webodec3ARCHIVEPreview
Open in TheBrain

8th Circuit appeal

---

BRET KAVA

SEE LINDELL ~

GERRY MIZZOU 9 26

---

circuit Assignments

It is ordered that the following allotment be made of The Chief Justice and the Associate Justices of this Court among the circuits, pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 42 and that such allotment be entered of record, effective September 28, 2022.

> (Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island)

---

===

-=-=

AN 11 26

On Friday, it was revealed that a last-minute attempt to jam through a judicial confirmation has pitted President Donald Trump against several Republican senators. According to attorney Mike Davis – who served as Chief Counsel for Nominations on the Senate Judiciary Committee and as a clerk for Justice Neil Gorsuch – the senators in question have committed an “unforgivable sin” by opposing Trump and blocking their own party’s nominee.

As Davis notes, Trump has nominated Lee Rudofsky – the current U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas – to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, an appellate court that covers Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota. After the midterms, however, which dealt a generational blow against the GOP, eliminating the party’s majority in both the House and Senate, the clock is ticking before Democrats assume control over Congress in January, which will make it virtually impossible for Trump to have nominees like Rudofsky confirmed.

But if the narrow window to act wasn’t obstacle enough, the president is also facing opposition from his own party. According to Davis, “Arkansas' two Republican home-state senators – [John Boozman] and [Tom Cotton] – are blocking Rudofsky, as they wanted someone else.” According to Davis, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) and Sen. Thom Tillis (R-SC) are acting as the public face of the blocking effort, as both are leaving the Senate at the end of the term and therefore can oppose Trump without worrying about drawing his wrath. But regardless of whether the departing senators take the blame, Davis asserts that the effort is an “unforgivable sin for Boozman and Cotton.” If they don’t change their minds fast, notes Davis, “Republicans will lose this key appellate court seat.”

Trump’s judicial appointments may represent his longest-lasting legacy. As Politico explains, “Trump has already, over the course of his two terms, appointed nearly 300 judges who, collectively, will pull the federal bench to the right for a generation. His second-term judges, in particular, have often proven to be outliers even among the conservative judiciary. But the lame-duck president will be able to confirm few, if any, new judges once Democrats formally take over the Senate in January.” What’s more, “Assuming the Senate maintains its longstanding ‘blue slip’ rule giving senators veto power over judicial nominees in their state, newly elected Democrats will have the ability to block appointments in states like Texas, Kansas and South Carolina until 2033 — even if the GOP manages to regain control of the chamber and a Republican keeps the White House in 2029.”

According to the Wall Street Journal, Rudofsky is a staunch constitutional originalist who played a key role in gutting the Voting Rights Act when his 2022 decision ruled that private parties can’t sue under the act’s Section 2 anti-discrimination provisions. Then, in 2026, the Supreme Court essentially ended the protections offered by Section 2 altogether.

-=-=

-=-=

AN 9 26

With the 2026 midterms less one and one-half months away, a chaotic redistricting battle rages on in deep red Missouri. And MAGA Republicans are continuing to fight a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the state's congressional map.

Politico's Josh Gerstein, early Wednesday morning on X, reported, "BREAKING: Missouri redistricting fight hits [Supreme Court] for 3rd time. Opponents of plan likely to shift 1 House seat to GOP say appeals court basically defied earlier SCOTUS ruling. Kavanaugh sets short fuse, orders response by 2PM Wednesday."

CNN's Aaron Blake, responding to Gerstein's tweet, posted, "There are less than six weeks until the election, and we still don't know which districts Missouri is using."

Gerstein, in Politico, explains, "Opponents of a GOP-friendly gerrymander in Missouri are again asking the Supreme Court to put the plan to rest with a definitive ruling. It's the third time the issue has reached the High Court in the past few weeks. Both of the prior trips resulted in rulings against the state's new, GOP-friendly House map, but a federal appeals court panel rekindled the fight Monday when it ordered the state to use the new map in November."

