Latest news with #EighthCircuit
Newsweek
6 days ago
- Politics
- Newsweek
Supreme Court May Weaken 1965 Voting Rights Act Further
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The U.S. Supreme Court has been asked to intervene in a case that could significantly limit the scope of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), the 1965 law that prohibits racial discrimination in elections. Why It Matters On Tuesday, two North Dakota tribes—the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians and the Spirit Lake Tribe—alongside three Native American voters, petitioned the Supreme Court to block a lower court ruling and preserve their ability to enforce voting rights through private lawsuits. "Everywhere else in the country, private plaintiffs can rely on an unbroken line of Supreme Court and circuit precedent to enforce the individual rights given to them by Congress in the Voting Rights Act," the tribes wrote. "But the decision below extinguished the only remaining pathway for private enforcement of Section 2 of the VRA in the Eighth Circuit. ... There is a reasonable probability this Court will grant review of the Eighth Circuit's decision to ensure uniform application of the law." The appeal followed a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which holds that only the federal government, not private citizens or organizations, can sue under Section 2 of the VRA in its jurisdiction of seven Midwestern states. This legal battle stands to reshape how the VRA—a critical civil rights law for 60 years—can be enforced, particularly across North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska and Arkansas. Section 2 of the VRA has long enabled private citizens and advocacy groups to challenge discriminatory redistricting or voting laws in federal court. Leonard Powell, staff attorney for the Native American Rights Fund, told Newsweek via email on Wednesday that he and plaintiffs are glad that Justice Brett Kavanaugh issued an order on Wednesday staying the Eighth Circuit's mandate pending further order of Kavanaugh or the High Court. "The Eighth Circuit's ruling wrongly deprives voters of their ability to sue when they are racially discriminated against in violation of the Voting Rights Act," Powell said. "We accordingly have asked the Supreme Court to stay that decision." Newsweek reached out to North Dakota Secretary of State Michael Howe's office for comment. What To Know From 1982 to August 2024, about 96.4 percent of successful Section 2 claims were brought by private plaintiffs, not the U.S. Department of Justice, according to the tribes. They were also the sole litigants in 86.7 percent of such decisions. With the 8th Circuit's May decision, this avenue is closed in its jurisdiction, potentially removing a major enforcement tool for minority voters and undermining Congress' strongest civil rights statute. Voting rights activists rally outside the U.S. Supreme Court during oral arguments in Moore v. Harper on December 7, 2022, in Washington, D.C. Voting rights activists rally outside the U.S. Supreme Court during oral arguments in Moore v. Harper on December 7, 2022, in Washington, Garber, counsel in the Brennan Center's Voting Rights and Elections Program, told Newsweek on Wednesday that Section 2 of the VRA allows private individuals and groups to bring lawsuits to argue discrimination in voting. That doesn't have to prove intent; rather, just the result of a law or policy or map being discriminatory. "In this case the tribes challenged a state legislative map drawn by North Dakota, and their argument was basically that the map was drawn to minimize the voting power of native voters, to make sure that districts were cracked and packed to make sure as few of the districts would represent the will of native voters as opposed to white voters," Garber said. In 2023, U.S. District Court Judge Peter Welte sided with the tribes, ruling the map discriminatory and ordering new district lines. Elections with Welte's map in place led to three Native American lawmakers being elected from District 9 in 2024—including a historic first, Spirit Lake Nation's Collette Brown. North Dakota appealed the decision, and the 8th Circuit in May ruled that private plaintiffs have no authority to enforce Section 2 of the VRA—contradicting decades of established practice and decisions in other circuits. The court instructed the district court to dismiss the lawsuit, making the 8th the only circuit in the country where private enforcement of the VRA is barred. The legal dispute began after North Dakota adopted a 2021 legislative redistricting map that the plaintiffs argued diluted the voting power of Native American communities. "If this ruling holds the immediate and really jarring ramification is that Section 2 with Voting Rights Act will basically not be enforced in seven states in the center of the country, because private individuals and groups can't bring these lawsuits," Garber said. "Right now, the federal Department of Justice clearly isn't going to be bringing any Section 2 lawsuits. "And even when there's a motivated DOJ...[it] has never been able to enforce this law alone; they always needed private enforcement as well. That's really, really damaging to voters of color in those states. Some of these states, including the Dakotas, Nebraska, Minnesota have a lot of native voters, really strong native communities." Somewhat ironic is that such native voters have "winning claims" in that they're continuing to face racial discrimination in voting, Garber added, yet they wouldn't even be able to bring those claims at all if this case moves forward as intended. Plaintiffs argue that losing the ability to challenge discriminatory maps directly endangers the representation of Native American legislators and could set a precedent for other states to follow. They warned that, absent Supreme Court action, the 2021 map—which was previously deemed discriminatory—could be used in the 2026 elections, potentially resulting in the removal of current Native American lawmakers. Garber said whether or not the Supreme Court takes up this case is still in question. In 2023, the High Court ruled in favor of Black registered voters