feds. For his pains he's been attacked by the hard left and called an extremist. But the law is the law, and city government must follow it. As Adams noted correctly Friday, any changes to the laws 'must come through the City Council.' Advertisement Keep up with today's most important news Stay up on the very latest with Evening Update. Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters If the Justice Department's suit can force the council to scrap its sanctuary rules, it'll be a great boon to public safety. Those laws, like the state's sanctuary laws, allow violent illegal-immigrant criminals to elude detention and deportation. Indeed, the city has been ignoring ICE detainers by the thousands, leaving potentially violent illegal immigrants free to roam the streets. The pair accused of shooting the border guard had been in custody here and ICE had requested NYC Corrections to detain them for deportation, yet they were let go anyway. The suit also seems to be on firm grounds legally: The Constitution, Congress and the Supreme Court make it clear that immigration is the responsibility of the federal government. And while states and cities aren't obligated to help with that, they're not allowed to impede federal agents' efforts. Advertisement Letting a wanted illegal immigrant go free is akin to abetting a fugitive from justice. Keep your fingers crossed that Team Trump prevails in this suit. But remember, too, that Adams is on the right side of it.


Axios
an hour ago
- Axios
Illinois governor escalates redistricting showdown with Trump and Texas
Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker hosted Texas state legislators on Friday, offering up a strong signal that state Democrats are ready to fight Republican redistricting efforts in the U.S. House. The big picture: President Trump has said he wants Texas Republicans to redistrict their congressional maps to squeeze at least five more GOP seats in the midterm. That announcement was countered by California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who threatened to do the same in his state for Democrats. The latest: Now, Pritzker has entered the fray. How it works: States redraw the maps based on new population counts from the census at the beginning of each decade. Democrats have controlled Illinois congressional district maps for decades, and Republicans have long argued that the maps amount to political gerrymandering. The 2021 map snatched two seats from Republicans, giving Democrats control of 14 of Illinois' 17 districts. Zoom out: Pritzker said he wants Texas Republicans to be "fair" in the redistricting process, infuriating local Republicans who have cried foul against Pritzker and Illinois Democrats for redistricting maps to favor their party. "These state Democrats have the morals of a tomcat," Illinois Freedom Caucus Chair Chris Miller tells Axios. "They will lie to the public, just like the last map that they drew. They said it was the fairest map that's ever been drawn in Illinois. It's laughable." Between the lines: If Pritzker chooses to counter Trump and Texas Republicans, there is nothing in the state constitution that would stop him from doing it. Even though the U.S. Constitution calls for the census to inform congressional districts once every 10 years, that doesn't stop states from mid-decade adjustments. In California, voters would have to approve any redistricted maps. That's not the case in Illinois, although any unprecedented move would probably end up in court. Reality check: Pritzker can't increase how many seats the state has in the House, and it would be difficult to redraw districts in a way to make more seats safe for Democrats. Also, it's only three districts, not enough to counter Texas and Trump's plans alone. Yes, but: With supermajorities in both chambers, it wouldn't take long for Illinois to act, even as early as this year, before the 2026 midterm elections. The intrigue: higher offices or retire, which could make it easier for the legislature to squeeze more seats.


The Hill
4 hours ago
- The Hill
Ex-DOJ employees tied to Jan. 6 cases sue Trump admin for ‘unlawful' terminations
Three former Justice Department (DOJ) employees hit the Trump administration on Thursday with a lawsuit alleging wrongful termination. The effort was led by former federal prosecutor Michael Gordon, who worked on top cases related to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. The complaint was also signed by Patricia Hartman, a former public affairs specialist within the U.S. attorney's office, and Joseph Tirrell, who previously led DOJ's Departmental Ethics Office. In the court filing, the former employees allege that their firings were 'not in accordance with the law,' 'contrary to a constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity' and 'in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right.' This comes amid a wave of approximately 200 terminations at the department amid President Trump's efforts to shake-up the federal workforce and root out 'waste, fraud and abuse.' 'Every time I think we're at some point when the firings are over, there's another wave,' Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) said following the mass layoffs. 'So, I would predict we'll see more.' Attorney General Pam Bondi also fired 20 staffers who worked on special counsel Jack Smith's team, including cases related to Trump's retainment of classified documents after leaving the White House and his alleged the efforts to remain in power after losing the 2020 election to former President Biden. The plaintiffs argue in the lawsuit that Bondi did not have the authority to remove DOJ employees without due process, pointing to guardrails that are in place to protect employees from 'unlawful' termination. They added later in the complaint that 'employees should be protected against arbitrary action, personal favoritism, or coercion for partisan political purposes.' Gordon, a former assistant U.S. attorney was fired by Bondi without an explanation on June 27. 'The law requires that the government cannot fire a federal prosecutor without first giving warning and then giving a justification, a reason — merit-based reason for firing,' the lawyer said in an interview with WFLA. He was terminated the same day as two other assistant U.S. attorneys who also worked on Jan. 6 cases were fired. This indicated that the termination 'was retaliation for prosecutions that were perceived as politically affiliated,' the lawsuit reads. Hartman, who handled some communication related to the Jan. 6 cases, was fired on July 7 in the middle of her workday. Her memorandum of termination cited that she was let go due to Article II of the Constitution, without further explanation. Tirell, a U.S. Navy veteran, was terminated on July 11, once again without prior warning, according to the lawsuit. 'The senseless terminations at the Justice Department are growing exponentially. The very institution created to enforce the law is trampling over the civil service laws enacted by Congress. It's shameful, and it's devastating the workforce,' said Stacey Young, executive director of Justice Connection, an DOJ alumni organization trying to protect their colleagues, in a statement to The Hill.