US supreme court

Subterms

    More stories

    • 163 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      US supreme court to hear case over right to carry concealed guns outside

      by

      The US supreme court stepped back into the gun control debate on Monday, saying it would take up a case focused on whether people can carry concealed guns outside the home in New York.The case could lead to the most consequential ruling on the scope of the second amendment in more than a decade.The case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v Corlett, is backed by the National Rifle Association (NRA). It seeks an unfettered right to carry concealed handguns in public. A state firearms licensing officer granted the two plaintiffs “concealed carry” permits but restricted them to hunting and target practice, prompting the legal challenge.It will come before a conservative-leaning court. The court’s 6-3 rightwing majority, entrenched by three appointments under Donald Trump, is seen as sympathetic to an expansive view of second amendment rights.The debate over gun control in the US has intensified amid a spate of mass shootings, including one at a FedEx facility in Indianapolis on 15 April in which a gunman killed eight people and then himself and two in less than a week in March, one in Georgia and the other in Colorado, that left 18 dead.In 2008, the supreme court recognized an individual’s right to keep guns at home for self-defense. In 2010 the court applied that right to the states. The plaintiffs in the New York case want that right to be extended beyond the home.Lower courts threw out out their case, rejecting the argument that the New York restrictions violated the second amendment right to keep and bear arms.A ruling invalidating the New York law could imperil laws in other states with criteria for concealed-carry licenses. Seven other states and the District of Columbia give authorities more discretion to deny concealed firearm permits.A ruling against New York could also force lower courts to cast a skeptical eye on new or existing gun control laws.Gun control advocates are concerned the conservative supreme court justices could create a standard for gun control that will threaten measures already implemented, such as expanded criminal background checks for gun buyers and “red flag” laws targeting the firearms of people deemed dangerous by the courts.Republicans and gun rights advocates have pressed the justices to take up a new case and further extend gun rights. Last year, the court sidestepped a ruling in an NRA-supported challenge to a New York City restriction on transporting firearms outside the home, because the city had rolled back the regulation. More

    • 200 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘It would be glorious’: hopes high for Biden to nominate first Black woman to supreme court

