Latest news with #StevenColloton
08-07-2025
- Politics
Appeals court rules against North Dakota tribes in voting rights case that could go to Supreme Court
BISMARCK, N.D. -- A federal appeals court won't reconsider its decision in a redistricting case that went against two Native American tribes that challenged North Dakota's legislative redistricting map, and the dispute could be headed for the U.S. Supreme Court. The case has drawn national interest because of a 2-1 ruling issued in May by a three-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that erased a path through the federal Voting Rights Act for people in seven states to sue under a key provision of the landmark federal civil rights law. The tribes argued that the 2021 map violated the act by diluting their voting strength and ability to elect their own candidates. The panel said only the U.S. Department of Justice can bring such lawsuits. That followed a 2023 ruling out of Arkansas in the same circuit that also said private individuals can't sue under Section 2 of the law. Those rulings conflict with decades of rulings by appellate courts in other federal circuits that have affirmed the rights of private individuals to sue under Section 2, creating a split that the Supreme Court may be asked to resolve. However, several of the high court's conservative justices recently have indicated interest in making it harder, if not impossible, to bring redistricting lawsuits under the Voting Rights Act. After the May decision, the Spirit Lake Tribe and Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians asked the appeals court for a rehearing before all 11 judges. Attorneys general of 19 states, numerous former U.S. Justice Department attorneys, several voting rights historians and others also asked for a rehearing. But in a ruling Thursday, the full court denied the request, which was filed by the Native American Rights Fund and other groups representing the tribes. Three judges said they would have granted it, including Circuit Chief Judge Steven Colloton, who had dissented in the previous ruling. The majority opinion in May said that for the tribes to sue under the Voting Rights Act, the law would have had to 'unambiguously' give private persons or groups the right to do so. Lenny Powell, a staff attorney for the fund, said in a statement that the refusal to reconsider 'wrongly restricts voters disenfranchised by a gerrymandered redistricting map" from challenging that map. Powell said Monday that the tribes are now considering their legal options. Another group representing the tribes, the Campaign Legal Center, said the ruling 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.' The office of North Dakota Secretary of State Michael Howe did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday. The groups said they will continue to fight to ensure fair maps. The North Dakota and Arkansas rulings apply only in the states of the 8th Circuit: Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota. In the wake of the Arkansas decision, Minnesota and other states have moved to shore up voting rights with state-level protections to plug the growing gaps in the federal law. The North Dakota tribes filed their lawsuit in 2022. The three-judge panel heard appeal arguments last October after Republican Secretary of State Michael Howe appealed a lower court's November 2023 decision in favor of the tribes. In that ruling, U.S. District Judge Peter Welte ordered creation of a new district that encompassed both tribes' reservations, which are about 60 miles (97 kilometers) apart. In 2024, voters elected members from both tribes, all Democrats, to the district's Senate seat and two House seats. Republicans hold supermajority control of North Dakota's Legislature.
San Francisco Chronicle
07-07-2025
- Politics
- San Francisco Chronicle
Appeals court rules against North Dakota tribes in voting rights case that could go to Supreme Court
BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) — A federal appeals court won't reconsider its decision in a redistricting case that went against two Native American tribes that challenged North Dakota's legislative redistricting map, and the dispute could be headed for the U.S. Supreme Court. The case has drawn national interest because of a 2-1 ruling issued in May by a three-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that erased a path through the federal Voting Rights Act for people in seven states to sue under a key provision of the landmark federal civil rights law. The tribes argued that the 2021 map violated the act by diluting their voting strength and ability to elect their own candidates. The panel said only the U.S. Department of Justice can bring such lawsuits. That followed a 2023 ruling out of Arkansas in the same circuit that also said private individuals can't sue under Section 2 of the law. Those rulings conflict with decades of rulings by appellate courts in other federal circuits that have affirmed the rights of private individuals to sue under Section 2, creating a split that the Supreme Court may be asked to resolve. However, several of the high court's conservative justices recently have indicated interest in making it harder, if not impossible, to bring redistricting lawsuits under the Voting Rights Act. After the May decision, the Spirit Lake Tribe and Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians asked the appeals court for a rehearing before all 11 judges. Attorneys general of 19 states, numerous former U.S. Justice Department attorneys, several voting rights historians and others also asked for a rehearing. But in a ruling Thursday, the full court denied the request, which was filed by the Native American Rights Fund and other groups representing the tribes. Three judges said they would have granted it, including Circuit Chief Judge Steven Colloton, who had dissented in the previous ruling. The majority opinion in May said that for the tribes to sue under the Voting Rights Act, the law would have had to 'unambiguously' give private persons or groups the right to do so. Lenny Powell, a staff attorney for the fund, said in a statement that the refusal to reconsider 'wrongly restricts voters disenfranchised by a gerrymandered redistricting map" from challenging that map. Powell said Monday that the tribes are now considering their legal options. Another group representing the tribes, the Campaign Legal Center, said the ruling 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.' The office of North Dakota Secretary of State Michael Howe did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday. The groups said they will continue to fight to ensure fair maps. The North Dakota and Arkansas rulings apply only in the states of the 8th Circuit: Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota. In the wake of the Arkansas decision, Minnesota and other states have moved to shore up voting rights with state-level protections to plug the growing gaps in the federal law. The North Dakota tribes filed their lawsuit in 2022. The three-judge panel heard appeal arguments last October after Republican Secretary of State Michael Howe appealed a lower court's November 2023 decision in favor of the tribes. In that ruling, U.S. District Judge Peter Welte ordered creation of a new district that encompassed both tribes' reservations, which are about 60 miles (97 kilometers) apart. In 2024, voters elected members from both tribes, all Democrats, to the district's Senate seat and two House seats. ___ Karnowski reported from Minneapolis.