and organizations in the Alabama case Allen v. Milligan, in which the plaintiffs successfully challenged their legislative map, arguing that the state had illegally packed Black voters into a single district while dividing other clusters across multiple districts. The court ultimately voted 5-4 to freeze a lower court ruling. "It's really hard to tell [if the Court will take up this case]," Garber said. "This Court has been extraordinarily unfriendly to the Voting Rights Act over the last couple of decades, gutted some of its key provisions. ... There is a lot at stake here, and the efforts to undermine Section 2 over the last decade-plus; sections have been attacked on all fronts. The kind of core idea of it has continued to survive." What People Are Saying New York City trial attorney Nicole Brenecki told Newsweek: "Given the Supreme Court's recent trajectory of limiting the scope of the Voting Rights Act, particularly in decisions like Shelby County v. Holder and Brnovich v. DNC, it's possible the Court may further curtail federal oversight of state election laws. "While the Court has occasionally maintained key provisions, such as in Allen v. Milligan, the broader trend suggests a willingness to defer to states even when voting protections are at risk. Any upcoming challenges could test how far the Court is willing to go in redefining the Act's core principles." What Happens Next The Supreme Court has directed North Dakota to respond to the plaintiffs' emergency motion by July 22. The justices have yet to decide whether to block the 8th Circuit ruling or grant full review of the case. Legal observers expect that the court's decision could profoundly affect enforcement of voting rights protections in the United States, especially for minority communities.
Forbes
13-07-2025
- Business
- Forbes
This Week's Business Technology News: 'Click To Cancel' Gets Shut Down
Shopping Online. woman hand online shopping on laptop computer with virtual graphic icon diagram on ... More desk, payment online, digital marketing, business finance, internet network technology concept Here are five things in tech that happened this week and how they affect your business. Did you miss them? This Week in Business Tech News Business Technology News #1 – FTC's click-to-cancel rule has been struck down by federal judges at the eleventh hour. A federal appeals court has struck down the Federal Trade Commission's 'click-to-cancel' rule just days before it was set to take effect. The rule – officially known as the Negative Option Rule – would have required companies to make it as easy for consumers to cancel subscriptions as it is to sign up for them. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit vacated the rule, citing that the FTC failed to follow proper rulemaking procedures – specifically, it didn't conduct a required preliminary regulatory analysis. Businesses and trade groups challenged the rule, arguing it was rushed and economically burdensome. Companies can now continue using more complex or opaque cancellation processes. (Source: Engadget) Why this is important for your business: Seems like a good thing for small business. The National Federation of Independent Businesses celebrate this decision claiming that the FTC ruling imposed "onerous regulatory obligations" on small businesses. 'The FTC went far beyond their authority in enacting this rule,' said Beth Milito, Vice President and Executive Director of NFIB's Small Business Legal Center said in a press release. 'The NFIB is pleased that the Court recognized the procedural failures that took place in the rulemaking process and prevented this burdensome regulation from inflicting further damage on small businesses.' Business Technology News #2 – Airwallex and BILL team up to optimize SMB payment solutions. Financial platform Airwallex and cloud-based software BILL have partnered to streamline international payments for small and medium-sized businesses (SMBs), aiming to make cross-border transactions faster, cheaper, and more efficient. (Source: The Paypers) Why this is important for your business: According to the two companies the integration enables same-day or next-day international payments in local currencies, reducing delays and reliance on intermediary banks. Businesses can schedule foreign exchange conversions and payouts, improving control and reconciliation of international transactions. Airwallex's infrastructure allows BILL customers to transact directly with overseas banks, making payments feel local even when they're global. The collaboration is designed to give SMBs the kind of global payment agility that was once only available to large enterprises. Business Technology News #3 – Google upgrades Keyword Planner with localized forecasting. Google has upgraded its Keyword Planner tool to support localized forecasting, offering advertisers more granular insights for campaign planning. The update is currently in an experimental phase – Google has yet to make a formal announcement. (Source: Search Engine Land) Why this is important for your business: According to Google advertisers can access breakdowns by city, region and DMA (Designated Market Area) for keyword forecasts. Device-level insights – mobile, desktop, tablet – are now available. Visual snapshots like pie charts show user connection by location. Localized forecasting helps advertisers optimize budgets and target high-performing areas before launching campaigns. It enables more precise local strategy alignment for multi-location targeting, shifting how marketers approach geographically targeted ad campaigns. Business Technology News #4 – Most managers now rely on AI for hiring and firing, study finds. A new survey by Resume Builder reveals that AI is now deeply embedded in managerial decision-making – especially around hiring, promotions, and even terminations. The results showed that 60 percent of U.S. managers use generative AI tools like ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, or Google Gemini to make decisions about their direct reports. When making critical decisions, 78 percent use AI to determine raises, 77 percent for promotions, 66 percent for layoffs and 64 percent for terminations. The survey