Gerstein continues, "The new emergency appeal from redistricting opponents asks Justice Brett Kavanaugh to block this week's unusual decision from the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, which came despite a unanimous ruling from Missouri's top court that the election should proceed under an existing map that gives Republicans a 7-2 advantage over Democrats in the state's House delegation. Kavanaugh put the latest request on a short fuse. He ordered state officials and Republican candidates seeking to stick with the new map to respond by 2 p.m. Wednesday."

Gerstein notes that although "the new pro-GOP map was used for primary elections" in August, the Missouri Supreme Court "ruled those lines never went into effect because a successful petition drive meant the new map required approval from the state's voters in a referendum prior to being adopted."

"The U.S. Supreme Court's first snub of the Republican-led effort came on September 8, when Kavanaugh turned down an emergency appeal by state officials seeking to overturn the Missouri Supreme Court's decision," Gerstein notes. "However, within minutes of Kavanaugh's order, U.S. District Judge Stephen Clark, a Trump appointee, granted a restraining order two GOP candidates sought against using the older lines for the general election. A challenge to Clark's order eventually reached the full Supreme Court, which put it on hold two days later."

Gerstein adds, "While no justice noted any dissent from the ruling, the justices also offered no explanation for it, which the 8th Circuit appears to have interpreted as leaving them free rein on the issue."

-=-=

-=-=

AN 9 26

Republican officials aren’t giving up on the congressional map they pushed through the Missouri legislature last year, despite two setbacks at the U.S. Supreme Court and a state Supreme Court ruling that the map never became law.

Their next chance comes Thursday before the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

But the legal path to getting the map back in place for November appears exceedingly narrow.

Even if the federal appeals court sides with Republicans challenging the use of Missouri’s old congressional districts, a U.S. Supreme Court order blocking the 2025 map would remain in effect unless the justices themselves lift it.

And there is another problem: The Missouri Supreme Court has already ruled that the map Republicans want to use never took effect under state law.

Former Missouri Supreme Court Judge Michael Wolff described that as an “insuperable obstacle.”

“The Supreme Court of Missouri is the final authority on what Missouri law is,” he said, “and the court has said that (the 2025 map) is not the law and never was, because it has not been approved by a vote of the people.”

For the Republican plaintiffs to prevail, he said, the 8th Circuit would effectively have to order Missouri to conduct an election using districts that the state’s highest court has determined are not legally in effect.

And even then, Wolff said, the U.S. Supreme Court’s stay would stand in the way.

“The chances,” Wolff said, “are between zero and zero.”

Justin Levitt, a law professor at Loyola Marymount University, told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch there is virtually no chance an 8th Circuit ruling will ultimately change the map used in the November election.

“The war’s over,” he said, “but there’s still soldiers fighting.”

Republican leaders see it differently.

Gov. Mike Kehoe, who called lawmakers into a special session last year to redraw Missouri’s congressional districts at President Donald Trump’s request, said after the U.S. Supreme Court intervened last week that he still hopes the appeals court will revive the map.

“I look forward to the 8th Circuit’s consideration of the merits of the Missouri First Map and remain confident in the legal process moving forward,” Kehoe said. “Voters deserve certainty and clarity.”

The 8th Circuit has set remote oral arguments for 10 a.m. Thursday, two days before the federal deadline for Missouri to send ballots to military and overseas voters.

The case was filed by U.S. Rep. Bob Onder, state Sen. Rick Brattin and two Missouri voters after the Missouri Supreme Court ruled Sept. 3 that a referendum petition challenging the new map was legal, sufficient and timely.

That unanimous decision put the map on the Nov. 3 ballot as Proposition A and held that the 2025 districts never took effect because a successful referendum petition suspends the challenged law until voters decide its fate.

The practical result is unusual: Missouri held its Aug. 4 congressional primaries under the 2025 map but is now preparing to hold the general election under the districts used in 2022 and 2024. Onder, Brattin and the other plaintiffs argue that switching maps between the primary and general election violates the U.S. Constitution by effectively nullifying votes already cast in the primary.

Chief U.S. District Judge Stephen Clark in St. Louis agreed they were likely to prevail on that argument and on Sept. 8 issued a temporary restraining order preventing Secretary of State Denny Hoskins from using any congressional map but the 2025 plan.

