Ruling in North Dakota case erases path for people in 7 states to sue under the Voting Rights Act
But its decisions may not be the last word, because another appeals court has ruled differently, and the U.S. Supreme Court would have to resolve the conflict. The latest ruling reversed a legal victory for two tribal nations in North Dakota that challenged a legislative redistricting plan.
The ruling shuts off a route to Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act through a federal civil rights law known as Section 1983, which allows people to sue state officials to vindicate their federal or constitutional rights, said Jonathan Topaz, staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union Voting Rights Project. Section 1983 provides a legal vehicle to bring a lawsuit, he said.
Private individuals in past decades brought lawsuits under Section 2, but a 2023 8th Circuit ruling in an Arkansas redistricting case held that Section 2 doesn't allow for private claims. That ruling and Wednesday's only apply to the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which encompasses Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota.
'These decisions together at the moment mean that no one can sue under the Voting Rights Act in the seven states that comprise the 8th Circuit, other than the U.S. Attorney General,' said Mark Gaber, senior director for redistricting at Campaign Legal Center and an attorney for the Spirit Lake Tribe and Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians.
The majority opinion Wednesday said that in order to use Section 1983 to file lawsuits over voting rights, including how redistricting affects them, a private person or group must 'unambiguously' have the right to sue under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
Appeals Judge Raymond Gruender, appointed by George W. Bush and writing for the majority, said that while the tribes 'are within the general zone of interest' of the Voting Rights Act, it is 'without the statute having unambiguously conferred an individual right.'
In a dissent, Circuit Chief Judge Steven Colloton, another Bush appointee, said Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act does confer a right to sue and he would have upheld the tribes' legal victory on redistricting.
Wednesday's decision and the Arkansas ruling "create circuit splits' on the Section 2 and Section 1983 issues because the 8th Circuit is the only court to rule in such a way in both instances, Gaber said. The tribes and their attorneys are discussing and considering appeal options, he said.
The 2-1 ruling is a reversal for the two tribes, who had successfully challenged North Dakota's 2021 redistricting map, alleging it dilutes their voting strength.
The tribes wanted to share a single legislative district, electing a state senator and two House members, making it more likely that all three would be Native American. The 2021 plan split them into different districts. The court-ordered plan gave the tribes what they wanted.
Spirit Lake, Turtle Mountain and several tribal citizens alleged that the 2021 map drew the lines so that while Turtle Mountain members still could elect a House member, the Spirit Lake members could not.
In late 2023, U.S. District Court Chief Judge Peter Welte ruled after a trial, saying the Legislature's map 'prevents Native American voters from having an equal opportunity to elect candidates of their choice" in violation of the Voting Rights Act's Section 2.
In early 2024, the judge ordered a new map into place with a joint district for the two tribes. Their reservations near the Canadian border and in northeastern North Dakota, respectively, are about 60 miles (97 kilometers) apart. Later that year, voters elected three Native Americans, all Democrats, to the district's seats.
Republican Senate Majority Leader David Hogue said the 2021 boundaries the Legislature drew 'will be the boundaries." Somehow officials will have to address the seats of incumbents affected by the boundaries at question, potentially by special election, he said.
'I think the Legislature was very comfortable with the fairness of the boundaries that they drew in 2021, and I think we should endeavor to uphold those boundaries,' Hogue said.
In a statement, Secretary of State Michael Howe's office said it will now work with the 2021 map in place for the 2026 elections, 'pending any further actions.'
Republicans control North Dakota's Legislature by 83-11 in the House and 42-5 in the Senate. The state's biennial legislative session concluded earlier this month.