also revealed that 1 in 5 managers feel comfortable with allowing AI to make final decisions without human input. When asked if AI could replace humans – of the 46 percent who were asked – 43 percent did replace a worker with the technology. (Source: Computerworld) Why this is important for your business: While AI can boost efficiency, experts warn that it lacks empathy, context, and can reflect biased or flawed data. Without proper oversight, companies risk legal liability and eroding employee trust, Computerworld's Lucas Mearian writes. Business Technology News #5 – Google Ads adds Zoho CRM integration for customer match and offline conversions. Google Ads has officially integrated Zoho CRM into its Data Manager, unlocking powerful new capabilities for advertisers who rely on Zoho to manage customer relationships. These capabilities include enhanced customer targeting that allows advertisers to upload audience segments directly from Zoho CRM to Google Ads, enabling more precise ad targeting using first-party data. Businesses can import offline sales data – like phone or in-person purchases – into Google Ads to better understand which campaigns drive real-world results. Enhanced conversions for leads offers lead attribution accuracy, helping marketers fine-tune campaigns based on actual lead quality and behavior. (Source: Search Engine Land) Why this is important for your business: This is good news for Zoho users (my company sells and implements this product). This move brings Zoho CRM up to speed with platforms like Salesforce and HubSpot, making it easier for more businesses to activate their data in a privacy-first, post-cookie week I round up five business technology news stories and explain why they're important for your business. If you have any interesting stories, please post to my X account @genemarks
WIRED
09-07-2025
- Business
- WIRED
The ‘Click-to-Cancel' Rule Was Killed, but Consumer Advocates Could Revive It
A US court scrapped a rule requiring a simple method for canceling recurring payments. Experts are hopeful regulators will revisit the issue and ease consumers' rage over 'subscription traps.' Photo-Illustration:United States residents almost escaped subscription cancellation hell, but the Federal Trade Commission's 'Click to Cancel' rule was unanimously struck down by the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on Tuesday—just days before it was set to go into effect. What would have happened if this updated FTC rule had gone into effect on July 14 as planned? 'The stated goal was that they wanted to make it as easy for you to cancel a subscription as it is to sign up,' says John Breyault, vice president of public policy, telecommunications, and fraud at the National Consumers League. How reasonable! It's the type of rule that sounds like it should already exist as part of baseline consumer protections. If I can sign up for a gym membership or a news website subscription or a food delivery service with just a few, seamless taps on my smartphone, then why am I so often thrown into a labyrinth of puzzles—with people to call or in-person locations to visit—whenever I want to opt out from one of the recurring subscription charges. Even services that do allow users to cancel online may include more steps than the sign-up process or introduce confusingly labeled buttons that slow down the process. The Eighth Circuit's decision to nix the 'Click to Cancel' rule was based on procedural complaints, not on the substance of what the consumer protections entailed. 'While we certainly do not endorse the use of unfair and deceptive practices in negative option marketing, the procedural deficiencies of the Commission's rulemaking process are fatal here,' reads the appeal court's published opinion. John Davisson, director of litigation at the Electronic Privacy Information Center, sees this decision as 'very poorly reasoned' and hopes the current FTC tries to revisit the rule to protect consumers better. 'It would be such a slam dunk for the commission,' says Davisson. 'I think everyone understands why the subscription traps are bad. No one without a financial incentive or career advancement motive to sustain these subscription traps thinks they should exist.' A broad base of support from individual consumers for streamlining the opt out process could help eventually revive the 'Click to Cancel' rule or similar consumer protections. 'I'm somewhat hopeful, given the public support for this important option of canceling, that the commission will go back and get this thing re-going again,' says Bill Baer, a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution and former member of the FTC. 'It'll take some time, but it's an important benefit to consumers.' If the current FTC decides to try again, which it may not, the process would likely take months or even years to complete. 'It's unfortunate the FTC's rule won't be enforced,' says Mario Trujillo, a staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. 'But, the opinion doesn't stop states from acting, Congress from acting, or even the FTC from bringing individual cases.' States-level rules already have started to step in with more consumer protections than what's currently offered at the federal level and won't be impacted by the court's recent decision. For example, California's own version of 'Click to Cancel' went into effect last year and remains intact. Like many Americans, I'm seeing more and more of my paycheck go to subscription services each month. While some of the services are essential, others are less so. But, the hassle of going through the opt out process to cancel these unwanted services is often so tedious that I've put it off in the past—until I see the $20 recurring charge again the next month and get frustrated with myself. While deep-pocketed business interests will likely try to block any future attempts to mandate a simplified cancellation process, a deep-set hunger for change from consumers, fueled in part by righteous indignation, may eventually prevail. 'I think, on balance, it is something worth doing that can be done with modest cost to the business community and a hell of a lot of benefit to the consumer community,' says Baer.