That set off two days of legal whiplash.

The 8th Circuit initially declined an appeal of Clark’s order, noting that appeals courts generally lack jurisdiction to review temporary restraining orders.

People Not Politicians, the group behind the referendum, then went to the U.S. Supreme Court, which Thursday morning stayed Clark’s order without any noted dissents.

The high court said its stay will remain in effect while the case is before the 8th Circuit and through any timely petition asking the justices to review the appeals court’s eventual ruling.

That means an 8th Circuit decision favoring Onder and the other plaintiffs would not, by itself, put the 2025 map back in place.

After the U.S. Supreme Court intervened, the 8th Circuit moved quickly, ordering expedited briefs and scheduling Thursday’s argument.

Hours after the U.S. Supreme Court acted, Hoskins reversed a directive he had issued to local election officials and told them to use the 2022 map. The Missouri Supreme Court found Hoskins had been in contempt of its Sept. 3 order but said he purged the contempt by reversing course.

During the contempt hearing, Chief Justice W. Brent Powell repeatedly pressed lawyers for Hoskins on a question that could hang over Thursday’s federal argument: Whatever the federal courts decide, can they change the Missouri Supreme Court’s conclusion that the 2025 map never became state law?

“(The 2025 map) never went into effect, right?” Powell asked William Seidleck, an assistant attorney general representing Hoskins.

“Per this court’s holding, yes,” Seidleck replied.

Powell returned to the point later, asking whether a future federal ruling could change the fact that the map had never taken effect.

“As a matter of state law,” Seidleck said, it could not.

Chuck Hatfield, an attorney for People Not Politicians, told the judges he believed the U.S. Supreme Court’s intervention had largely eliminated the immediate stakes of the federal appeal.

“I think we’re done, judge, as a practical matter,” Hatfield said, though he acknowledged the litigation could continue.

One of the biggest unanswered questions heading into Thursday is what position Attorney General Catherine Hanaway’s office will take.

Hanaway represents Missouri and Hoskins in the federal litigation. Her office sided with the Republican plaintiffs before Clark and urged him to block use of the 2022 map. It later asked the U.S. Supreme Court to leave Clark’s order in place.

But after the U.S. Supreme Court stayed that order and Hoskins agreed to follow the state court’s directive, Hanaway was less definitive about what comes next.

“As far as our strategy for the 8th Circuit, I don’t know, because it’s a very confusing posture,” Hanaway told reporters last week.

Asked whether any path remained to revive the 2025 map, she told reporters: “As I stand here today, no.”

Military and overseas ballots must be sent by Sept. 19. Local election officials spent much of last week waiting for the courts to decide which congressional districts they should use before Hoskins’ Thursday directive put them back on the 2022 map.

-=-=

---

AN 5 26

One of President Donald Trump’s most outspoken supporters, MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell, is trying to get out of owing $5 million to an engineer who proved him wrong about his 2020 election conspiracy theories.

Robert “Bob” Zeidman, an engineer who in a 2021 contest successfully proved Lindell relied on junk science to claim China meddled in the 2020 election to steal it from Trump, filed a motion for a rehearing “by the original arbitration” panel that awarded him a $5 million settlement. Although those judges determined that Zeidman had proved Lindell wrong beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore Lindell owed him money, three Republican-appointed judges from the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals threw out the settlement. The Supreme Court, also controlled by Republicans, refused to intervene.

Despite Zeidman wanting the settlement restored, Lindell’s attorneys are arguing that the decision to throw out his claims should remain final.

“In an April 30 filing, Lindell Management LLC attorney Barbara Podlucky Berens asked Senior U.S. District Judge John R. Tunheim, a Bill Clinton appointee, to agree that Zeidman should get no such rehearing because he would have ‘no viable theory’ to collect the $5 million upon a ‘second bite of the apple’ before the arbitration panel,” Law and Crime’s Matt Naham reported on Wednesday.

