A recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to not review a ruling from the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has significant implications for the enforcement of the Voting Rights Act, particularly regarding protections for minority voters in several states.
The U.S. Supreme Court announced on Monday that it will not review a lower court ruling from 2025, effectively upholding a decision that limits the ability of private individuals and groups to sue for enforcement under Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act. This ruling, issued by a panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, affects Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota.
Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act allows voters with disabilities or those who cannot read or write to receive assistance from a person of their choice while voting. The 8th Circuit’s decision determined that only the U.S. Attorney General has the authority to bring lawsuits under this section, a stance that diverges from decades of precedent wherein private individuals and groups had the right to file such lawsuits. This change could lead to a significant decrease in voting rights litigation due to the U.S. Department of Justice’s limited resources.
Background of the Case
The case at the center of the Supreme Court’s decision not to intervene was brought by Arkansas United, an immigrant advocacy group that has worked to provide Spanish-language interpreters at polling sites. They challenged an Arkansas law that restricts assistance to no more than six voters per person, unless the assistant is a poll worker. In 2022, a federal judge ruled that this state law violated Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act. However, upon appeal by state officials, the 8th Circuit concluded that Arkansas United did not have standing to sue under the Act.
Impact of the Supreme Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court’s refusal to take up the case comes in the wake of a broader trend in which the court has weakened the protections established by the Voting Rights Act. In May, the court ruled on a case that undermined Section 2, which protects against racial discrimination in redistricting. This trend has raised concerns among civil rights advocates about the future of voting protections in the United States.
Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin, a Republican, hailed the Supreme Court’s decision as a victory for the state, stating it adheres to the “plain meaning of the language” in the Voting Rights Act. Conversely, advocates for voting rights argue that the ruling creates a dangerous precedent by limiting the ability of private entities to seek justice on behalf of marginalized voters.
Legal Ramifications
The ruling from the 8th Circuit is notable as it is currently the only federal appeals court to establish that there is no private right of action under Section 208, diverging from prior interpretations that had allowed private litigants to seek enforcement. This legal interpretation has the potential to create a chilling effect on voting rights litigation, as the Justice Department may not prioritize individual cases brought forth by private citizens.
In their court filings, attorneys from the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), representing Arkansas United, countered that there is a significant conflict between the 8th Circuit’s decision and previous rulings that upheld the right of individuals to sue under Section 208. They argue that the limited case law does not indicate an absence of disagreement but rather highlights the anomaly of the 8th Circuit’s ruling.
Future Legal Battles
Thomas Saenz, president and general counsel of MALDEF, indicated that the organization plans to pursue further legal avenues, including potentially asking the Supreme Court to review the issue of private rights of action under Section 208 through a related case based in Missouri. This case challenges another state law limiting assistance for disabled voters and has been put on hold pending the outcome of the Arkansas appeals process.
Saenz emphasized the importance of addressing the unique position of the 8th Circuit, stating, “We will attempt to move it forward, and these precedents will be cited to stop us… We hope that the Supreme Court recognizes the need to correct the course of this critical civil rights issue.”
The implications of the Supreme Court’s decision not to review the 8th Circuit ruling extend beyond the immediate case, potentially affecting the landscape of voting rights litigation across the country and raising questions about the future of protections for minority voters.
