The U.S. Supreme Court begins its new term on the first Monday of October. As they have so often in the past, the justices are poised to play a pivotal role in deciding whether to preserve or undermine important laws that strengthen our democracy and are grounded in principles enshrined by the Constitution.
“The second founding” is what many historians and constitutional scholars call the years immediately following the Civil War. The term acknowledges that the ratification of three constitutional amendments — the 13th, 14th and 15th — brought our nation closer than ever before to realizing the vision of a democracy with equal rights and equal justice under the law for all.
The long struggle to put the words of the Reconstruction amendments into practice has included many wins and some losses for Black Americans and other communities impacted by America’s shameful legacy of discrimination. High points include the enactment of the 1965 Voting Rights Act (VRA) contrasted against low points like the Supreme Court’s disastrous 2013 ruling in Shelby County v. Holder, which slighted the powers given to Congress by the 14th and 15th amendments and shredded key protections embedded in the VRA.
Campaign Legal Center (CLC), alongside our co-counsel, have formally asked the justices to protect a core aspect of the VRA supported by decades of precedent: the ability of individuals, nonprofit groups, civic organizations or other groups to sue to enforce Section 2 of the VRA. This portion of the law prohibits voting practices or procedures that discriminate on the basis of race.
Our clients in this case — Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians, et al., v. Howe — come from the Native American community in North Dakota, a community which has been fighting discrimination for generations. CLC’s clients are seeking to preserve a fair legislative district map that gives them the opportunity to elect representatives of their choice to state government.
This past May, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit handed down a troubling ruling that, if upheld, would make this kind of legal challenge impossible — not just for our clients, but for all voters in all seven states within the Eighth Circuit. Fortunately, the Supreme Court temporarily paused this ruling in response to CLC’s stay application. Granting such a request can be a strong indication that the full Court will choose to hear the case, and we look forward to advancing persuasive arguments in favor of all Americans’ right to invoke the protections of the VRA.
The outcome in a second case, in which CLC has submitted two amicus briefs, concerns fair representation for Black Louisianans in Congress, but also could have significant implications for the future of the Voting Rights Act. Despite comprising 30% of the state’s population, Black Louisianans were, until recently, represented by just one member in the U.S. House of Representatives out of six. A federal court in November 2023 ordered a new map with a second majority Black district, and in 2024, voters sent two Black Louisianans to Congress for the first time ever.
Remarkably, that map is now disingenuously being challenged as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The case Louisiana v. Callais, has involved many twists and turns, including the Supreme Court declining to rule after oral arguments during its last term, and scheduling the case for re-argument this term on October 15.
While the details of the cases I’ve described differ, the core issue at the root of both is the same: The continued use of the map drawing process to racially discriminate against particular groups of voters, and the need for legal pathways to challenge and stop these efforts.
In both North Dakota and Louisiana, there are cohesive communities that are facing down clear attempts to artificially limit their voting power. The persistence of such discrimination in our nation clearly shows why the Supreme Court must preserve the protections of the Voting Rights Act and reject efforts to undermine or invalidate this critical law.
Related to concerns about preserving a functional democracy is a third case on the Supreme Court docket that threatens to open the floodgates to massive amounts of election spending coordinated between candidates and their respective political parties. The Court upheld limits on such spending in 2001 on the grounds that they restrict the ability of donors to buy influence with candidates and officeholders.
The current Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments challenging the party-coordinated spending limits and urging it to overturn its 2001 ruling. Campaign Legal Center submitted a brief in support of these limits at the appeals court level and has filed a second brief in the Supreme Court. If these limits are abolished, powerful special interests would have yet another avenue for drowning out the voices of everyday voters in our elections.
The high court has proven time and again that it is all too willing to hand down rulings that undermine the freedom to vote and expand the power of wealthy special interests to exert influence over our elections and politicians. In fact, it’s one of the systemic issues explored in the first episode of the new season of Campaign Legal Center’s podcast, Democracy Decoded.
The arguments Campaign Legal Center is bringing before the justices this term are rooted in constitutional principles that have consistently been challenged by forces exhibiting a thinly veiled hostility to the vision of a more perfect union. Our commitment is to fight in the Supreme Court and courthouses across the country for Americans who are dedicated to making our democracy stronger for all.
The nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center is dedicated to advancing democracy through law at the federal, state and local levels, fighting for every American’s rights to responsive government and a fair opportunity to participate in and affect the democratic process.