The filing argued that "Zeidman's alleged successful demonstration regarding the data at issue was based solely on the absence of capture packet data. Thus, in order to succeed, this claim, like the breach of contract claim, is contingent on the validity of the extracontractual data-format requirement imposed by the Pane. And like the breach of contract claim, the Eighth Circuit's express reversal of the Panel's capture packet data requirement defeats this claim as a matter of law."

Lindell’s legal team concluded, "Any rehearing would thus be futile.”

Despite Trump, Lindell and others in the MAGA movement insisting the 2020 election was stolen, conservative columnist George F. Will recently noted that the Republicans’ claims have been thoroughly litigated and debunked.

“Someone should read to him ‘Lost, Not Stolen,’ a 2022 report by eight conservatives (two former Republican senators, three former federal appellate judges, a former Republican solicitor general, and two Republican election law specialists),” Will wrote. “They examined all 187 counts in the 64 court challenges filed in multiple states by Trump and his supporters. Twenty cases were dismissed before hearings on their merits, 14 were voluntarily dismissed by Trump and his supporters before hearings. Of the 30 that reached hearings on the merits, Trump’s side prevailed in only one, Pennsylvania, involving far too few votes to change the state’s result.”

Will added, “Trump’s batting average? .016. In Arizona, the most exhaustively scrutinized state, a private firm selected by Trump’s advocates confirmed Trump’s loss, finding 99 additional Biden votes and 261 fewer Trump votes.” Therefore he wrote of Trump, “The man who never alters his opinion is like standing water, and breeds reptiles of the mind.”

---

AN 1 26

A federal appeals court has now lifted restrictions on U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in how they're meant to deal with local protesters in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Politico legal correspondent Kyle Cheney reported Wednesday that the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals — whose jurisdiction encompasses Minnesota along with six other states — has now granted a motion by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to impose a stay on a temporary restraining order (TRO) put in place by U.S. District Judge Kate Menendez (an appointee of former President Joe Biden). This means that the restrictions will no longer be in place while the DHS appeals them to the circuit court.

After Judge Menendez's TRO was stayed, this means that ICE agents will now once again be allowed to use less-than-lethal munitions on protesters, like flash-bang grenades and tear gas, and make arrests. Politico reported that the TRO was initially put in place following a lawsuit filed over DHS' heavy-handed response to protests that unfolded in the wake of the fatal shooting of U.S. citizen Renee Good.

DHS and ICE had previously been prohibited from "using pepper-spray or similar nonlethal munitions and crowd dispersal tools against persons who are engaging in peaceful and unobstructive protest activity." Judge Menendez's order also forbade federal agents from pulling over citizens for following them, as long as they were keeping an "appropriate" distance.

The overturning of Menendez's TRO comes on the heels of the Trump administration telling military personnel to prepare for a "possible mobilization to Minneapolis." The Department of Justice (DOJ) has also announced federal investigations into Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz – who have encouraged citizens to film and document ICE actions — for allegedly impeding law enforcement operations.

Former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance recently compared the Trump administration's handling of Minneapolis protesters to former Birmingham, Alabama Sheriff Bull Connor's treatment of protesters during the Civil Rights Movement. She also condemned the DOJ for objecting to Judge Menendez's order, writing on her Substack: "DOJ has stopped being the independent gem in the crown of the American rule of law."

"Now, it’s just Trump’s law firm," she wrote. "He’s finally found his Roy Cohn, a number of them."

---

===

{{{== note ccr 1st amend bs

desmog 4 24

fossil fuel interest groups have mobilized quickly to oppose a new rule issued by the Biden administration designed to speed up America’s transition to hybrid and electric vehicles.

The rule, which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized on March 20, limits emissions from tailpipes on new cars, starting in 2027.

Well before the EPA finalized the new standard, powerful corporate lobbies like the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) had already promised to spend at least a million dollars campaigning against the rule by falsely portraying it as a “ban” on new cars. The group’shyperbolicads warn viewers that their freedoms and choices “will soon be taking a back seat to big government.”

The EPA predicts that the change would result in around two-thirds of new vehicle sales being hybrid or electric by 2032 — up from around eight percent today.