      by

      Joe Biden’s promise to nominate an African American woman to the supreme court for the first time holds broad symbolic significance for Darlene McDonald, an activist and police reform commissioner in Salt Lake City, Utah.But McDonald has specific reasons for wanting a Black woman on the court, too.When Chief Justice John Roberts asserted in 2013 that federal oversight of voting in certain southern states was no longer needed because “things have changed dramatically” since the civil rights era, McDonald said, he revealed a blindness to something African American women have no choice but to see.“I believe that if Chief Justice Roberts had really understood racism, he would never have voted to gut the Voting Rights Act,” McDonald said, adding that hundreds of voter suppression bills introduced by Republicans in recent months suggest things have not “changed dramatically” since 1965.“Myself, as an African American woman, having that representation on the supreme court will be huge,” McDonald said, “especially in the sense of having someone that really understands racism.”The gradual diversification of US leadership, away from the overwhelming preponderance of white men, towards a mix that increasingly reflects the populace, was accelerated by the election last November of Kamala Harris, a woman of color, as vice-president.Black women have been overlooked in terms of their values and what they have to bring to society as well as to the benchNow enthusiasm is building around a similarly historic leap that activists, academics and professionals expect is just around the corner: the arrival on the court of a justice who would personify one of the most historically marginalized groups.“Black women have been overlooked for decades and decades in terms of their values and what they have to bring to society as well as to the bench,” said Leslie Davis, chief executive of the National Association of Minority and Women Owned Law Firms. “We should be able to look at our highest court in the land and see the reflection of some of the folks who have made America great. And that absolutely includes Black women.”Out of 115 justices in its history, the supreme court has counted two African American justices, one Latina and just five women. The court has no vacant seats but calls are growing for Stephen Breyer, a liberal who turns 83 this year, to retire. Last month, White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Biden’s campaign commitment to nominating a Black woman “absolutely” holds.“This is a big moment in the making,” said Ben Jealous, president of People For the American Way, which recently launched the Her Fight Our Fight campaign to support and promote women of color in government and public service roles.“The presumption is that whomever Biden nominates, the first Black woman to the supreme court would be filling both the shoes of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Thurgood Marshall,” said Jealous.The late Ginsburg, a pioneering lawyer for women’s rights, was succeeded last fall by the conservative justice Amy Coney Barrett. Marshall was succeeded in 1991 by the George HW Bush appointee Clarence Thomas, who “is anathema to everything that the civil rights community stands for”, Jealous said.“It would be both glorious and a relief to have a Black woman on the supreme court who actually represents the values of the civil rights community, and the most transformative lawyers in our nation’s history.”Tomiko Brown-Nagin, a civil rights historian, dean of the Harvard Radcliffe Institute and professor of constitutional law, said having qualified federal judges who “reflect the broad makeup of the American public” would strengthen democracy and faith in the courts.“It’s an important historical moment that signifies equal opportunity,” Brown-Nagin said. “That anyone who is qualified has the chance to be considered for nomination, notwithstanding race, notwithstanding gender. That is where we are. In some ways, we shouldn’t be congratulating ourselves, right?”Brown-Nagin pointed out that a campaign was advanced in the 1960s to nominate Constance Baker Motley, the first Black woman to sit as a federal judge, but some Democratic allies of President Lyndon Johnson opposed such a nomination because they saw it as too politically risky.“This moment could have happened 50 years ago,” Brown-Nagin said.Daniel L Goldberg, legal director of the progressive Alliance For Justice, said to call the moment “overdue” did not capture it.“It is stunning that in the entire history of the republic, that no African American woman has sat on the highest court in the country,” Goldberg said. “For way too long in our nation’s history, the only people who were considered suitable and qualified for the court happened to be white males.”The first Black woman supreme court justice is likely to be nominated at a time when a renewed push for racial justice brings renewed focus on the court, which has played a key role in enforcing desegregation and reinforcing anti-discrimination laws.I would like to see someone like Sherrilyn Ifill or Lia Epperson – a woman who comes out of Thurgood Marshall’s old law firmThe killing of Daunte Wright, a 20-year-old Black man, by a white police officer outside Minneapolis last weekend during the murder trial of former police officer Derek Chauvin has sharpened cries for a national answer to serial injustice at the local level – precisely the kind of conflict that typically lands before the supreme court.“As we sit here today, and watch the trial of Derek Chauvin’s murder of George Floyd, that precipitated a summer of protests for the lives of Black people to matter – it feels that it is time for there to be a Black woman on the supreme court, because of the moment that we are in right now,” said McDonald, the Utah activist.Davis said it was “imperative” the country make strides toward racial justice after the invasion of the Capitol in January by white supremacists intent on overturning the 2020 presidential election, goaded on by a former president.“That shows that there are folks who are intentional about not seeing diversity, equity and inclusion thrive,” Davis said. “Now is the time for us as a country to recognize that until we value the voices of everyone, including Black women, we are silencing a very important part of the fabric of America.”‘A significant pool’The percentage of Black women who are federal judges – a common stepping-stone to a high court nomination – is extraordinarily small.According to the federal judicial center, the US circuit courts count only five African American women among sitting judges out of 179. There are 42 African American women judges at the district court level, out of 677.Those numbers are partly owing to Republican obstruction of Black women nominated by Barack Obama, including former seventh circuit nominee Myra Selby. She was denied a hearing in the Senate for the entirety of 2016 – a year later Republicans filled the seat with Donald Trump’s nominee: Amy Coney Barrett.“There is a significant pool of lawyers, law professors, public officials who would be viable nominees for the federal courts,” said Brown-Nagin. “The problem is not the pool.”Last month, Brown-Nagin co-signed a letter to the Senate judiciary committee supporting the nomination of district court Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the court of appeals for the DC district, sometimes informally referred to as the second-highest court in the land.“Her resumé virtually screams that she is an ideal nominee for an appellate court or even the supreme court, and that is because she has the combination of educational and professional experience on the federal courts that feasibly fits the mold of typical supreme court nominees,” Brown-Nagin said.“I would say it goes beyond what we’ve seen, frankly, in recent nominees to the court.”Jealous, a former president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), said he would like to see a nominee “who cut their teeth defending the people, not corporations”.“I would like to see someone like Sherrilyn Ifill or Lia Epperson – a woman who comes out of Thurgood Marshall’s old law firm, the NAACP legal defense fund, with a courageous commitment to defending the rights of all Americans,” he said.McDonald said having a Black woman on the supreme court would mean American history had “come full circle”.“I feel in my heart that it’s time,” she said. “Everything takes its time. And everything happens at its time. I was raised in a church, so I’m just going to say it like that.” More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Supreme court justice Amy Coney Barrett reportedly signs $2m book deal