___
Associated Press reporter John Hanna contributed from Topeka, Kansas.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
19 minutes ago
- New York Post
Trump administration freezes $339 million in UCLA grants, accuses school of rights violations
The Trump administration is freezing $339 million in research grants to the University of California, Los Angeles, accusing the school of civil rights violations related to antisemitism, affirmative action, and women's sports, according to a person familiar with the matter. The federal government has frozen or paused federal funding over similar allegations against private colleges, but this is one of the rare cases it has targeted a public university. Several federal agencies notified UCLA this week that they were suspending grants over civil rights concerns, including $240 million from the Department of Health and Human Services and the National Institutes of Health, according to the person, who spoke about internal deliberations on the condition of anonymity. 5 The Trump administration is freezing $339 million in research grants to the University of California, Los Angeles, accusing the school of civil rights violations, reports say. AP The Trump administration recently announced that the U.S. Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division found UCLA violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 'by acting with deliberate indifference in creating a hostile educational environment for Jewish and Israeli students.' Last week, Columbia agreed to pay $200 million as part of a settlement to resolve investigations into the government's allegations that the school violated federal antidiscrimination laws. The agreement also restores more than $400 million in research grants. The Trump administration plans to use its deal with Columbia as a template for other universities, with financial penalties that are now seen as an expectation. The National Science Foundation said in a statement that it informed UCLA that it was suspending funding awards because the school isn't in line with the agency's priorities. UCLA's chancellor, Julio Frenk, called the government's decision 'deeply disappointing.' 5 The Trump administration recently announced that the U.S. Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division found UCLA violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. AP 'With this decision, hundreds of grants may be lost, adversely affecting the lives and life-changing work of UCLA researchers, faculty, and staff,' he said in a statement. The Department of Energy said in its letter it found several 'examples of noncompliance' and faulted UCLA for inviting applicants to disclose their race in personal statements and for considering factors including family income and ZIP code. Affirmative action in college admissions was outlawed in California in 1996 and struck down by the Supreme Court in 2023. 5 UCLA's chancellor, Julio Frenk, called the government's decision 'deeply disappointing.' Getty Images for Aurora Humanitarian Initiative 5 The Department of Energy said in its letter that it found several 'examples of noncompliance' and faulted UCLA for inviting applicants to disclose their race in personal statements and for considering factors including family income and ZIP code. AP The letter said the school has taken steps that amount to 'a transparent attempt to engage in race-based admissions in all but name,' disadvantaging white, Jewish, and Asian American applicants. It also said UCLA fails to promote an environment free from antisemitism and discriminates against women by allowing transgender women to compete on women's teams. Frenk said that in its letter, the federal government 'claims antisemitism and bias as the reasons' to freeze the funding, but 'this far-reaching penalty of defunding life-saving research does nothing to address any alleged discrimination.' 5 The federal government has frozen or paused federal funding over similar allegations against private colleges, but this is one of the rare cases it has targeted a public university. Getty Images Earlier this week, UCLA reached a $6 million settlement with three Jewish students and a Jewish professor who sued the university, arguing it violated their civil rights by allowing pro-Palestinian protesters in 2024 to block their access to classes and other areas on campus. UCLA initially had argued that it had no legal responsibility over the issue because protesters, not the university, blocked Jewish students' access to some areas. The university also worked with law enforcement to thwart attempts to set up new protest camps. The university has said that it's committed to campus safety and inclusivity and will continue to implement recommendations.