Hamilton Spectator
07-07-2025
- Politics
- Hamilton Spectator
Appeals court rules against North Dakota tribes in voting rights case that could go to Supreme Court
BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) — A federal appeals court won't reconsider its decision in a redistricting case that went against two Native American tribes that challenged North Dakota's legislative redistricting map, and the dispute could be headed for the U.S. Supreme Court. The case has drawn national interest because of a 2-1 ruling issued in May by a three-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that erased a path through the federal Voting Rights Act for people in seven states to sue under a key provision of the landmark federal civil rights law. The tribes argued that the 2021 map violated the act by diluting their voting strength and ability to elect their own candidates. The panel said only the U.S. Department of Justice can bring such lawsuits. That followed a 2023 ruling out of Arkansas in the same circuit that also said private individuals can't sue under Section 2 of the law. Those rulings conflict with decades of rulings by appellate courts in other federal circuits that have affirmed the rights of private individuals to sue under Section 2, creating a split that the Supreme Court may be asked to resolve. However, several of the high court's conservative justices recently have indicated interest in making it harder, if not impossible, to bring redistricting lawsuits under the Voting Rights Act . After the May decision, the Spirit Lake Tribe and Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians asked the appeals court for a rehearing before all 11 judges. Attorneys general of 19 states, numerous former U.S. Justice Department attorneys, several voting rights historians and others also asked for a rehearing. But in a ruling Thursday, the full court denied the request, which was filed by the Native American Rights Fund and other groups representing the tribes. Three judges said they would have granted it, including Circuit Chief Judge Steven Colloton, who had dissented in the previous ruling. The majority opinion in May said that for the tribes to sue under the Voting Rights Act, the law would have had to 'unambiguously' give private persons or groups the right to do so. Lenny Powell, a staff attorney for the fund, said in a statement that the refusal to reconsider 'wrongly restricts voters disenfranchised by a gerrymandered redistricting map' from challenging that map. Powell said Monday that the tribes are now considering their legal options. Another group representing the tribes, the Campaign Legal Center, said the ruling 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.' The office of North Dakota Secretary of State Michael Howe did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday. The groups said they will continue to fight to ensure fair maps. The North Dakota and Arkansas rulings apply only in the states of the 8th Circuit: Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota. In the wake of the Arkansas decision, Minnesota and other states have moved to shore up voting rights with state-level protections to plug the growing gaps in the federal law. The North Dakota tribes filed their lawsuit in 2022. The three-judge panel heard appeal arguments last October after Republican Secretary of State Michael Howe appealed a lower court's November 2023 decision in favor of the tribes. In that ruling, U.S. District Judge Peter Welte ordered creation of a new district that encompassed both tribes' reservations, which are about 60 miles (97 kilometers) apart. In 2024, voters elected members from both tribes, all Democrats, to the district's Senate seat and two House seats. Republicans hold supermajority control of North Dakota's Legislature. ___ Karnowski reported from Minneapolis. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Winnipeg Free Press
07-07-2025
- Politics
- Winnipeg Free Press
Appeals court rules against North Dakota tribes in voting rights case that could go to Supreme Court
BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) — A federal appeals court won't reconsider its decision in a redistricting case that went against two Native American tribes that challenged North Dakota's legislative redistricting map, and the dispute could be headed for the U.S. Supreme Court. The case has drawn national interest because of a 2-1 ruling issued in May by a three-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that erased a path through the federal Voting Rights Act for people in seven states to sue under a key provision of the landmark federal civil rights law. The tribes argued that the 2021 map violated the act by diluting their voting strength and ability to elect their own candidates. The panel said only the U.S. Department of Justice can bring such lawsuits. That followed a 2023 ruling out of Arkansas in the same circuit that also said private individuals can't sue under Section 2 of the law. Those rulings conflict with decades of rulings by appellate courts in other federal circuits that have affirmed the rights of private individuals to sue under Section 2, creating a split that the Supreme Court may be asked to resolve. However, several of the high court's conservative justices recently have indicated interest in making it harder, if not impossible, to bring redistricting lawsuits under the Voting Rights Act. After the May decision, the Spirit Lake Tribe and Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians asked the appeals court for a rehearing before all 11 judges. Attorneys general of 19 states, numerous former U.S. Justice Department attorneys, several voting rights historians and others also asked for a rehearing. But in a ruling Thursday, the full court denied the request, which was filed by the Native American Rights Fund and other groups representing the tribes. Three judges said they