Latest Breaking News

BumRushDaShow

(157,394 posts) Wed Jul 16, 2025, 07:05 PM Jul 16

Supreme Court justice pauses ruling weakening Voting Rights Act

Source: Washington Post

July 16, 2025 at 5:14 p.m. EDT

Supreme Court Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh on Wednesday paused a federal appeals court ruling that bars individuals in some states from filing lawsuits claiming discrimination based on the landmark Voting Rights Act.

The administrative stay will allow the Supreme Court more time to consider whether to take up an appeal by Native American tribes in North Dakota who claim the ruling endangers a powerful tool to ensure equitable voting laws. It’s unclear when the high court might issue a decision to hear the case.

“They knee-cap Congress’s most important civil rights statute,” the tribes wrote in their application asking the high court to intervene. “That blow is especially harmful to Native Americans and these Plaintiffs in particular. North Dakota — like many states — has a long and sad history of official discrimination against Native Americans that persists to this day.”

The Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians and Spirit Lake Tribe filed the lawsuit in 2022 under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, claiming a new North Dakota voting map diluted the power of Indigenous voters by reducing from three to one the number of seats they had “an equal opportunity to elect.”

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/07/16/supreme-court-voting-rights-act/

No paywall (gift)

6 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Supreme Court justice pauses ruling weakening Voting Rights Act (Original Post) BumRushDaShow Jul 16 OP

So what does Kavanaugh's "pause" on an appeals court ruling actually tell us. ancianita Jul 16 #1

That the DOJ can force texas to redistrict? SSJVegeta Jul 16 #2

My initial thought was that he was following the law and rules of procedure. TomSlick Jul 16 #3

I think it's the appellate courts that decide on whether rules of procedure have been followed. It's not outside ancianita Jul 16 #4

But the appellate court ruled that individuals lack standing to challenge claimed violations of the VRA. Igel Jul 17 #5

I'll take your considered word for it. I just thought that the original court decided standing, and that the appellate ancianita Jul 17 #6

ancianita

(41,187 posts)

1. So what does Kavanaugh's "pause" on an appeals court ruling actually tell us.

Reply to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Wed Jul 16, 2025, 07:35 PM

Jul 16

SSJVegeta

(1,195 posts)

2. That the DOJ can force texas to redistrict?

Reply to ancianita (Reply #1)

Wed Jul 16, 2025, 07:41 PM

Jul 16

TomSlick

(12,624 posts)

3. My initial thought was that he was following the law and rules of procedure.

Reply to ancianita (Reply #1)

Wed Jul 16, 2025, 07:48 PM

Jul 16

But that can't be right.

ancianita

(41,187 posts)

4. I think it's the appellate courts that decide on whether rules of procedure have been followed. It's not outside

Reply to TomSlick (Reply #3)

Wed Jul 16, 2025, 08:03 PM

Jul 16

the bounds of this MAGA SS for Kavanaugh to second guess this appellate court as a setup for SCOTUS to overrule it, as they've done with other appeals courts and state supreme courts, as I recall.

Igel

(37,029 posts)

5. But the appellate court ruled that individuals lack standing to challenge claimed violations of the VRA.

Reply to ancianita (Reply #4)

Thu Jul 17, 2025, 07:52 PM

Jul 17

Don't accept the appeal, the appellate court's ruling stands. And the Chippewas would lack standing to challenge the redistricting.

Instead, they haven't decided whether to accept the case. Don't see why they wouldn't unless either this reconciles a difference in opinion between circuit courts or there's disagreement with the appellate court's ruling.

The Chippewa certainly wanted this outcome.

“They [ the appellate court] knee-cap Congress’s most important civil rights statute,” the tribes wrote in their application asking the high court to intervene. “That blow is especially harmful to Native Americans and these Plaintiffs in particular. North Dakota — like many states — has a long and sad history of official discrimination against Native Americans that persists to this day.”

ancianita

(41,187 posts)

6. I'll take your considered word for it. I just thought that the original court decided standing, and that the appellate

Reply to Igel (Reply #5)

Thu Jul 17, 2025, 08:14 PM

Jul 17

deemed that the rules of procedure that required deeper study on standing by the original court weren't done, and so set aside the original court's ruling or the plaintiffs' standing on that basis. IDK

As a non-lawyer I admit to not knowing how indigenous nations' -- often declaring themselves as "nations" -- standing works in our court systems.

Reply to this discussion