Beyond stopping more than 7 billion tons of carbon pollution, the agency predicts that the rule could save drivers more than $60 billion in fuel and maintenance costs, according to an EPA fact sheet that accompanied the final rule. The pollution reduction benefits would particularly benefit Black and brown communities because they are disproportionately likely to suffer from air pollution.

“These strongest-ever pollution standards for cars solidify America’s leadership in building a clean transportation future and creating good-paying American jobs,” EPA administrator Michael S. Regan said in a statement.

Compared to the EPA’s initial proposal, the final rule was scaled back to give car manufacturers more time to comply, but the New York Times still described the new standard as “one of the most significant climate regulations in the nation’s history.”

The heads of AFPM and the American Petroleum Institute (API) — the leading trade group for the oil and gas industry — declared in a joint statement that the rule “will unequivocally eliminate most new gas cars and traditional hybrids from the U.S. market in less than a decade.”

In February, AFPM had already begun portraying the rule as a “car ban” and announced a “seven-figure issue campaign” featuring TV and digital ads, as well as billboards and text messages. Some of the efforts target electoral swing states, including Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. The group also launched a website that warns readers, in all caps, to “keep the government’s hands off our cars!”

Despite the industry’s attempt to misleadingly brand the new standard, “this is not a ban of internal combustion engines,” Margaret Wooldridge, a professor of mechanical engineering at the University of Michigan, said in a statement.

Last year, AFPM spent nearly $7 million lobbying the federal government — more than any year in its history — according to OpenSecrets.

The top two bills the group reported lobbying for are designed to prevent the EPA from finalizing or enforcing vehicle emissions standards. Both bills passed the House last year. (Chevron, API, Koch Industries, and Marathon Petroleum are among the other industry groups and companies that lobbied for these bills last year.)

In addition to lobbying Congress and running million-dollar public influence campaigns, corporate trade groups have increasingly used lawsuits and the threat of costly, time-consuming litigation to stop or delay climate-related regulations.

Earlier this month, for instance, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) finalized a long-delayed rule that requires public companies to disclose some of their emissions and climate risks that could impact their businesses. While the published rule was substantially weaker than what the SEC originally proposed, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce was among a handful of conservative interest groups that immediately challenged the measure in court.

Another recent EPA rule targeting methane emissions also met with opposition from Republican officials and oil and gas interests, according to Politico.

And on March 6, barely a month after the EPA finalized a separate rule limiting soot pollution, API, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the Chamber were among eight trade groups that sued the agency in the D.C. Circuit court.

‘Prepared to challenge it in court’

In a blog post, AFPM claims that the EPA “does not have authority to overhaul the U.S. economy or transportation system or compel — directly or otherwise — the use of EVs to address vehicle emissions.”

Similar objections to the authority of federal agencies to issue regulations have found a receptive audience among the Supreme Court’s conservative majority.

If the EPA doesn’t undo the tailpipe emissions rule, “our organizations are certainly prepared to challenge it in court,” the AFPM and API CEOs said in the joint statement that followed the announcement.

In attacking the rule, corporate interest groups like AFPM are following a well-trod path of fighting new climate regulations on every playing field they can find.

During the Trump administration, AFPM helped lead a successful effort to weaken previous EPA fuel efficiency standards. The group helped marshal Republican governors to advocate for the rollback, while also supporting Energy4US, a front group that encouraged Americans to flood the EPA with public comments, as DeSmog previously reported.

“One of the big advantages that oil industry lobbyists like AFPM have is money, and AFPM certainly isn’t afraid to use it,” Jesse Coleman, a senior researcher at the investigative outlet Documented, told DeSmog in an email.

“Million dollar ad campaigns are an unfortunately common way for groups like AFPM to pressure legislators and regulators by raising the political temperature on an issue. Litigation slows things further, leading to years of delays in implementation.”

---

REF DESMOG

March 21 (Reuters) - A U.S. judicial panel on Thursday consolidated at least nine lawsuits challenging the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's new rules requiring public companies to report climate-related risks in a venue favored by Republican-led states and a business group.

