Latest news with #PeterWelte
Yahoo
17-07-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Court denies rehearing voting rights case; group calls decision ‘loss for Native American voters'
Legislators attending a Redistricting Committee meeting Dec. 13, 2023, look at maps of different proposals. (Kyle Martin/For the North Dakota Monitor) An appeals court will not reconsider its decision finding that the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa, Spirit Lake Nation and three tribal citizens lack standing to bring a voting discrimination case against the state of North Dakota, a ruling that could impact the makeup of the state Legislature. The Native American Rights Fund, one of the legal groups representing the plaintiffs in the case, in a statement called the decision 'a loss for Native American voters in North Dakota.' The plaintiffs could still file a petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case. In the lawsuit, filed in 2022, two North Dakota tribes and three Indigenous North Dakotans argued that a redistricting plan adopted by the state in 2021 diluted the power of Native voters, thereby violating the Voting Rights Act. North Dakota U.S. District Court Judge Peter Welte in 2023 sided with the plaintiffs and ordered the state to adopt a different map. In a 2-1 decision in May, a panel of three judges on the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that finding on the basis that private parties cannot bring lawsuits alleging racial discrimination under the Voting Rights Act. The plaintiffs requested that the case go before all 11 judges on the 8th Circuit for a rehearing, noting that the panel's decision is at odds with how other federal appellate circuits have interpreted the law. A total of 19 state attorneys general, a handful of advocacy groups and former Department of Justice attorneys filed briefs in support of an en banc hearing. North Dakota opposed the rehearing request. While they didn't file anything on the en banc petition, 15 other Republican-led states had previously submitted briefs to the 8th Circuit in support of North Dakota's position. North Dakota tribes ask circuit judges for rehearing of voting rights case The 8th Circuit includes North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska and Arkansas. It's the only circuit to rule that private individuals cannot bring lawsuits under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which outlaws racially discriminatory voting practices. The court in a 2023 ruling in a separate case declared that it is the role of the U.S. attorney general to enforce compliance with Section 2. In the North Dakota lawsuit, the plaintiffs had attempted to use a separate civil rights law as a vehicle to file their Voting Rights Act claim. That law, Section 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code, says people may sue for 'the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities' granted by the Constitution and federal law. They noted in briefs that for decades, the bulk of lawsuits enforcing Section 2 have been brought by private individuals. The plaintiffs reasoned that even if the court found that they can't bring a lawsuit directly under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, they still have a right to file their lawsuit through Section 1983. The 8th Circuit panel in its May ruling said this was not a viable path either. 'The fair map we secured led to a historic first – a Spirit Lake Nation member elected to the North Dakota legislature,' Spirit Lake Nation Chairperson Lonna Jackson-Street previously said in a statement about the ruling. 'This decision threatens that progress and weakens our voice in state government.' Last week, the full 8th Circuit decided 7-3 not to give the case another look. The three judges who wanted an en banc hearing were Chief Judge Steven Colloton, former Chief Judge Lavenski Smith and Judge Jane Kelly. One judge didn't participate in the decision. In 2024, after Welte's ruling, three Native American lawmakers were elected to the state Legislature from District 9, drawn to include two reservations: Sen. Richard Marcellais and Rep. Jayme Davis — both citizens of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa — and Rep. Collette Brown, a citizen of the Spirit Lake Nation and plaintiff in the lawsuit. All three are Democrats. Brown is a freshman lawmaker. Marcellais had previously served 15 years in the statehouse until he lost his bid for reelection in 2022, after district lines were redrawn in 2021. Davis was first elected in 2022, then reelected last year. The 8th Circuit did not weigh in on the underlying question of whether North Dakota's original 2021 map is discriminatory; it only found that the plaintiffs do not have the right to file the suit in the first place. The May opinion indicated the appellate court would send the case back to Welte and direct him to dismiss the lawsuit. The state is still waiting to see what, if anything, will happen next in the case. The plaintiffs have about a three-month window to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the lawsuit if they choose. They have not announced whether they intend to go that