News
Obscure legal theory could weaken voters’ protections from racist laws
A federal court has embraced a novel legal theory that seriously threatens one of the last legs of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
At the heart of the dispute is who has the right to bring a case under the law, a crown jewel of the civil rights movement that has worked to prevent voting discrimination against minorities. For more than half a century, the Department of Justice as well as private plaintiffs â anyone from an individual voter to a civic action group â have filed cases under section 2 of the law, which prohibits any voting practice or procedure that discriminates on the basis of race.
The case that could upend the law started out as a typical voting rights lawsuit. In late 2021, the Arkansas NAACP and the Arkansas Public Policy Panel sued the state, arguing that the new Arkansas house of representatives districts illegally discriminated against Black Arkansans by packing the Black vote into a disproportionately small number of districts.
But in a surprise ruling in 2022, a federal judge ruled that only the federal government, not private plaintiffs can file lawsuits under section 2. The US court of appeals for the eighth circuit has since upheld that ruling. The issue is likely to be ultimately resolved by the US supreme court.
Voting rights lawyers say the rulings are âradical and unprecedentedâ. For decades, the vast majority of cases under section 2 have been filed by private plaintiffs, not the government. Only allowing the government to bring section 2 cases would bring enforcement of the Voting Rights Act to a halt.
âPrivate plaintiffs bringing cases under section two has been one of the hallmark ways to protect voting rights in this country,â said Jonathan Topaz, a staff attorney for the ACLU Voting Rights Project. âIf private plaintiffs are unable to bring suit and vindicate their rights under section 2, then in our estimation, there will be large swaths of violations of section 2 that will go unremedied.â
Blocking non-government groups from filing suit under the VRA would be especially damaging after the supreme courtâs 2013 ruling gutting a different provision in the law that required states with a history of voting discrimination to pre-clear any election changes with the Department of Justice before they went into effect. While private parties have long played a key role in enforcing section 2, getting rid of the pre-clearance provision has only escalated pressure on them to step up and essentially play Whac-A-Mole to identify voting discrimination.
Section 2 cases are often among the most complicated voting cases litigators can bring, but are powerful tools to fight racial discrimination. The provision can be used to challenge a wide range of practices â from the shape of a congressional district to the way in which members of a school board or city council are elected.
Proving a section 2 violation also requires what the supreme court has called âan intensely local appraisalâ of the electoral mechanism in question. Doing so requires hiring experts who can do complex analyses of voting patterns and demographic data to see if a violation exists. Private groups are often better positioned to identify section 2 cases at the local level that can fly below the radar of the justice department. They can also move faster to undertake analyses and allocate resources without the bureaucratic hurdles of a vast federal agency like the Department of Justice.
âThe limited federal resources available for Voting Rights Act enforcement reinforce the need for a private cause of action,â the Department of Justice wrote in an amicus brief explaining how it relies on private parties to enforce the law. âAs the Supreme Court has noted, â[t]he Attorney General has a limited staffâ who may not always be able âto uncover quickly new regulations and enactments passed at the varying levels of state government.ââ
According to Sophia Lin Lakin, the director of the ACLUâs voting rights project, getting rid of the ability of private parties to sue could grind enforcement of the Voting Rights Act to âall but a dribble of movementâ.
âThe reason you didnât see attacks on this issue is, because aside from some random people kind of musing about it, no one thought Congress did anything other than give private parties the ability to sue,â she said.
The issue at the heart of the Arkansas case seemed to emerge out of nowhere.
Its genesis appears to have been a 125-word concurring opinion authored by Neil Gorsuch in a 2021 Arizona case that made it harder to challenge discriminatory voting laws.
âOur cases have assumed â without deciding â that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 furnishes an implied cause of action under §2,â Gorsuch wrote in the opinion, which was only joined by fellow conservative Clarence Thomas. âLower courts have treated this as an open question ⦠Because no party argues that the plaintiffs lack a cause of action here, and because the existence (or not) of a cause of action does not go to a courtâs subject-matter jurisdiction ⦠this Court need not and does not address that issue today.â
It was a clear invitation to lower court plaintiffs to bring a case challenging whether or not private plaintiffs can file section 2 litigation.
Less than six months later, Lee Rudofsky, a Trump-appointed US district judge who was overseeing the Arkansas case, took an interest in Gorsuchâs opinion. Even though neither the plaintiffs in the case nor Arkansas officials had raised an issue over whether private plaintiffs could sue, he pointed to Gorsuchâs opinion and asked for briefing on it.