      by

      The former attorney general William Barr and supreme court justice Amy Coney Barrett have reportedly signed book deals – with Barrett paid a reported $2m for a volume on how judges should not bring their personal feelings into the way they rule.Barrett was appointed to the court in a hurried, politicized and bitter process last year, after the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a champion of progressive values.Barrett is a strict Catholic and her presence on the 6-3 conservative court has given rightwing campaigners hope it will soon strike down Roe v Wade, the 1973 ruling which established the right to abortion.An unnamed source who spoke to Politico said Barrett’s advance was “eye-raising”. A spokesperson for the court did not comment.Barr, who was also attorney general under George HW Bush, is also a strict Catholic conservative. Politico reported that he had begun work on his memoir about working for Donald Trump.Legal analysts decried Barr’s actions in service of the 45th president, including a highly selective handling of the special counsel Robert Mueller’s report about Russian election interference and links between Trump and Moscow and support for Trump’s authoritarian impulses in response to protests for racial justice last summer.Barr resigned in December, over the president’s lies about voter fraud in his defeat by Joe Biden.One legal professional who clashed publicly with Barr and Trump, former New York prosecutor Geoffrey Berman, is reported to have sold a book for “a lot of money”.A source told Politico Berman’s book would be “part Paul Giamatti and Billions” – a reference to a hit TV series about corporate crime in New York – “and then sort of the Trump show in the southern district [of New York]”.Books about Trump’s time in power have proved lucrative, ever since in January 2018 the Guardian broke news of Fire and Fury, the first of two White House tell-alls by the reporter Michael Wolff.The Russia investigation has been retold in print by members of the special counsel’s team including Andrew Weissmann and Peter Strzok.Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser, is reportedly working on a book and former vice-president Mike Pence has signed a deal for two volumes. But Politico said a number of former Trump aides are struggling to find buyers.Peter Navarro, formerly a senior adviser to Trump on economics and trade, told the website: “The reports of my publishing death are greatly exaggerated. I have a major publishing agreement with an attractive advance and my book will be out shortly after Labor Day.”It was not immediately clear if Navarro would again co-operate with Ron Vara, an anti-China policy hand he has quoted liberally in previous books but who turned out both not to exist and to have for his name an anagram of “Navarro”. More

    • 175 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Democrats plan to unveil legislation to expand the US supreme court by four seats

      by

      Sign up for the Guardian’s First Thing newsletterDemocrats are planning to introduce a bill to expand the supreme court – proposing to add four justices to the US’s highest court.Senator Ed Markey, and representatives Jerrold Nadler, Hank Johnson and Mondaire Jones plan to present their legislation Thursday at a news conference. The measure would expand the number of justices from nine to 13, according to Reuters, which reviewed a copy of the bill in advance of it being released publicly. Although Joe Biden announced a commission to study supreme court expansion and reform, the politically incendiary question of changing the court is unlikely to be approved.Progressives have been pushing to expand the supreme court, after Donald Trump’s three appointees tilted the judicial body sharply to the right. One of the positions that Trump filled was a seat that Republicans had blocked his predecessor, Barack Obama, from filling in 2016 – arguing that the winner of that year’s election should choose whom to nominate for the vacant. But last year, Republicans reversed course – rushing to approve ultra-conservative justice Amy Coney Barrett weeks before the 2020 election.Discussions over reforming the court have taken on new urgency in recent months as the court is poised to address key questions on voting rights, reproductive rights and environmental protections.Who agrees that we should expand the Supreme Court?— Ed Markey (@EdMarkey) April 15, 2021
      Republicans and many moderate Democrats have opposed the idea of expanding the court, or what they sometimes call “court packing”.The Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, said the idea of expanding the court was “a direct assault on our nation’s independent judiciary and yet another sign of the Far Left’s influence over the Biden administration”.Biden has not taken a clear position on expansion. In the past, he has said he’s “not a fan” of the idea.Last week, he created a bipartisan, 36-member commission aimed at studying the history of the court and analyzing the potential consequences to altering its size. The commission is lead by Bob Bauer, the former White House counsel for Obama, and Cristina Rodriguez, a Yale Law School professor who served as deputy assistant attorney general in Obama’s Office of Legal Counsel. But it is unclear what the impact for the commission would be – as it is not required to produce definitive recommendations. More