The St. Louis-based 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was chosen randomly via a lottery and will consider the legal challenges to the landmark rule, which aims to standardize public company disclosures about greenhouse gas emissions, weather-related risks and how they are preparing for the transition to a low-carbon economy.

The court, which has 10 Republican-appointed active judges and one appointed by a Democratic president, was the venue where nine Republican-led states including Iowa, Montana and North Dakota and the business lobbying group American Free Enterprise Chamber of Commerce filed their challenge.

Representatives for the Republican-led states and industry challengers did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The SEC declined to comment.

First proposed in 2022, the rules are part of Democratic President Joe Biden’s efforts to leverage federal agency rulemaking to address climate change threats.

They were approved by the SEC on March 6, and the first lawsuit seeking to block them was filed later that day.

The consolidated lawsuits include challenges filed by at least 25 Republican-led states, energy industry companies and business groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the nation's largest business lobby, seeking to overturn the rules.

They have argued, among other things, that the disclosure requirements amount to back-door environmental regulations that go beyond the SEC’s legal authority.

Challengers on the other side of the issue like the environmental organization the Sierra Club and Natural Resources Defense Council have meanwhile said the rules do not go far enough to protect investors, and arbitrarily stripped the final version of stronger reporting requirement rules.

Representatives for the environmental groups said they look forward to arguing before the court.

The conservative-dominated 5th Circuit, the court where Texas and energy companies filed their challenges, temporarily paused the rules from going into effect on Friday.

The SEC is expected to ask the 8th Circuit to revisit that ruling. It had told the 5th Circuit a pause was unnecessary, since the rules have extended compliance deadlines that do not require disclosures before March 2026.}:

The agency has also said the rules "fit comfortably within" its authority to require disclosure of information important to investors, and that they would provide "consistent, comparable and reliable information" about climate risks.

The nine lawsuits were filed in six appeals courts. The 8th Circuit had previously set a deadline for the challengers who sued in that court to file their opening brief in May.

--

REF

March 6 (Reuters) - Ten Republican-led states have sued to challenge new federal rules that require U.S.-listed companies to report climate-related risks, a spokesperson for the West Virginia Attorney General's Office said on Wednesday, hours after the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission approved the rules.

The states, which also include Georgia, Alabama and Alaska, filed the petition at the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, according to the spokesperson. The rules aim to standardize climate-related company disclosures about greenhouse gas emissions, weather-related risks and how they are preparing for the transition to a low-carbon economy.

The Sierra Club environmental group, meanwhile, said it was considering suing the SEC because it believed the new rules did not go far enough.

The SEC, Wall Street’s top regulator, said the information would give investors reliable information about financial risks companies face related to climate change.

An SEC spokesperson said in a statement that the agency crafts rules that are consistent with its legal authority, and that it will "vigorously defend" the climate disclosure rules in court.

First proposed in 2022, the rules are part of Democratic President Joe Biden’s efforts to leverage federal agency rulemaking to address climate change threats. Similar disclosure requirements have been adopted in Europe and in California.

West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey on Wednesday said during a press conference that the Biden administration is trying to act as a "puppeteer" using public companies to drive forward its climate agenda.

Republican-led states had been signaling their intent to challenge the rules for years, arguing in public comments in 2022 that they amount to back-door environmental regulations that go beyond the SEC’s legal authority.

They claimed then the rules would require companies to create, gather and disclose a “crushing” amount of material that goes well beyond the finance-based disclosures that investors need.

Anticipating legal challenges, the Biden administration had dropped more ambitious elements of the rules requiring companies to disclose “Scope 3” emissions, indirect emissions by suppliers or customers.

For many businesses, Scope 3 emissions account for 70% of their carbon footprint, according to the consulting firm Deloitte.

The final SEC rules also allow larger companies to determine whether emissions from their own operations and the power they purchase constitute information investors need to make decisions.

Morrisey said that despite changes to the proposed rule, the finalized rule was still defective and unconstitutional.