A little over a month later, he dismissed the case, saying that no private right of action existed. Despite the NAACP having a strong case, Rudofsky wrote in his decision, â[T]he Court has concluded that this case may be brought only by the Attorney General of the United States.â
The ruling is part of a suite of attacks in recent years aiming to chip away at section 2, said Daniel Tokaji, an election law expert who is dean of the law school at the University of Wisconsin. âThese are judges who are not terribly friendly to the voting rights and in particular to protections that racial minority groups have long had to wait for,â he said.
âJudges have made it more and more difficult for people whose voting rights have been violated, not just to succeed on that point, but even to get into court in the first place.â
While voting rights lawyers are alarmed by the eighth circuitâs decision to uphold the Arkansas ruling, they are quick to note that other jurists outside of the appellate circuit have yet to sign on. Since Rudofskyâs decision in the Arkansas case, litigants in Georgia, Florida, North Dakota, Texas, Wisconsin, Virginia, Colorado and Kansas have all made arguments in voting cases that no private right of action exists under section 2, according to Derek Zeigler, student attorney at the University of Michigan civil rights litigation initiative.
No other court so far has agreed.
Even if the supreme court were to ultimately gut the private right of action under section 2, election lawyers believe that another provision in federal law may allow private plaintiffs to bring private claims under Section 2. That provision, 42 USC 1983, authorizes any person to sue if rights protected by the constitution or federal statute have been violated.
Topaz, the ACLU voting rights lawyer, said voters of color would bear the burden of court rulings eliminating a private right of action.
âIt is a terrible shame for Black Arkansans, whose political influence and political power continues to be diluted.â
The firing of US Navy Secretary John Phelan is the latest in a shakeup of the American military during the war on Iran, now in its eighth week.
The Pentagon said Phelan would leave office immediately.
list of 3 itemsend of listRecommended Stories
“On behalf of the Secretary of War and Deputy Secretary of War, we are grateful to Secretary Phelan for his service to the Department and the United States Navy,” said chief Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell. “We wish him well in his future endeavours”.
His firing comes at a critical moment, with US naval forces enforcing a blockade on Iranian ports and ships, and maintaining a heavy presence around the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20 percent of the world’s oil and gas passes during peacetime.
Although the Pentagon gave no official reason for the dismissal, reports indicate the decision was linked to internal disputes, including tensions with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
Phelan’s removal is part of a broader pattern of dismissals and restructuring within the US military under President Donald Trump’s administration – including during the current war.
So, who is John Phelan, and what impact could his firing have on US military strategy?
Who is John Phelan?
As the US Navy’s top civilian official, Phelan had various responsibilities, including overseeing recruiting, mobilising and organising, as well as construction and repair of ships and military equipment.
He was appointed in 2024 as a political ally of Trump, despite having no prior military or defence leadership experience.
Before entering government, Phelan was a businessman and investment executive, as well as a major Republican donor and fundraiser — a background that is fairly common among Trump appointees and advisers. The US president’s two top diplomatic negotiators, for instance, are Steve Witkoff — a real estate businessman with no prior diplomatic experience – and Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner.
According to the Reuters news agency, Phelan’s tenure quickly became controversial. He faced criticism for moving too slowly on shipbuilding reforms and for strained relationships with key Pentagon figures, including Hegseth and his deputy, Steve Feinberg.
In addition, Phelan was reportedly under an ethics investigation, which may have weakened his standing in the administration.
Navy Undersecretary Hung Cao, who was also reported to have a difficult relationship with Phelan, has become acting secretary. Fifty-four-year-old Cao is a 25-year Navy veteran who previously ran as a Republican candidate for the US Senate and House of Representatives in 2022 and 2024 respectively, but was unsuccessful on both occasions.
Democrats have criticised Phelan’s removal, calling it “troubling”.
“I am concerned it is yet another example of the instability and dysfunction that have come to define the Department of Defense under President Trump and Secretary Hegseth,” said Senator Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Who else has the Trump administration fired since the war with Iran began?
Phelan’s removal is the latest in a series of senior military leaders being fired or are leaving during the US-Israeli war on Iran, in addition to others since Trump was re-elected.
Among the most notable dismissals was Army Chief of Staff General Randy A. George, in the first week of April. George was appointed in 2023 under former US President Joe Biden.
According to reports, Hegseth also fired the head of the Army’s Transformation and Training Command, a unit concerned with modernising the army, and the Army’s chief of chaplains. The Pentagon has not confirmed their dismissal.