    • 150 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      The Agenda review: why Biden must expand the supreme court – fast

      by

      If Congress follows Joe Biden’s $1.9tn Covid relief bill with an even more ambitious infrastructure bill, the new president could quickly claim the mantle of most transformative president since Franklin D Roosevelt.But this short, powerful new book by the legal journalist Ian Millhiser pinpoints the gigantic threat that could thwart most of the progress embodied in those two pieces of landmark legislation: the new 6-3 conservative majority on the supreme court.Writing clearly and succinctly, Millhiser dissects many of the worst opinions the modern court has rendered about voting rights, administrative law, religion and forced arbitration. After reading his cogent arguments, it becomes perfectly obvious why he thinks it’s necessary to end “with a note of alarm”.The extreme conservatives now steering the highest court may pose the single greatest “existential threat to the Democratic party’s national ambitions – and, more importantly, to liberal democracy in the United States … a Republican supreme court will fundamentally alter the structure of the American system of government” and “is likely to build a nation where … only conservatives have the opportunity to govern”.Trump’s greatest (and worst) achievement was the appointment of 234 federal judges, including three on the supreme courtHow radical are these justices? When the American Bar Association polled experts, 85% of them predicted all or most of the Affordable Care Act would be upheld. Then four supreme court justices voted to repeal it in its entirety. Clarence Thomas has suggested his predecessors were absolutely right to strike down child labor laws more than a century ago. The conservative justices on the current court rarely side with their liberal colleagues in 5-4 decisions – Samuel Alito has never done so. Chief Justice John Roberts dismantled much of the Voting Rights Act in 2013 and many observers think he is likely to join his newest colleague, Amy Coney Barrett, in a ruling this term that could complete the evisceration of the landmark civil rights legislation.Of course, most of the damage to voting rights has been done – and scores of state legislatures are poised to follow the loathsome example of Georgia by doing everything they can to make minority voting every more difficult than it already is.Millhiser does an especially good job of explaining the catastrophic effect of Roberts’ decision to no longer allow the justice department to require local jurisdictions to submit proposed voting rights law changes before they go into effect.This, he writes, gave state lawmakers “a profound incentive to enact gerrymanders and other forms of voter suppression even if those laws will ultimately be invalidated by a court order”, because “if the state gets to run just one rigged election under the invalid law”, it will already have advanced the racist goals of the law’s authors.Millhiser’s book is bulging with examples that prove that the same Republican justices who proclaim the need to rein in the executive branch whenever there is a Democrat in the White House have no trouble at all ignoring their imaginary “judicial philosophies” – as soon, say, as a Republican such as Donald Trump asserts a unilateral right to ban Muslims from entering the US.Trump’s greatest (and worst) achievement was the appointment of 234 federal judges, including three for the supreme court and 54 for the courts of appeals. This means there is only one Biden administration initiative which is potentially even more important than the Covid and infrastructure bills.It is the newly appointed commission charged with carrying out Biden’s campaign promise to investigate whether or not membership of the supreme court should be expanded – something that can be accomplished by a simple act of Congress.It’s no coincidence that Millhiser started making smart arguments to expand the court two years ago.In the words of Aaron Belkin, whose advocacy group Take Back the Court pushed for the rapid creation of the new commission, the current court “is a danger to the health and wellbeing of the nation and even to democracy itself”.“This White House judicial reform commission has a historic opportunity to both explain the gravity of the threat and to help contain it,” Belkin told USA Today.This great short book makes it clear that the breadth of the new commission’s ambitions and the success of the Biden administration in carrying them out will be more important to our nation’s future than everything else the president and Congress accomplish. More

