Connect with us

News

The Supreme Court avoids taking up a fight over Voting Rights Act enforcement for now

Published

on

The Supreme Court avoids taking up a fight over Voting Rights Act enforcement for now

A demonstrator holds a sign saying “PROTECT MINORITY VOTING RIGHTS” at a March 2025 rally outside the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C.

Jemal Countess/Getty Images for Legal Defense Fund


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Jemal Countess/Getty Images for Legal Defense Fund

Weeks after further weakening the Voting Rights Act, the U.S. Supreme Court sidestepped weighing in on a legal question that could severely limit enforcement of the law’s remaining protections for minority voters.

In a brief, unsigned order on Monday, the high court announced it is sending cases about Mississippi and North Dakota state legislative maps back to lower courts to be reconsidered in light of its recent ruling in Louisiana v. Callais.

That landmark decision in April weakened the Voting Rights Act’s protections against racial discrimination in redistricting and as a result reignited the congressional gerrymandering battle sparked by President Trump ahead of the 2026 midterm election to help Republicans keep control of the House of Representatives.

Advertisement

Monday’s move by the court effectively allows the justices to take an off-ramp from hearing what could have been the next major Supreme Court fight over the landmark 1965 law.

What the court avoided in Monday’s order: a “private right of action”

What’s known as Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act has been mainly enforced as a result of lawsuits by voters and advocacy groups, who have brought hundreds of challenges to maps of voting districts and other election-related procedures.

But in the Mississippi and North Dakota redistricting cases, Republican officials have raised a novel argument — that private individuals and groups do not have a right to sue under Section 2, and only the U.S. attorney general does.

Such an interpretation would lead to far fewer Section 2 lawsuits, legal experts say.

The Supreme Court’s decision not to take up the question of what the legal world refers to as a “private right of action” under Section 2 drew pushback from liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Advertisement

In dissents from Monday’s order, Jackson pointed out the high court’s ruling in the Callais case did not address the legal question of Section 2’s enforceability by private individuals and groups.

“Thus I see no basis for vacating the lower court’s judgment,” Jackson said, criticizing the move to throw out earlier lower court rulings in both the Mississippi and North Dakota cases.

Enforcement of another Voting Rights Act section is also at risk

Still, while those cases now make their way back down the federal court system, the future enforcement of another section of the Voting Rights Act is also under question.

Section 208 generally allows voters who need help to vote because of a disability or inability to read or write to get assistance from a person of their choice. But in a case challenging an Arkansas law, a panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has found that private groups and individuals cannot sue to enforce Section 208.

That federal appeals court also ruled against a private right of action under Section 2 in the North Dakota legislative redistricting case.

Advertisement

In an opinion dissenting from the 8th Circuit’s decision not to review the panel’s decision in the Arkansas case, Chief Judge Steven Colloton, a nominee of former President George W. Bush, wrote the 8th Circuit continues on a “regrettable path of rendering unenforceable, in this circuit alone, the voting rights law that many have considered ‘the most successful civil rights statute in the history of the Nation.’ “

A Supreme Court brief on the Arkansas case is due Monday as the justices prepare to decide, at some point, whether to take it up.

Edited by Benjamin Swasey

News

Federal judge bars Trump from implementing proof of citizenship requirement to vote

Published

on

Federal judge bars Trump from implementing proof of citizenship requirement to vote

A federal judge on Wednesday permanently barred President Donald Trump’s administration from implementing most of his first executive order on elections, part of which sought to require people to show documentary proof of citizenship when they register to vote.

The ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Denise Casper in Boston effectively converts a preliminary injunction she issued a year ago, in which she temporarily blocked many of Trump’s efforts to overhaul elections, into a permanent ban.

Casper rejected the Republican administration’s argument that the lawsuit to block the changes brought by Democratic state attorneys general was premature because the rules had yet to be put in place. Instead, she agreed that the Constitution gives states and Congress the authority to regulate elections, and that Trump’s requirements violated the separation of powers.

The Constitution “does not grant the President any specific powers over elections,” wrote Casper.

Among other proposed changes, Trump’s order would have required people to provide documentary proof of citizenship when registering to vote, prevented mail ballots from being counted if they arrive after Election Day, even if they were postmarked by then, and punished states that failed to comply by withholding certain federal money.

Advertisement

In a statement, New York Attorney General Letitia James said she was grateful the court had blocked Trump’s “unconstitutional attempt to seize control of our elections” and would continue to defend voting rights in this year’s midterm elections.

“Generations of Americans fought tirelessly for the right to vote, and we honor their legacy by protecting that right against anyone who tries to undermine it,” said James, a Democrat.

A voter casts a ballot during New York’s primary election on Tuesday, June 23, 2026, in New York. (AP Photo/Ryan Murphy)

Advertisement

Advertisement

California Attorney General Rob Bonta, whose state was the lead plaintiff in the case, said the ruling reaffirmed the constitutional principle that it s up to the states and Congress to set election rules.