Why is Phelan’s dismissal significant?
The 62-year-old’s removal comes during a fragile ceasefire with Iran, as the US continues to move more naval assets into the region.
The Navy is central to enforcing Trump’s blockade of Iranian ports to restrict Iran’s oil exports and apply economic pressure on Tehran, as the US president looks eager to wrap up the war, which is deeply unpopular to many Americans.
However, there are no indications that Trump is willing to end the blockade or other naval operations in the Strait of Hormuz, as negotiations between Washington and Tehran have come to a standstill.
Tensions have escalated in recent days after the US military seized an Iranian container ship. The US claimed it was attempting to sail from the Arabian Sea through the Strait of Hormuz to the Iranian port of Bandar Abbas.
Tehran responded by describing the attack and hijack as an act of “piracy”.
Iran has since captured two cargo ships and fired at another.
Just two weeks ago, President Trump threatened to wipe out Iran’s civilization if it did not open the Strait of Hormuz. Days later, he said any Iranian “who fires at us, or at peaceful vessels, will be BLOWN TO HELL!”
Yet on Wednesday, after Iran seized two ships near the Strait of Hormuz, the White House was quick to argue the action was not a deal breaker for potential peace negotiations.
“These were not U.S. ships,” Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said on Fox News. “These were not Israeli ships.” Therefore, she explained, the Iranians had not violated a cease-fire with the United States that Mr. Trump has extended indefinitely.
She cautioned the news media against “blowing this out of proportion.”
The surprisingly tolerant tone from the White House suggests Mr. Trump is not eager to reignite a war that he started alongside Israel on Feb. 28 — a war that has proved unpopular with Americans and has gone on longer than he initially estimated.
The president on Tuesday extended a cease-fire between the United States and Iran that had been set to expire within hours, saying he wanted to give Tehran a chance to come up with a new proposal to end the war.
The American military has displayed its overwhelming might during the war, successfully striking thousands of targets. But it remains unclear whether Mr. Trump will accomplish the political objectives of the war.
The Iranian regime, even after its top leaders were killed, is still intact. Iran has not agreed to Mr. Trump’s demands to turn over its nuclear capabilities to the United States or significantly curtail them. And the Strait of Hormuz, a key passageway for world commerce that was open before the war, remains closed.
Nevertheless, the White House has repeatedly highlighted the military successes on the battlefield as evidence it is winning the war.
“We have completely confused and obliterated their regime,” Ms. Leavitt said on Fox Wednesday. “They are in a very weak position thanks to the actions taken by President Trump and our great United States armed forces, and so we will continue this important mission on our own.”
The oscillation between threats and a more conciliatory tone has long been one of Mr. Trump’s signature negotiating strategies.
Potential peace talks between the two countries are on hold. Vice President JD Vance had been poised to fly to Islamabad for negotiations. But the trip was postponed until Iran can “come up with a unified proposal,” Mr. Trump said.
The United States recently transmitted a written proposal to the Iranians intended to establish base-line points of agreement that could frame more detailed negotiations. The document covers a broad range of issues, but the core sticking points are the same ones that have bedeviled Western negotiators for more than a decade: the scope of Iran’s uranium enrichment program and the fate of its stockpile of enriched uranium.
Mr. Trump has not spoken publicly about the cease-fire, other than on social media. On Wednesday, he also posted about topics including “my Apprentice Juggernaut” — a reference to his former television show; the Virginia elections, which he called “rigged”; and a new book about Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.
Secretary of the Navy John Phelan speaks, as President Trump listens, at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club on Dec. 22 in Palm Beach, Fla.
Alex Brandon/AP
hide caption
toggle caption
Alex Brandon/AP
WASHINGTON — Navy Secretary John Phelan is leaving his job, the Pentagon abruptly announced Wednesday, the first head of a military service to depart during President Trump’s second term but just the latest top defense leader to step down or be ousted.
No reason was given for the unexpected departure of the Navy’s top civilian official, coming as the sea service has imposed a blockade of Iranian ports and is targeting ships linked to Tehran around the world during a tenuous ceasefire in the war. Another Trump loyalist is taking over as acting head of the Navy: Undersecretary Hung Cao, a 25-year Navy combat veteran who ran unsuccessful campaigns for the U.S. Senate and House in Virginia.
Phelan’s departure is the latest in a series of shakeups of top leadership at the Pentagon, coming just weeks after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth fired the Army’s top uniformed officer, Gen. Randy George. Hegseth also has fired several other top generals, admirals and defense leaders since taking office last year.