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Biden orders commission to study supreme court expansion and reform

      by

      Joe Biden on Friday ordered a study of adding seats to the supreme court, creating a bipartisan 36-member commission that will spend the next six months examining the politically incendiary issues of expanding the court and instituting term limits for its justices.The executive order fulfills a campaign promise to examine court reform, including expanding the number of justices or setting term-limits, amid growing calls from progressive activists to realign the supreme court after its composition tilted sharply to the right during Donald Trump’s presidency. Biden has not said whether he supports expanding the court, also known as “court packing”.Trump appointed three justices to the high court. One was a seat that Republicans had blocked Trump’s predecessor, Barack Obama, from filling. Despite arguing in 2016 that the seat should be filled by winner of the year’s presidential election, Republicans rushed to fill the supreme court seat vacated by death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg just weeks before the 2020 election.The result was one of the most ideologically conservative courts in modern times.Biden’s executive order directs the commission to complete its report within 180 days of its first meeting. But it was not charged with making a recommendation under the White House order that created it.The panel is composed of a “bipartisan group of experts” that includes constitutional and legal scholars; former federal judges; practitioners who have appeared before the court as well as reform advocates.The commission co-chairs are Bob Bauer, professor of practice and distinguished scholar in residence at New York University School of Law and a former White House counsel for Obama, as well as the Yale Law School professor Cristina Rodriguez, former deputy assistant attorney general in the office of legal counsel at the US Department of Justice under Obama.The commission will hold public meetings appraising the “merits and legality of particular reform proposals”, according to the White House.The announcement comes after the supreme court justice Stephen Breyer warned this week that efforts to expand the court could erode public “trust that the court is guided by legal principle, not politics”.The remarks by Breyer, 82, the court’s oldest justice and a member of its minority liberal bloc, prompted calls for his resignation from reform advocates while Democrats still control the Senate and the confirmation process. Demand Justice, a progressive group focused on the supreme court, started an online petition calling for his retirement.“Tell Justice Breyer: put the country first. Don’t risk your legacy to an uncertain political future. Retire now,” the petition states.If an opening should arise, Biden has promised to appoint the nation’s first ever Black female justice.On Friday, the White House press secretary, Jen Psaki, told reporters that Biden was not pushing for Breyer to retire.“He believes that’s a decision Justice Breyer will make when he decides it’s time to no longer serve on the supreme court,” she said.During his presidential campaign, Biden repeatedly sidestepped questions on expanding the court. A former chair of the Senate judiciary committee, Biden has asserted that the system of judicial nominations is “getting out of whack”, but has not said if he supports adding seats or making other changes to the current system of lifetime appointments, such as imposing term limits.The size of the court has been set at nine members since just after the civil war. Any effort to alter it would be explosive, particularly at a moment when Congress is nearly evenly divided. Changing the number of justices would require congressional approval.“With five justices appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote, it’s crucial that we consider every option for wresting back political control of the supreme court,” said Nan Aron, president of the Alliance for Justice, a liberal judicial advocacy group.“President Biden’s commission demonstrates a strong commitment to studying this situation and taking action.”Associated Press contributed to this report More

    • 150 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Justice, Justice Thou Shalt Pursue review: how Ruth Bader Ginsburg changed America