Washington Post
2 hours ago
- Washington Post
Supreme Court signals it may rule on law protecting power of minority voters
The Supreme Court has signaled that it may rule on the constitutionality of a key section of the landmark Voting Rights Act that allows states to draw majority-minority voting districts mainly to protect the power of Black and Hispanic voters. The justices on Friday evening asked opposing parties in a battle over a Louisiana voting map to submit briefs addressing whether the state's creation of a second Black majority congressional district violated constitutional provisions that require all people to be treated equally. The district covers areas stretching from Shreveport to Baton Rouge. 'The stakes here are enormous,' Rick Hasen, a law professor at UCLA and an expert on election law, wrote on his blog. Black voters and civil rights groups sued Louisiana in 2022 under the Voting Rights Act, saying the state's then new congressional map diluted their voting power. One of six congressional districts consisted of a majority-minority population in a state where roughly a third of voters are Black. That district covers New Orleans and parts of Baton Rouge. The Voting Rights Act allows states in some circumstances to consider race in drawing districts as a means to redress discriminatory electoral practices, but maps that are explicitly based on race violate the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. States must carefully thread those competing directives. Federal courts ruled for the plaintiffs in the Louisiana case, and the state redrew the map in 2024, creating the second majority-Black congressional district. A group of self-described 'non-African American' voters then sued, claiming the map was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander that violated the Equal Protection Clause. The case made its way to the Supreme Court last term, but the justices put off a decision to allow for additional briefing. The order issued on Friday clarified the legal issues the court wanted to consider more fully. The court is likely to decide the case during its next term, which begins in October. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which is one of the cornerstones of civil rights era law, prohibits racial discrimination in voting practices. States have long drawn majority-minority districts to meet its provisions and protect minority voters against gerrymandered maps that diminish their power. 'What the Court seems to be asking, without directly saying it, is whether Section 2 of the VRA, at least as to how it has been applied to require the creation of majority-minority districts in some circumstances, violates a colorblind understanding of the Constitution,' Hasen wrote. A broad ruling by the court striking down the second Black majority district in Louisiana could pare back the use of race-based redistricting. The case could also affect the balance of power in a closely divided Congress. Currently, the newly created second majority Black district is held by a Democrat. In 2013, a divided Supreme Court invalidated another important part of the Voting Rights Act, which required certain mostly Southern states with a history of discriminatory voting practices to get federal clearance before changing voting rules. The states included Louisiana. In 2023, the high court prohibited Alabama from using a voting map that the justices found unlawfully diminished the power of Black voters.
The Hill
4 hours ago
- The Hill
From Laos to Brazil, Trump's tariffs leave a lot of losers. But even the winners will pay a price
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump's tariff onslaught this week left a lot of losers – from small, poor countries like Laos and Algeria to wealthy U.S. trading partners like Canada and Switzerland. They're now facing especially hefty taxes – tariffs – on the products they export to the United States starting Aug. 7. The closest thing to winners may be the countries that caved to Trump's demands — and avoided even more pain. But it's unclear whether anyone will be able to claim victory in the long run — even the United States, the intended beneficiary of Trump's protectionist policies. 'In many respects, everybody's a loser here,'' said Barry Appleton, co-director of the Center for International Law at the New York Law School. Barely six months after he returned to the White House, Trump has demolished the old global economic order. Gone is one built on agreed-upon rules. In its place is a system in which Trump himself sets the rules, using America's enormous economic power to punish countries that won't agree to one-sided trade deals and extracting huge concessions from the ones that do. 'The biggest winner is Trump,' said Alan Wolff, a former U.S. trade official and deputy director-general at the World Trade Organization. 