route. If the 8th Circuit's decision takes effect, North Dakota would revert back to the 2021 map. Three state lawmakers would represent different districts in that scenario. Brown, D-Warwick, would go from representing District 9 to District 15. Rep. Donna Henderson, R-Calvin, would switch from District 15 to District 9B, while Sen. Kent Weston, R-Sarles, would switch from District 15 to District 9. The state would have to decide whether the ruling disqualifies those lawmakers from finishing out their terms, according to a June memo from Legislative Council. Traditionally, when redistricting has shifted state lawmakers into different legislative districts, they have been allowed to serve until the next election cycle, the memo states. However, under the state constitution, state lawmakers are forbidden to live outside the district they represent. All three lawmakers who would change districts are up for reelection in 2026. This story was updated to correct the states in the 8th Circuit. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
17-07-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
North Dakota tribes ask Supreme Court to keep legislative districts intact amid lawsuit
Legislators attending a Redistricting Committee meeting Dec. 13, 2023, look at maps of different proposals. (Kyle Martin/For the North Dakota Monitor) Two North Dakota tribes and a group of tribal citizens have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to keep North Dakota's district map in place while it considers whether to review a voting discrimination lawsuit against the state. The Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa, Spirit Lake Nation and three tribal members filed suit against North Dakota over a 2021 redistricting map they say diluted the power of Indigenous voters in violation of the federal Voting Rights Act. North Dakota U.S. District Court Judge Peter Welte in 2023 concluded the map is discriminatory and ordered the state to adopt different district lines, but the 8th Circuit reversed his decision in May. The appellate court's ruling found that private citizens have no means of filing lawsuits under the Voting Rights Act to challenge racially discriminatory voting practices. The 8th Circuit indicated it would send the case back to Welte and direct him to dismiss the lawsuit. The plaintiffs are getting ready to ask the Supreme Court to review the lawsuit. On Tuesday, they requested that the court allow Welte's map to stay in place until a final decision in the case is reached. The plaintiffs said in court filings they could suffer lasting harm if the 2021 map is allowed to go back into effect. North Dakota tribes want US Supreme Court to hear voting rights case The May decision, in tandem with other recent rulings by the court, has made the 8th Circuit the only circuit in the country where private citizens and organizations cannot bring lawsuits under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which outlaws voting practices that discriminate based on race. The 8th Circuit has determined that it's the role of the U.S. attorney general to enforce Section 2. The plaintiffs dispute the 8th Circuit's findings and say that Congress always intended for private citizens to be able to bring legal challenges under the provision. The appellate court has removed an important tool Native Americans use to protect their voting rights, the plaintiffs wrote in a Tuesday filing with the U.S. Supreme Court. 'North Dakota — like many states — has a long and sad history of official discrimination against Native Americans that persists to this day,' the plaintiffs stated. 'Tribal Nations and individual Native American voters have successfully fought for decades to vindicate their voting rights under Section 2.' Over the past several decades, most lawsuits filed under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act have been brought by private groups and not the U.S. Department of Justice, they noted. The results of the 2024 election also indicate that Welte's map made an important difference to Indigenous voters in District 9, they added. In 2024, after Welte's ruling, three Native American lawmakers were elected to the state Legislature from District 9, drawn to include two reservations: Sen. Richard Marcellais and Rep. Jayme Davis — both citizens of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa — and Rep. Collette Brown, a citizen of the Spirit Lake Nation and plaintiff in the lawsuit. All three are Democrats. 