The firings began in February 2025, when Hegseth removed military leaders, including Adm. Lisa Franchetti, the Navy’s top uniformed officer, and Gen. Jim Slife, the No. 2 leader at the Air Force. Trump also fired Gen. Charles “CQ” Brown Jr. as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Showing how sudden the latest move was, Phelan had addressed a large crowd of sailors and industry professionals on Tuesday at the Navy’s annual conference in Washington and spoke with reporters about his agenda. He also hosted the leaders of the House Armed Services Committee to discuss the Navy’s budget request and efforts to build more ships, according to a social media post from his office.
Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said in a post on X that Phelan was “departing the administration, effective immediately.”
Phelan had been a major Trump donor
Phelan had not served in the military or had a civilian leadership role in the service before Trump nominated him for secretary in late 2024. He was seen as an outsider being brought in to shake up the Navy.
Hung Cao speaks during the Republican National Convention on July 16, 2024, in Milwaukee.
Matt Rourke/AP
hide caption
toggle caption
Matt Rourke/AP
Phelan was a major donor to Trump’s campaign and had founded the private investment firm Rugger Management LLC. According to his biography, Phelan’s primary exposure to the military came from an advisory position he held on the Spirit of America, a nonprofit that supported the defense of Ukraine and the defense of Taiwan.
The Associated Press could not immediately reach Phelan’s office for comment. The White House did not answer questions and instead responded by sending a link to Parnell’s statement.
Phelan is leaving during a busy time for the Navy. It has three aircraft carriers deployed in or heading to the Middle East, while the Trump administration says all the armed forces are poised to resume combat operations against Iran should the ceasefire expire.
The Navy also has maintained a heavy presence in the Caribbean, where it has been part of a campaign of strikes against alleged drug boats. It also played a major role in the capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro in January.
New acting Navy secretary ran unsuccessful bids for Congress
Taking over as acting secretary is Cao, who ran a failed U.S. Senate bid in Virginia to try to unseat Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine in 2024. He had Trump’s endorsement in the crowded Republican primary and gave a speech at the 2024 Republican National Convention.
Cao’s biography includes fleeing Vietnam with his family as a child in the 1970s. In a campaign video for his Senate bid, he compared Vietnam’s communist regime during the Cold War to the administration of Democratic President Joe Biden.
During his one debate with Kaine, Cao criticized COVID-19 vaccine mandates for service members as well as the military’s diversity, equity and inclusion efforts.
“When you’re using a drag queen to recruit for the Navy, that’s not the people we want,” Cao said from the debate stage. “What we need is alpha males and alpha females who are going to rip out their own guts, eat them and ask for seconds. Those are the young men and women that are going to win wars.”
Trump and Hegseth have railed against DEI in the military, banning the efforts and firing people accused of supporting such programs.
When he ran for Congress in Virginia in 2022, Cao expressed opposition to aid for Ukraine during a debate against his Democratic opponent.
“My heart goes out to the Ukrainian people. … But right now we’re borrowing $55 billion from China to pay for the war in Ukraine. Not only that, we’re depleting our national strategic reserves,” Cao said.
Cao graduated from the prestigious Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology in Alexandria, Virginia, before attending the U.S. Naval Academy.
He was commissioned as a special operations officer and went on to serve with SEAL teams and special forces in Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia before retiring at the rank of captain, according to his Senate campaign biography.
Cao also earned a master’s degree in physics and had fellowships at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University.
Since becoming Navy undersecretary, Cao has championed returning to duty service members that refused a Biden-era mandate to take the COVID-19 vaccine.
-
Sports2 minutes agoWWE to hold premium live event in Saudi Arabia amid Iran ceasefire
-
Technology8 minutes agoToyota’s CUE7 robot shoots hoops using AI
-
Business14 minutes agoMrBeast company sued over claims of sexual harassment, firing a new mom
-
Entertainment20 minutes agoDataland, the world’s first museum of AI arts, sets opening date and first exhibition
-
Lifestyle26 minutes agoThe New Rules for Negotiating With Multibrand Retailers
-
Politics32 minutes agoBass, Barger meet with Trump to push for L.A. fire recovery funds
-
Science38 minutes agoContributor: Regulate the ‘Enhanced Games’ as a medical experiment and a marketing stunt
-
Sports44 minutes agoAre you still hoping to buy Olympic tickets? LA28 shares terms for second ticket drop