CNET
09-07-2025
- Business
- CNET
The FTC's 'Click to Cancel' Rule Is Blocked. Here's What That Means for Your Subscriptions
The Click to Cancel rule is supposed to make it as easy to cancel a subscription as it is to sign up for Federal Trade Commission's "click to cancel" rule -- which would have made it easier to cancel unwanted subscriptions -- has been blocked by the US Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. The rule was set to take effect on July 14. "Click to cancel" would have required businesses to clearly disclose terms and obtain informed consent before charging for a subscription or membership. It would also have required companies to display when promotional offers or free trials would end and make it as easy to cancel your membership as it is to sign up for one. The appeals court said that the FTC failed to conduct a preliminary regulatory analysis, which is required for rules that could impact the US economy by more than $1 million. "While we certainly do not endorse the use of unfair and deceptive practices in negative option marketing, the procedural deficiencies of the Commission's rulemaking process are fatal here," the court's ruling stated. The court's decision comes after a recent CNET survey found that subscribers are paying an average of $1,080 and wasting $200 per year on unwanted subscriptions. With the FTC rule shot down, it could make it harder for you to cancel unwanted subscriptions. How to cancel unwanted subscriptions Now that the rule is blocked, you may still have to jump through hoops to cancel some of your subscriptions since businesses aren't required to offer clear ways to end a subscription. Pay close attention to your monthly subscriptions and memberships to ensure you aren't paying for unused services. You can identify unwanted subscriptions by combing through your bank account and credit card statements from the past month and looking for recurring charges. If you spot any unwanted subscriptions, log in to your service account and cancel or pause the service. If you're struggling to find an option to cancel, call the service's customer service phone number to end your account. In some cases, like with certain gym memberships, you may be required to cancel in person. If that sounds like too much work, CNET Money editor Kelly Ernst has an easier solution. "The budgeting app I use, Rocket Money, can help you find subscriptions you're not using and cancel them for you. It saved me $400 in 15 minutes." Rocket Money is CNET's pick for best budgeting app, and it comes with both a free and a paid tier. You can have the app look for recurring subscriptions for free. If you'd like it to cancel on your behalf, you'll need to sign up for the paid tier, which starts at just $6 a month.
Fast Company
09-07-2025
- Business
- Fast Company
Canceling subscriptions was about to get easier, but a federal court blocked the FTC rule
A 'click-to-cancel' rule, which would have required businesses to make it easy for consumers to cancel unwanted subscriptions and memberships, has been blocked by a federal appeals court just days before it was set to go into effect. The Federal Trade Commission's proposed changes, adopted in October, required businesses to obtain a customer's consent before charging for memberships, auto-renewals, and programs linked to free trial offers. The FTC said at the time that businesses must also disclose when free trials or other promotional offers will end and let customers cancel recurring subscriptions as easily as they started them. The administration of President Joe Biden included the FTC's proposal as part of its 'Time is Money' initiative, a governmentwide initiative that was announced last year with the aim of cracking down on consumer-related hassles. The FTC rule was set to go into effect on Monday, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit said this week that the FTC made a procedural error by failing to come up with a preliminary regulatory analysis, which is required for rules whose annual impact on the U.S. economy is more than $100 million. The FTC claimed that it did not have to come up with a preliminary regulatory analysis because it initially determined that the rule's impact on the national economy would be less than $100 million. An administrative law judge decided that the economic impact would be more than the $100 million threshold. The court decided to vacate the rule. 'While we certainly do not endorse the use of unfair and deceptive practices in negative option marketing, the procedural deficiencies of the Commission's rulemaking process are fatal here,' the court wrote. The FTC declined to comment on Wednesday. The agency is currently moving forward with its preparations for a trial involving Amazon's Prime program. The trial stems from a Federal Trade Commission lawsuit that accused Amazon of enrolling consumers in its Prime program without their consent and making it difficult for them to cancel their subscriptions. The trial is expected to take place next year.