'He bet that he could get other countries to the table on the basis of threats, and he succeeded – dramatically.'' Everything goes back to what Trump calls 'Liberation Day'' – April 2 – when the president announced 'reciprocal'' taxes of up to 50% on imports from countries with which the United States ran trade deficits and 10% 'baseline'' taxes on almost everyone else. He invoked a 1977 law to declare the trade deficit a national emergency that justified his sweeping import taxes. That allowed him to bypass Congress, which traditionally has had authority over taxes, including tariffs — all of which is now being challenged in court. Winners will still pay higher tariffs than before Trump took office Trump retreated temporarily after his Liberation Day announcement triggered a rout in financial markets and suspended the reciprocal tariffs for 90 days to give countries a chance to negotiate. Eventually, some of them did, caving to Trump's demands to pay what four months ago would have seemed unthinkably high tariffs for the privilege of continuing to sell into the vast American market. The United Kingdom agreed to 10% tariffs on its exports to the United States — up from 1.3% before Trump amped up his trade war with the world. The U.S. demanded concessions even though it had run a trade surplus, not a deficit, with the UK for 19 straight years. The European Union and Japan accepted U.S. tariffs of 15%. Those are much higher than the low single-digit rates they paid last year — but lower than the tariffs he was threatening (30% on the EU and 25% on Japan). Also cutting deals with Trump and agreeing to hefty tariffs were Pakistan, South Korea, Vietnam, Indonesia and the Philippines. Even countries that saw their tariffs lowered from April without reaching a deal are still paying much higher tariffs than before Trump took office. Angola's tariff, for instance, dropped to 15% from 32% in April, but in 2022 it was less than 1.5%. And while Trump administration cut Taiwan's tariff to 20% from 32% in April, the pain will still be felt. '20% from the beginning has not been our goal, we hope that in further negotiations we will get a more beneficial and more reasonable tax rate,' Taiwan's president Lai Ching-te told reporters in Taipei Friday. Trump also agreed to reduce the tariff on the tiny southern African kingdom of Lesotho to 15% from the 50% he'd announced in April, but the damage may already have been done there. Bashing Brazil, clobbering Canada, shellacking the Swiss Countries that didn't knuckle under — and those that found other ways to incur Trump's wrath — got hit harder. Even some of the poor were not spared. Laos' annual economic output comes to $2,100 per person and Algeria's $5,600 — versus America's $75,000. Nonetheless, Laos got rocked with a 40% tariff and Algeria with a 30% levy. Trump slammed Brazil with a 50% import tax largely because he didn't like the way it was treating former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, who is facing trial for trying to lose his electoral defeat in 2022. Never mind that the U.S. has exported more to Brazil than it's imported every year since 2007. Trump's decision to plaster a 35% tariff on longstanding U.S. ally Canada was partly designed to threaten Ottawa for saying it would recognize a Palestinian state. Trump is a staunch supporter of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Switzerland was clobbered with a 39% import tax — even higher than the 31% Trump originally announced on April 2. 'The Swiss probably wish that they had camped in Washington' to make a deal, said Wolff, now senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. 'They're clearly not at all happy.'' Fortunes may change if Trump's tariffs are upended in court. Five American businesses and 12 states are suing the president, arguing that his Liberation Day tariffs exceeded his authority under the 1977 law. In May, the U.S. Court of International Trade, a specialized court in New York, agreed and blocked the tariffs, although the government was allowed to continue collecting them while its appeal wend its way through the legal system, and may likely end up at the U.S. Supreme Court. In a hearing Thursday, the judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit sounded skeptical about Trump's justifications for the tariffs. 'If (the tariffs) get struck down, then maybe Brazil's a winner and not a loser,'' Appleton said. Paying more for knapsacks and video games Trump portrays his tariffs as a tax on foreign countries. But they are actually paid by import companies in the U.S. who try to pass along the cost to their customers via higher prices. True, tariffs can hurt other countries by forcing their exporters to cut prices and sacrifice profits — or risk losing market share in the United States. But economists at Goldman Sachs estimate that overseas exporters have absorbed just one-fifth of the rising costs from tariffs, while Americans and U.S. businesses have picked up the most of the tab. Walmart, Procter & Gamble, Ford, Best Buy, Adidas, Nike, Mattel and Stanley Black & Decker, have all hiked prices due to U.S. tariffs 'This is a consumption tax, so it disproportionately affects those who have lower incomes,' Appleton said. 'Sneakers, knapsacks … your appliances are going to go up. Your TV and electronics are going to go up. Your video game devices, consoles are going to up because none of those are made in America.'' Trump's trade war has pushed the average U.S. tariff from 2.5% at the start of 2025 to 18.3% now, the highest since 1934, according to the Budget Lab at Yale University. And that will impose a $2,400 cost on the average household, the lab estimates. 'The U.S. consumer's a big loser,″ Wolff said.