would have granted it, including Circuit Chief Judge Steven Colloton, who had dissented in the previous ruling. The majority opinion in May said that for the tribes to sue under the Voting Rights Act, the law would have had to 'unambiguously' give private persons or groups the right to do so. Lenny Powell, a staff attorney for the fund, said in a statement that the refusal to reconsider 'wrongly restricts voters disenfranchised by a gerrymandered redistricting map' from challenging that map. Powell said Monday that the tribes are now considering their legal options. Another group representing the tribes, the Campaign Legal Center, said the ruling 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.' The office of North Dakota Secretary of State Michael Howe did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday. The groups said they will continue to fight to ensure fair maps. The North Dakota and Arkansas rulings apply only in the states of the 8th Circuit: Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota. In the wake of the Arkansas decision, Minnesota and other states have moved to shore up voting rights with state-level protections to plug the growing gaps in the federal law. The North Dakota tribes filed their lawsuit in 2022. The three-judge panel heard appeal arguments last October after Republican Secretary of State Michael Howe appealed a lower court's November 2023 decision in favor of the tribes. In that ruling, U.S. District Judge Peter Welte ordered creation of a new district that encompassed both tribes' reservations, which are about 60 miles (97 kilometers) apart. In 2024, voters elected members from both tribes, all Democrats, to the district's Senate seat and two House seats. Republicans hold supermajority control of North Dakota's Legislature. ___ Karnowski reported from Minneapolis.
Reuters
30-05-2025
- General
- Reuters
US judge warns that law clerk hiring boycotts may cross ethical lines
May 30 (Reuters) - Law clerk hiring boycotts, like the type launched by 13 conservative federal judges last year in protest of Columbia University's handling of pro-Palestinian student demonstrations on its campus, may "cross an important line," a top federal appeals court judge concluded. Chief U.S. Circuit Judge Steven Colloton reached that conclusion, opens new tab even as he dismissed a judicial misconduct complaint filed with the St. Louis-based 8th Circuit Judicial Council against one of those 13 judges, U.S. District Judge Daniel Traynor in Bismarck, North Dakota. A five-member panel of the 8th Circuit Judicial Council on Thursday voted to deny a petition to review Colloton's now-public decision. Traynor like the other judges who participated in the boycott was appointed by Republican President Donald Trump during his first term. Colloton said that when Traynor signed the letter, there was no ethical guidance suggesting that such a hiring boycott was forbidden. Traynor was not identified by name in the decision, but he is the only of the 13 judges at issue within the 8th Circuit's jurisdiction. The person who filed the complaint was also not named. Traynor declined to comment. Similar misconduct complaints have been dismissed against the other 12, with chief judges in other circuits concluding that the hiring boycott announced in a May 2024 letter did not constitute misconduct, Colloton noted. Given those circumstances, Colloton said it would be unfair to hold that Traynor's participation in the boycott constituted misconduct under the Code of Conduct for U.S. judges without him having fair notice in advance that it was forbidden. But Colloton, an appointee of Republican President George W. Bush, expressed concern about such boycotts, saying they "have the potential to embroil the judiciary in extrajudicial public controversies and to lower public confidence in the courts among reasonable people." "There is thus a substantial question whether judges cross an important line when they go beyond expressing their personal views in an effort to persuade and begin using their power as government officials to pressure private institutions to conform to the judges' preferences," Colloton wrote. He said the issue was one that may be appropriate for study by members of the U.S. Judicial Conference body tasked with revising and interpreting the Code of Conduct. In their letter last year, the Trump-appointed judges had called Columbia an "incubator of bigotry" and argued for "serious consequences" for anyone who participated in the campus demonstrations over Israel's war in Gaza that roiled Columbia's campus. They said Columbia had "become ground zero for the explosion of student disruptions, antisemitism, and hatred for diverse viewpoints on campuses across the nation" and had "disqualified itself from educating the future leaders of our country." As a result, the judges had said they would not hire anyone who attended Columbia as an undergraduate or law student, beginning with students who began their studies at the university in fall 2023. The letter's other signatories included U.S. Circuit Judges James Ho of the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and Elizabeth Branch of the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, who participated in similar boycotts of clerks from Yale and Stanford over disruptions of conservative speakers on their campuses. Read more: Trump-appointed judge cleared of wrongdoing over Columbia law clerk boycott US judge boycotting Columbia law clerks won't recuse from protest case US judges cleared of misconduct over Columbia clerk hiring boycott US judiciary to consider new ethical guidance for law clerk hiring Group urges US judiciary to halt conservative judges' clerk boycotts US law clerks in rare anonymous statement decry 'genocide' in Gaza Columbia Law voices confidence in grads in face of conservative judges' boycott Conservative US judges boycott Columbia grads over campus Gaza protests
