A federal appeals court issued a ruling Monday that could gut the Voting Rights Act, saying only the federal government — not private citizens or civil rights groups — can sue under a crucial section of the landmark civil rights law. The decision of the 8th Circuit will almost certainly be appealed to the Supreme Court. But should it stand, it would mark a dramatic rollback of the enforcement of the law that led to increased minority representation in American politics.
The appellate court ruled that there is no “private right of action” for Section 2 of the law — which prohibits voting practices that discriminate based on race.
That, in practice, would severely limit the scope of protections in the act. For decades, private parties — including civil rights groups, individual voters, and political parties — have brought Section 2 challenges on everything from redistricting to voter ID requirements.
Private parties file the vast majority of Voting Rights Act cases. For instance, the case that prompted the Supreme Court earlier this year to strike down Alabama’s congressional map was originally filed by a coalition of civil rights groups.
Monday’s decision upheld a 2022 ruling from U.S. District Judge Lee Rudofsky, an Arkansas federal judge appointed by former Republican President Donald Trump that only the U.S. attorney general is empowered to file lawsuits under section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. That provision prohibits voting rules that are racially discriminatory.
In a 2 – 1 decision, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals said the text of the Voting Rights Act does not lay out a “private right of action,” even though courts, including the Supreme Court, have taken on such cases for decades.
“Assuming their existence, and even discussing them, is different from actually deciding that a private right of action exists,” Circuit Judge David Stras wrote for the majority. Stras, a Trump appointee, was joined by Circuit Judge Raymond Gruender, who was appointed by former Republican President George W. Bush.
In a dissent, Chief Judge Lavenski Smith, also a Bush appointee, said he would have followed existing precedent unless Congress or the Supreme Court said otherwise.(Politico)