      by

      Two and a half years ago, at a naturalization ceremony for newly minted Americans, Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked: “What is the difference between a bookkeeper in New York City’s garment district and a supreme court justice?”Her answer: “One generation … the difference between opportunities available to my mother and those afforded me.”From this new selection of Ginsburg’s arguments, speeches and opinions – the justice’s greatest hits – it is clear she deserves at least as much credit as any other American for that remarkably rapid transformation.This book is full of evidence that even in a nation like ours, where over the last 50 years the concentration of power in the hands of the top 1% has steadily worsened, a brilliant and determined individual with the right alliances can still bring about extraordinary change within her own lifetime.The book’s co-author, Amanda L Tyler, writes that Ginsburg’s work for gender equality is comparable to Justice Thurgood Marshall’s trailblazing quest to dismantle segregation.The burning determination of the gay activist Frank Kameny similarly transformed the status of LGBTQ people – and Ginsberg’s commitment to equal rights for all meant that she ended up doing just as much to expand the rights of sexual minorities as she did for the rights of women.Looking back from the third decade of the 21st century, the breadth and depth of the discrimination women of Ginsberg’s generation faced at the beginning of their careers is astonishing.Harvard Law School never allowed a woman student until 1950. When Ginsburg entered, in 1956, she was one of just nine women in a class of 500. Across America, women were routinely excluded from jury pools. Through the 1960s, the supreme court even declined to disturb a law that prohibited women from bartending “unless they did so under the auspices of a husband or father”.In 1963, when she started teaching law at Rutgers, Ginsburg was only the 19th woman professor at an American law school – and the dean proudly disobeyed the newly passed Equal Pay Act by paying her much less than her male colleagues, because she had a “husband with a well-paid job”.Ginsburg’s determination was obvious. When she was still in law school, her husband, Marty, developed a virulent form of cancer. They also had an infant daughter. But neither handicap prevented her or her husband from excelling in their studies and she actually described her child-rearing duties as an advantage in law school, because they gave her a more balanced life than most of her classmates.“Each part of my life was a respite from the other,” Ginsberg explained, six decades later. “After an intense day at the law school, I was glad to have the childcare hours. And then when Jane went to bed, I was ready to go back to the books. I think it was an appreciation that there is more to life than law school that accounts for how well I did.”In one of the first cases she litigated with her husband, in 1971, Moritz v Commissioner of Internal Revenue, they argued that Charles Moritz, a never-married man who cared for his mother, was denied a caregiver deduction a woman in his position would have received.Congress amended the law to permit all caregivers to claim the deduction going forward, but the government kept the appeal going anyway. It was then that Ginsburg received her greatest gift from her adversary: a list of every provision in the United States Code that differentiated on the basis of sex.“There it was, right in front of us,” she recalled, “all the laws that needed to be changed or eliminated … it was our road map, a pearl beyond price, that list of federal statutes.”In the 60s, excelling in law school didn’t mean a woman would be a strong candidate to be hired by any of the fanciest firms. But in retrospect Ginsberg agreed with the first woman on the supreme court, Sandra Day O’Connor, that even this kind of adversity had its advantages.Ginsburg often repeated O’Connor’s comment: “Suppose you and I had gone to law school … when there was no barrier to women in the legal profession. Where would we be now? We would be retired partners of a large law firm.” But because they had to find a different path, “both of us ended up on the US supreme court.”This book is also a reminder of the wisdom of Vincent Scully, the great Yale architectural historian, who noted just two years after Ginsburg was appointed to the court that “ours is a time which, with all its agonies, has … been marked most of all by liberation” – black liberation, women’s liberation and gay liberation.“Those movements, though they have a deep past in American history, were almost inconceivable just before they occurred,” Scully said. “Then, all of a sudden in the 1960s, they burst out together, changing us all.”Ginsberg’s energy and perspicacity gave her a singularly important role in bringing about many of those fundamental changes. More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      US supreme court could deal blow to provision protecting minority voters