'The fair map we secured led to a historic first — a Spirit Lake Nation member elected to the North Dakota legislature,' Spirit Lake Nation Chairperson Lonna Jackson-Street previously said in a statement about the 8th Circuit's ruling. Three North Dakota lawmakers would no longer live in the districts they represent if the 2021 map goes back into place, including Brown. Court denies rehearing voting rights case; group calls decision 'loss for Native American voters' Attorneys for the North Dakota Legislature have said it's not clear whether those lawmakers would be able to serve out the remainder of their terms or if they would be subject to removal from office. That means Brown could lose her seat if the 8th Circuit's judgment goes into effect, the plaintiffs wrote in their filing with the U.S. Supreme Court. The map imposed by Welte remains in effect for now, though the 8th Circuit is expected to issue its mandate lifting a hold on the 2021 map this week, notwithstanding any intervention by the U.S. Supreme Court, said Mark Gaber, a Campaign Legal Center attorney representing the plaintiffs. The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the state to file its response to the plaintiffs' motion by July 22. North Dakota has maintained that the 2021 map is not discriminatory and that it agrees with the 8th Circuit's finding that the tribes lack standing to sue. Last week, the plaintiffs asked for a similar stay from the 8th Circuit, though the court declined. It's very rare for the U.S. Supreme Court to agree to take a case, though the plaintiffs are hopeful the justices will hear the lawsuit to resolve the split between the circuits. 'This is the country's most important civil rights statute, so I think the odds are high that they'll take it,' Gaber said Tuesday. The plaintiffs' deadline to officially petition the high court to review the lawsuit is in October, he added. The 8th Circuit includes North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska and Arkansas. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
17-07-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
North Dakota legislative district map to remain in place for now, Supreme Court decides
A sign in Devils Lake, North Dakota, marks the road leading to the Spirit Lake Reservation. (Jeff Beach/North Dakota Monitor) The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday put a temporary freeze on North Dakota's legislative district map, keeping it in place pending next steps in a tribal voting rights case against the state. The move came just a day before the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals was expected to issue a mandate officially reversing a North Dakota federal judge's decision and ordering the lawsuit to be dismissed. That would have resulted in North Dakota reverting back to a previous district map that two tribal nations and a group of tribal citizens took the state to court to change. The Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa, Spirit Lake Nation and three tribal members filed the lawsuit in 2022, alleging that North Dakota's 2021 redistricting map was discriminatory and diluted the power of Indigenous voters. North Dakota tribes ask Supreme Court to keep legislative districts intact amid lawsuit North Dakota U.S. District Court Judge Peter Welte in 2023 sided with the plaintiffs and ordered the state to adopt a different map, but the 8th Circuit reversed his decision in May. The appellate court ruled that private citizens cannot file lawsuits under Section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act, which outlaws racially discriminatory voting practices. The plaintiffs are getting ready to petition the Supreme Court to review the lawsuit. On Tuesday, they filed a motion asking the court to allow Welte's map to stay in place while the case plays out. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to an initial, more limited element of that request on Wednesday. Under the high court's administrative stay, the map will remain unchanged for now. The justices will later decide whether it's necessary to put a longer-term hold on the district map until a final decision in the case is reached. The high court on Tuesday asked the state to file its response to the plaintiffs' motion by July 22. North Dakota has maintained that the 2021 map is not discriminatory and that it agrees with the 8th Circuit's finding that the tribes lack standing to sue. The plaintiffs' deadline to file their official petition asking the Supreme Court to take the case is in October. In a Tuesday filing, the plaintiffs argued the 8th Circuit's decision severely damaged voting rights in the circuit's seven states. The 8th Circuit is the only one to hold that private plaintiffs cannot file voting discrimination claims under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The plaintiffs also said that allowing North Dakota's 2021 map to go back into effect would harm Native American voters as well as potentially unseat three lawmakers. Welte's map, adopted in 2024, changed District 9 to include two reservations. In the 2024 election, three Native American candidates from that district were elected to the state Legislature: Sen. Richard Marcellais and Rep. Jayme Davis — both citizens of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa — and Rep. Collette Brown, a citizen of the Spirit Lake Nation and plaintiff in the lawsuit. All three are Democrats. If the 2021 map is reinstated, three lawmakers would change districts, including Brown. Attorneys for the North Dakota Legislature have said the lawmakers could be subject to removal from office, since the state constitution requires lawmakers to live in the districts they represent. The 8th Circuit includes North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska and Arkansas. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX Solve the daily Crossword
