Danielle Lang

Remember that the EO purporting to limit birthright citizenship is just as unconstitutional today as it was yesterday. The constitution makes clear that babies born in the U.S. are American citizens. Period.

At some point, I may gather myself enough to share my own thoughts on this trainwreck. Until then, I will re-up only good takes from others with more fortitude than myself, like KBJ herself.

Barrett: "are you really going answer Justice Kagan by saying that result can never be achieved expeditiously"?

Kagan: "that's a lot of words" but you aren't answering how we can get to the result of addressing the national impact of the unlawful EO?

something about class cert?

And while the DOJ could never do all the work needed to enforce the VRA (and has never even been aggressive in doing so), THIS DOJ has abandoned all its cases enforcing the VRA and gutted the voting section (last estimate I saw was it is down to 3 attorneys).

This is a truly outrageous development. For 60 years, voters have been able to vindicate their rights under the Voting Rights Act. Those individual actions have been transformational, creating the multiracial democracy we have today.

GRUENDER, Circuit Judge. In Arkansas State Conference NAACP v. Arkansas Board of Apportionment, 86 F.4th 1204 (8th Cir. 2023), reh’g denied, 91 F.4th 967 (8th Cir. 2024), we held that § 2 of the Voting Rights Act (“the Act”) does not provide for an implied private right of action to remedy certain voting guarantees contained in the Act. The question before us today is whether private plaintiffs can instead maintain a private right of action for alleged violations of § 2 through 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We answer this question in the negative and vacate the judgment of the district court.

BREAKING: 8th Circuit panel rules Voting Rights Act’s Section 2 protections against racial discrimination can’t be privately enforced under Section 1983 of Title 42 in 7 states. Ruling comes from a redistricting lawsuit by tribal nations in North Dakota
www.documentcloud.org/documents/25...

The North Carolina State Board of Elections has formally certified Democrat Allison Riggs as the winner of a state Supreme Court. 

Riggs was sworn-in at a brief ceremony in Raleigh.

"We won this election more than six months ago, but it was fewer than seven days ago that this race finally ended."

It should not have taken 6 months and endless litigation to get here. But the fact that a court ultimately stopped these shenanigans and ordered the results certified is so critical. Kudos to all the democracy advocates on the ground that never gave an inch here.

There will certainly be an appeal here. But these principles are the bedrock of our democracy and, assuming they hold in this case, they should be a lesson to those who would follow Judge Griffin's sore loser playbook.

And the judge sums it all up:

And as to Judge Griffin's cherry-picking of voters to challenge only in certain counties, the district court notes that Judge Griffin is an interested litigant that shouldn't be allowed to pick which voters are subject to his new rules. This violates Equal Protection.

On changing the rules after the game is played:

Yesterday, a federal district court judge (appointed by Trump, not that that should matter) said no. I'd like to share some key quotes from that opinion, which I think say it all.

Shamefully, the NC Supreme Court took the bait on this gamesmanship and granted his request to exclude thousands of overseas and mail voters from the count unless they come forward in short order six months after the election to "cure" their ballots.

His challenges would mean that overseas and military voters that followed every instruction given to them would be disenfranchised just because he contends those instructions should have been different. But those rules were settled before the election and he never challenged them then.

The case in a nutshell is that Judge Griffin lost his race for the NC Supreme Court. Unable to accept that loss, he has cherrypicked thousands of voters to challenge -- but his challenges are based on attempts to change the rules in place at the time of the election.

Judge Orders Elections Board to Certify Democrat’s Victory in Contested N.C. Race

There was an exceptionally important development in a case in North Carolina yesterday. The case is a testing ground for election sabotage and the federal district court shut it down.🧵
www.nytimes.com/2025/05/05/u...

Once again, the district court stating an obvious point: "The States have initial authority to regulate elections. Congress has supervisory authority over those regulations. The President does not feature at all."

Memorandum Opinion on Preliminary Injunction Order On April 24, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia published a memorandum opinion explaining the court's order granting a preliminary injunction that blocks the Election Assistanc...

And here's the opinion: campaignlegal.org/document/mem...

And proud to work alongside all the other lawyers and clients suing to right this wrong on behalf of American voters.

To quote the Court: "Our Constitution entrusts Congress and the States—not the President—with the authority to regulate federal elections." Proud to represent the lead Plaintiffs in this case, LULAC, Secure Families Initiative, and Arizona Students' Association.

Breaking: A district court STOPS the President's unlawful order directing changes to federal election law. Specifically, the court enjoined an attempt by the President to direct an independent agency to require documentary proof of citizenship to register using the national form.

Believe it or not, President Trump doesn't have the authority to set rules about how we cast our ballets. We'll see the Administration in court: abcnews.go.com/US/organizat...

There will be much more to say here about the *many* components of the EO. But for now I'll just say, Americans' right to vote is not subject to the whims of the President's say so. We at CLC will not stand by and let President Trump endanger voting access for millions of Americans.

And recently in New Hampshire, we've seen how these requirements can specifically burden married women who have changed their name.