The Sierra Club, one of the largest environmental advocacy groups in the U.S., said in a statement it was considering filing a lawsuit to challenge the SEC's decision to remove the more robust reporting requirements. The group said it would also defend the SEC's legal authority to issue and implement the rules.

In California state court, litigation has been already been filed by business groups including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce challenging that state’s climate disclosure laws, which include Scope 3 emissions disclosure requirements. That lawsuit filed in January said the state’s laws will impose “massive” costs on businesses and violate free speech protections in the U.S. Constitution by compelling the disclosures.

===}}}:

an 1123

Legal experts are sounding the alarm over Monday’s Appeals Court ruling they warn “decimates” the Voting Rights Act and will be “brutal” for minority voters.

In a 2-to-1 ruling, the highly-conservative Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled private plaintiffs, for example, voters and civil rights groups, do not have the right to sue to have section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) enforced. Only the U.S. Dept. of Justice, the court ruled, can sue under section 2.

“It will be a devastating near-death blow to the Voting Rights Act if it remains the law,” Wendy Weiser, the director of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, told The New York Times. “Radical theories that would previously have been laughed out of court have been taken increasingly seriously by an increasingly radical judiciary.”

The ruling appears to only apply to the Eight Circuit’s jurisdiction, which is Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota, NBC News reports.

“It’s hard to overstate how important and detrimental this decision would be if allowed to stand,” warned UCLA professor of law Rick Hasen, the pre-eminent voice on election law and campaign finance. He added, “the vast majority of claims to enforce section 2 of the Voting Rights Act are brought by private plaintiffs, not the Department of Justice with limited resources. If minority voters are going to continue to elect representatives of their choice, they are going to need private attorneys to bring those suits.”

READ MORE: ‘Careful Scalpel’: Appeals Court Likely to Uphold Trump Gag Order but Narrow It Experts Say

In his headline Hasen wrote the ruling “Would Decimate the Rights of Minority Voters; Supreme Court Review Almost Certain.”

Professor of law Steve Vladeck, a CNN contributor, noted that not only has the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed section 2 case from private plaintiffs before, it has specified the Voting Rights Act is still operable because private plaintiffs have the ability to sue under section 2. Until now.

IFrame Content

“The 8th Circuit has gutted the last remnants of the Voting Rights Act,” declared MSNBC legal analyst Joyce Vance, a professor of law and former U.S. Attorney.

NPR called suing under section 2, “a key path for enforcing the Voting Rights Act.” Similarly to Hasen, they wrote the ruling “may set up the next U.S. Supreme Court fight that could further limit the reach of the Voting Rights Act’s protections for people of color.”

“Private individuals and groups, who did not represent the U.S. government, have for decades brought the majority of Section 2 cases to court,” NPR added. “Those cases have challenged the redrawing of voting maps and other steps in the elections process with claims that the voting power of people of color has been minimized.”

Indeed, Marc Elias, the top Democratic attorney who won all but one of more than 60 lawsuits brought by Trump and his allies in the 2020 election, explained: “In past 40 years, there have been at least 182 successful Section 2 cases–only 15 were brought solely by DOJ.”

Professor of law Eric Segall, author of “Originalism as Faith,” and “Supreme Myths: Why the Supreme Court Is Not a Court and Its Justices Are Not Judges,” issued a dire warning.

READ MORE: Hate Group Stages Boycott of Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade Over Nonbinary Broadway Actors

“Terrible, wrong and brutal for minorities,” Segall called it, noting that in that ruling the Eight Circuit was “trying to finish what Justice Roberts and Judge Bill Pryor wanted for decades: the eventual judicial repeal of the entire VRA.”

Monday’s ruling was written by a Trump-appointed judge, and upholds a lower court ruling also written by a Trump-appointed judge.

“Jesus Christ,” exclaimed The Nation’s justice correspondent Elie Mystal. “This is THE WAY the Voting Rights Act works. It’s THE WAY we enforce the 15th freaking amendment. I think [Chief Justice John] Roberts and [Justice Amy Coney] Barrett will join the liberals to reverse this when it gets to SCOTUS, but my God, letting Trump judges on the federal bench was a terrible plan.”