      by

      The US supreme court will hear a case on Tuesday that could allow the court’s conservative majority to deal a major blow to the most powerful remaining provision of the Voting Rights Act, the 1965 law designed to prevent racial discrimination in voting.Sign up for the Guardian’s Fight to Vote newsletterThe case, Brnovich v Democratic National Committee, involves a dispute over two Arizona measures. One is a 2016 law that bans anyone other than a close family member or caregiver from collecting absentee ballots, sometimes called ballot harvesting. The second is a measure that requires officials to reject ballots cast in the wrong precinct, even if the voter has cast a vote in statewide races.Arizona rejected more than 38,335 ballots cast in the wrong precinct between 2008 and 2016 and minority voters were twice as likely as white voters to have their ballots rejected, the DNC noted in its brief. Minority voters, including the state’s Native American population, are disproportionately harmed by the ballot collection ban because they are more likely to lack reliable mail service.The DNC argues that the policies violated section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits voting laws that discriminate based on race. A trial court ruled in 2018 that the policies did not violate the law, and a three-judge panel on the US court of appeals for the ninth circuit later upheld that ruling. But the full circuit voted to rehear the case and last year found that the policies did violate the Voting Rights Act. Now, the Arizona attorney general, Mark Brnovich, a Republican, and the Arizona Republican party are appealing that ruling to the US supreme court.And though the facts in the case are about Arizona, the stakes could extend far beyond it. Brnovich and the Arizona Republican party are urging the court to use the case as a vehicle for announcing a narrower view of section 2 than the one currently in use.Such a ruling would take away one of most powerful tools that voting rights groups have to challenge discriminatory voting laws. Section 2 was elevated after the supreme court’s 2013 decision in Shelby County v Holder that struck down another Voting Rights Act provision requiring certain places with a history of voting discrimination, including Arizona, to submit voting laws to the federal government for pre-clearance before they went into effect.“Without preclearance on the books, we’ve all had to rely more heavily on section 2 in order to address racial discrimination in voting,” said Sean Morales-Doyle, an attorney at the Brennan Center for Justice who helped author an amicus brief in the case in support of the DNC’s position. “If section 2 is limited, then we have even fewer tools.”Losing the full power of section 2 would also make it harder for litigants, including the justice department, to challenge the wave of restrictive bills bubbling in Georgia and other state legislatures that would make it harder to vote, added Deuel Ross, an attorney with the NAACP Legal Defense Fund (LDF), which also filed an amicus brief in support of the DNC.The case arrives at a supreme court where conservatives now have a powerful 6-3 majority that appears increasingly hostile to voting rights. It repeatedly refused to expand access to the ballot during the pandemic last year. And since its decision in Shelby County v Holder, the court has given the green light to aggressive voter purging and severe partisan gerrymandering.Brnovich and the Arizona GOP want the supreme court to clarify the approach courts should take when they are evaluating whether a law violates section 2. Brnovich is also asking the supreme court to set a high bar for minority voters and their lawyers to clear in order to prove that a law runs afoul of section 2. Generally, he argues that courts should use an approach for evaluating section 2 claims that would make it harder to challenge facially neutral measures, such as voter ID laws, that do not explicitly make it harder for a specific group to vote. And if minority voters are able to prove that a law has a “substantial disparate impact” on them, Brnovich argues, they should be required to show that disparity is directly connected to the voting policy.But discriminatory voting laws often don’t work that way. There is a long history in the US of using policies that, taken in a vacuum, appear racially neutral because they apply to everyone, but are designed to interact with economic, social and other factors to make it harder to vote, LDF wrote in its amicus brief. Literacy tests and property requirements, the suppressive devices used in Jim Crow, applied to everyone, but made it harder for Black voters to register because of unequal education and economic factors, the group noted.“You’re talking about two very specific voting laws that have a really obvious connection to the history of discrimination against indigenous, Black and brown voters in this state,” said Allison Riggs, the interim executive director of the Southern Coalition for Social Justice, which filed an amicus brief in support of the DNC’s position. “Poverty, lack of transportation, lack of access to flexible work and living wages is why out of precinct voting is important and why ballot collection, particularly on indigenous lands is so important.”One of the most interesting votes in the case will be that of Chief Justice John Roberts. When he authored the Shelby opinion in 2013, he specifically pointed to section 2 as one of the most powerful tools still in place to combat voting discrimination. But in 1982, then a young lawyer in the justice department, he strongly advocated against expanding section 2 and keeping it only limited to cases in which there was evidence of intentional discrimination. Roberts ultimately lost the argument.Democrats argue in their brief that Arizona is proposing an “overly narrow” way of looking at section 2. The ninth circuit, Democrats say, appropriately analyzed the measures, finding that it disproportionately affected minority voters and worked in combination with social and historical conditions in Arizona to make it harder for those voters to cast a ballot.Richard Hasen, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine, noted in a blogpost last month that voting rights litigators have generally been hesitant about pushing section 2 claims too far. The Democratic party, he wrote, didn’t seem to have that concern in this case, opening up an opportunity for Republicans to narrow the law.“Section 2 has done important work to rein in some of the worst forms of vote denial in recent years, and it would be a tremendous shame if this overreach of a case ends up serving as the vehicle to eviscerate what remains of the crown jewel of the civil rights movement,” he wrote in a post on SCOTUSBlog.In December, Donald Trump’s justice department filed an amicus brief backing Brnovich and endorsing a narrower framework for interpreting section 2. But in February, the Biden administration filed a letter with the court abandoning that position. The justice department said it still believed the Arizona measures did not violate the Voting Rights Act, but no longer backed the framework for interpreting section 2 put forth by the Trump administration.There are multiple ways the court could choose to rule in the case without weakening the scope of section 2. Morales-Doyle, the Brennan Center attorney, said he hoped the court recognized the climate around elections and race in which they were hearing the case.“There’s a big-picture narrative as to what’s going on with our democracy and race in American society. The court’s going to get to weigh in right now,” he said. “I think our hope is that the court instead sees it as an opportunity to reaffirm the values and the protections we have in place for our democracy.” More