Epoch Times
06-06-2025
- Health
- Epoch Times
Judge Rules Federal Rule on Gender Discrimination Violates Catholic Beliefs
A rule from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) violates the beliefs of members of a Catholic association, a federal judge ruled on June 5. The HHS rule requiring members of the Catholic Benefits Association to perform transgender procedures 'violates their sincerely held religious beliefs without satisfying strict scrutiny,' U.S. District Judge Peter Welte
06-06-2025
- Health
A judge tells federal agencies they can't enforce anti-trans bias policies against Catholic groups
BISMARCK, N.D. -- Two federal agencies cannot punish Catholic employers and health care providers if they refuse for religious reasons to provide gender-affirming care to transgender patients or won't provide health insurance coverage for such care to their workers, a federal judge ruled Thursday. The ruling from U.S. District Judge Peter Welte, the chief federal judge in North Dakota, bars the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services from enforcing a health care rule it imposed in 2024 under Democratic President Joe Biden. The rule said that existing policies against sex discrimination covered discrimination based on gender identity, so that health care providers risked losing federal funds if they refused to provide gender-affirming care. Welte also barred the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission from telling employers that a failure to have health plans cover gender-affirming care for their workers would represent discrimination based on sex that could lead to a lawsuit against them and penalties. The judge rejected a request from an order of nuns, two Catholic homes and the Catholic Benefits Association, which represents employers, to impose similar bans on each agency covering abortion and fertility treatments Catholic organizations consider immoral. He said those claims were 'underdeveloped' and not ready for court review. But he concluded that allowing the two agencies to enforce policies on gender-affirming care or health coverage for it would restrict employers' and health care providers' ability to live out their religious beliefs, violating a 1992 federal law meant to provide broad protections for religious freedoms. The HHS rule had a provision allowing the agency to make case-by-case exceptions based on religious beliefs, but Welte said that would be insufficient. 'The case-by-case exemption procedure leaves religious organizations unable to predict their legal exposure without furthering any compelling antidiscrimination interests,' wrote Welte, who is based in Fargo. The two agencies did not immediately respond to email messages seeking comment Thursday. The Catholic Benefits Association serves more than 9,000 employers and about 164,000 employees enrolled in member health plans, according to its website. The group, founded in 2013, says it 'advocates for and litigates in defense of our members' First Amendment rights to provide employee benefits and a work environment that is consistent with the Catholic faith.' The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects religious freedoms. Association General Counsel Martin Nussbaum welcomed the ruling, saying the organization's members 'want to do the right thing in their health plan and in their medical services that they provide for those medical providers, and this gives them protection to doing that.' And he said the judge's ruling suggests there are no mandates from the federal government on abortion or fertility treatments, so there is 'no need to provide protection.' The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2020 that the Civil Rights Act's protections against discrimination based on sex also cover anti-LGBTQ+ bias in employment. The landmark 1964 act doesn't have specific provisions dealing with bias based on sexual orientation or gender identity. But courts also have intervened to limit how far the federal government can go in combating anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination when religious organizations or employers with religious beliefs against LGBTQ+ rights are involved. Both the HHS rule and the EEOC's policy on sex discrimination have their roots in efforts by President Barack Obama to protect LGBTQ+ rights in 2016, in his last year in office. When President Donald Trump began his second term in January, he issued an order saying the federal government would not recognize transgender people's gender identities. In April, two employees said the EEOC was classifying all new gender identity-related discrimination cases as its lowest priority, essentially putting them on indefinite hold. The 2024 HHS rule also covered bias based on 'pregnancy or related conditions," and the Catholic health care providers argued that they might face losing federal funds if they refused to perform abortions, in line with Catholic opposition to abortion. But HHS said the rule wouldn't have forced them to perform abortions or provide health coverage for abortions — only that it couldn't refuse to care for someone because they'd had one, according to Welte.