“While we are proud of this result, we are clear-eyed that President Trump’s attacks on voting rights and our elections show no signs of slowing down,” Bonta, a Democrat, said in a statement. “So let me be clear: we will keep fighting back every step of the way.”

Requests for comment sent to the White House and he U.S. Department of Justice were not immediately returned.

The ruling was the latest in a series against the elections executive order Trump signed just months after taking office for his second term. The Republican president has since signed another executive order on elections that seeks to create a national voter list and limit mail balloting. That directive also faces multiple legal challenges.

Advertisement

Last fall, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., overseeing a separate challenge to the first election executive order by civil rights and Democratic Party-aligned groups blocked the government from taking steps to include the proof-of-citizenship requirement on the federal voter registration form. That judge later barred Trump’s defense secretary from requiring documentary proof of citizenship when military personnel register to vote or request ballots.

In an apparent nod to the difficulty of implementing a proof-of-citizen requirement by executive order, Trump is pushing legislation in the Republican-controlled Congress to create such a mandate. The SAVE America Act has passed the House but has stalled in the Senate, leading Trump to advocate for eliminating the filibuster that is blocking the legislation.

On Wednesday, he abruptly canceled the expected signing of a bipartisan housing bill, saying he would not sign legislation until Congress passes his proof of citizenship requirement for voting.

The president and many of his Republican allies have been promoting the narrative that voting by noncitizens is a major problem, when in fact it’s quite rare. The federal voter registration form already requires people to attest that they are U.S. citizens. Violating that is punishable as a felony that can lead to prison or deportation.

In another major voting case, the U.S. Supreme Court is due to issue an opinion soon on whether mail ballots must arrive by Election Day. That could immediately change the rules in 14 states that allow grace periods ranging from days to weeks if the ballots are postmarked by Election Day.

Advertisement

Casper, who was nominated by Democratic President Barack Obama, is the chief judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

Continue Reading

News

Video: Mamdani Allies Sweep New York Primaries

Published

on

Video: Mamdani Allies Sweep New York Primaries

new video loaded: Mamdani Allies Sweep New York Primaries

transcript

transcript

Mamdani Allies Sweep New York Primaries

Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s progressive coalition had a big night on Tuesday. Brad Lander, Darializa Avila Chevalier and Claire Valdez won their Democratic House primaries.

“I see a New York that we can all afford. I see a New York that truly invests in its babies, not bombs.” Reporter: “What’s the first thing you’re looking forward to doing in Congress?” “Well, tomorrow — thank you — I mean, tomorrow morning, you know, I’m going to be back at 26 Federal Plaza doing court watching, and we want to carry that into Congress as well.”

Advertisement
Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s progressive coalition had a big night on Tuesday. Brad Lander, Darializa Avila Chevalier and Claire Valdez won their Democratic House primaries.

By Julie Yoon

June 24, 2026

Continue Reading

News

Appeals court allows Trump administration expanded use of speedy deportations

Published

on

Appeals court allows Trump administration expanded use of speedy deportations

A massive 826,780-square-foot warehouse sits illuminated Feb. 12, 2026, in the El Paso suburb of Socorro, Texas, that was recently purchased by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for $122.8 million.

Morgan Lee/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Morgan Lee/AP

A federal appeals court on Tuesday allowed the Trump administration to resume carrying out speedy deportations of undocumented migrants throughout the United States, not just near the border.

A divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit threw out a lower court decision that temporarily blocked President Donald Trump’s expanded use of expedited removal. The ruling was a big victory for the Republican administration, which views the expansion of so-called expedited removal as a key tool for carrying out its mass deportation policy.

Expedited removal — quick deportation without a chance to appear before a judge — has previously been applied to migrants arriving by sea or caught at or near the border shortly after crossing.

Advertisement

In January, Trump expanded its use to undocumented migrants all over the United States. Immigration agents began whisking migrants away from courthouses where they had gone for immigration proceedings and then removing them from the country within days.

“The Trump administration’s push for fast-track deportations will subject people to an unfair and error-prone system,” Anand Balakrishnan, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, said in a statement.

Balakrishnan represented plaintiffs in arguments before the appellate panel and said its ruling “undermines the fundamental principle that people receive due process when the government seeks to deport them.”

DC Circuit Judge Justin R. Walker, one of the judges on the panel, said the plaintiffs had not shown the expanded use of expedited removal violated due process rights. Immigrants received notice of removal proceedings and were given a chance to respond, he wrote in his opinion.

Walker and the second judge in the majority, Neomi Rao, were appointed by Trump. The third judge on the panel was appointed by President Barack Obama, a Democrat.

Advertisement

Walker said there was no requirement that the administration inform immigrants that they can avoid expedited removal if they can show they have been in the United States for more than two years.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending