红杏视频

OXFORD, Miss. 鈥� Challengers of DeSoto County鈥檚 sole majority-Black judicial subdistrict filed a stipulation today to dismiss their own lawsuit after a federal judge rejected their effort to dismantle the district. Dismissal of the lawsuit, brought by DeSoto County Supervisor Robert Foster and others, preserves the only judicial subdistrict in the county that gives Black voters a meaningful opportunity to elect candidates of their choice in the November elections. The 红杏视频, 红杏视频 of Mississippi, Legal Defense Fund (LDF), and NAACP intervened last month in the case on behalf of the DeSoto County NAACP and Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc., to defend the majority-Black judicial subdistrict against Supervisor Foster鈥檚 challenge and stop the plaintiffs鈥� efforts to eliminate the district. 鈥淒ismissal of this misguided lawsuit is a victory for voters in DeSoto County and for voting rights and fair elections everywhere,鈥� said Ming Cheung, senior staff attorney with the 红杏视频鈥檚 Voting Rights Project. 鈥淧laintiffs brought this case based on a misinterpretation of the law, and the court made clear that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act continues to protect Black voters from unlawful attempts to dilute their voting power.鈥� 鈥淎fter failing to properly plead and present evidence on their claims, plaintiffs have decided to dismiss their case,鈥� said Joshua Tom, legal director at 红杏视频 of Mississippi. 鈥淎ll voters in Mississippi, including black residents of DeSoto County, should have the opportunity to elect candidates of their choice.鈥� 鈥淏lack residents of DeSoto County have had to fight for fair representation far too many times,鈥� said Sara Rohani, assistant counsel at the Legal Defense Fund. 鈥淲e鈥檙e pleased that the sole judicial subdistrict giving Black communities a voice in their elections will remain in place this November. Dismissing this lawsuit protects not just Black voters, but all DeSoto voters 鈥� altering the judicial districts months after candidate qualifying would have sown confusion in the upcoming election.鈥� 鈥淭he NAACP Desoto County Branch is delighted to hear that the lawsuit has been dismissed,鈥� said Pastor Robert Tipton, Jr., president of the DeSoto County NAACP. 鈥淗owever, we will remain in the fight for equality, equity, political, and social justice. We will also continue the fight against racism.鈥� 鈥淭oday鈥檚 dismissal is a victory for Black voters in DeSoto County and for the fundamental principle that every community deserves a meaningful voice in choosing those who administer justice,鈥� said Cheryl W. Turner, international president of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc. 鈥淭his lawsuit sought to dismantle the county鈥檚 only majority-Black judicial subdistrict and silence voters just months before an election. Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc., was proud to stand with the DeSoto County NAACP and our civil rights partners to defend fair representation. We will remain vigilant wherever voting power is threatened 鈥� and we will continue to organize, mobilize and litigate to protect it. DeSoto County is one of the fastest growing counties in Mississippi. Black residents make up approximately one-third of DeSoto County鈥檚 population, and the county has a longstanding pattern of racially polarized voting. Most judgeships in DeSoto County are elected countywide, meaning that without the majority-Black judicial subdistrict, Black voters would lack a meaningful opportunity to elect their preferred candidates to the circuit and chancery courts. The filing is online here.

South Dakota enacted a law in March 2026 that requires new voters to provide unnecessary documentation of their U.S. citizenship when registering to vote. The state has rushed implementation of the law, and in doing so, trampled over voters鈥� rights: South Dakota officials have imposed burdens above and beyond what the statute requires and have failed to give voters accurate information about their registration status or opportunities to fix any issues. The League of Women Voters of South Dakota and Jaysen Hill, an individual voter, have challenged the state鈥檚 administration of its new requirement, seeking to ensure the state complies with federal law.

BOSTON 鈥� This evening, a federal court granted voting rights organizations鈥� emergency request to block the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) from implementing the newly-finalized mail ballot rule for the November midterm elections. That rule would assign USPS an unprecedented and illegal gatekeeping role in the administration of mail voting, and jeopardize the delivery of mail-in ballots to many voters. The plaintiffs in this case, League of Women Voters of Massachusetts v. Trump, are the League of Women Voters of Massachusetts, League of Women Voters, Association of Americans Resident Overseas, U.S. Vote Foundation, OCA 鈥� Asian Pacific American Advocates, and Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc. They are represented by the 红杏视频, 红杏视频 of Massachusetts, Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law, Legal Defense Fund, Asian Americans Advancing Justice 鈥� AAJC, and LatinoJustice PRLDEF. In response to the Court鈥檚 order, counsel and plaintiffs released the following statement: 鈥淭he Administration previously dismissed plaintiffs鈥� ongoing harms from the executive order as speculative, but the newly finalized rule confirmed what plaintiffs have been saying all along. The Rule implements the Executive Order鈥檚 unprecedented attempt to usurp electoral authority from the states and Congress at the expense of voters. We welcome the court鈥檚 order, which recognized the immediate need to protect the entire electorate from the damaging impacts of this unlawful final rule in the lead up to November鈥檚 general elections. This is an important step towards affirming the public鈥檚 confidence in the system of mail ballots, which thousands of eligible voters nationwide rely on as a core method of democratic participation.鈥� On Aug. 11, 2026, the court issued an order in League of Women Voters of Massachusetts v. Trump, blocking USPS from implementing Section 3 of the executive order, regulating mail voting, for the upcoming Nov. 3 midterm elections. On Aug. 24, 2026, the Supreme Court stayed a different court order issued in the separate Trump v. California case blocking the implementation of the executive order, reasoning that it was premature for the California plaintiffs to bring that case before USPS issued a final rule implementing the order. On Aug. 26, 2026, the district court vacated the injunction in League of Women Voters of Massachusetts based on the Supreme Court鈥檚 stay decision, but allowed plaintiff organizations to amend their complaint to reflect the fact that USPS has now issued the final mail ballot rule. Plaintiff organizations then supplemented their original complaint to do exactly that, adding challenges to the newly finalized mail ballot rule and seeking immediate emergency relief on those claims. In their papers, the plaintiff organizations argued that USPS鈥� newly-finalized mail ballot rule violates the Constitution鈥檚 separation of powers, which put the states and Congress in charge of election rules, not USPS or the president. The final rule also violates a number of the laws that govern how USPS operates. The plaintiffs sought emergency relief because these violations are causing irreparable harm to plaintiff organizations, their members, and the voters they serve each day that USPS is allowed to proceed with the new mail ballot rule, which is all the more severe as there are now fewer than 70 days before the November midterm elections. Today, the court agreed that plaintiff organizations were likely to succeed in their claims that USPS lacked the authority to issue the final rule and that the final rule unconstitutionally imposed election requirements on the states. Noting that the 鈥渞ecord continues to lack any evidence regarding fraudulent absentee or mail-in voting,鈥� the Court emphasized, 鈥淯SPS鈥檚 interest in correcting an unsubstantiated problem through likely unconstitutional means is dwarfed by the overwhelming risk of pervasive disenfranchisement of citizens who need access to mail ballots in order to vote.鈥� In light of this immediate and irreparable harm, the Court granted emergency relief, ordering defendants to take no steps to prepare, implement, or enforce several sections of the final rule for 14 days. In the interim, the parties will fully brief the plaintiff organizations鈥� request for a preliminary injunction. A hearing on that motion has been set for Sept 3, 2026. The order is available here: https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2026/08/TRO.pdf

BOSTON 鈥� Voting rights organizations today supplemented the complaint in their lawsuit challenging President Trump鈥檚 executive order restricting mail voting to add claims against the U.S. Postal Service鈥檚 (USPS) newly-finalized mail ballot rule. The groups simultaneously asked a federal court to immediately block USPS from implementing that rule for the November midterm elections. The plaintiffs in this case, League of Women Voters of Massachusetts v. Trump, are the League of Women Voters of Massachusetts, League of Women Voters, Association of Americans Resident Overseas, U.S. Vote Foundation, OCA 鈥� Asian Pacific American Advocates, and Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc. They are represented by the 红杏视频, 红杏视频 of Massachusetts, Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law, Legal Defense Fund, Asian Americans Advancing Justice 鈥� AAJC, and LatinoJustice PRLDEF. 鈥淯SPS鈥檚 decision to rush this blatantly unconstitutional rule into effect just weeks before an election is the latest step in a rollout that has sown confusion at every turn and now threatens to disenfranchise voters who did everything right. This is chaos by design, and voters are the ones who will pay for it,鈥� said Sophia Lin Lakin, director of the 红杏视频's Voting Rights Project. 鈥淣o administration should be able to manufacture confusion around how we vote and undermine confidence in our elections in the process. Rather than serving voters, this rule threatens access to the ballot and treats voters as collateral damage. We will continue to use every legal tool available to block this illegal power grab and ensure voters can cast mail ballots with the confidence that their votes will be counted.鈥� On Aug. 11, 2026, the court issued an order in League of Women Voters of Massachusetts v. Trump, blocking USPS from implementing Section 3 of the executive order for the upcoming Nov. 3 midterm elections. The Supreme Court later stayed a different court order issued in the separate Trump v. California case blocking implementation of the executive order. Of note, the Supreme Court did not decide whether President Trump has the legal authority to impose these restrictions or whether the USPS rule is lawful; it simply held that it was premature for the California plaintiffs to bring that case. Earlier this afternoon, the court vacated the Aug. 11 injunction issued in League of Women Voters Massachusetts on the same narrow basis. Acknowledging that 鈥淧laintiff Organizations have substantial arguments that might persuade the Supreme Court to reach a different result if Plaintiff Organizations have an opportunity to present them,鈥� the court found 鈥渢hat in light of the Supreme Court鈥檚 decision in Trump v. California, Plaintiff Organizations are not likely to prevail as to ripeness without amending their complaint to reflect the fact that a Final Rule has now issued.鈥� Plaintiffs have now supplemented their complaint to do exactly that, adding challenges to the newly finalized mail ballot rule and seeking emergency relief on those claims immediately. In their papers, the plaintiff organizations argue that USPS鈥檚 newly-finalized mail ballot rule violates the Constitution鈥檚 separation of powers, which put the states and Congress in charge of election administration rules, not USPS or the president, as well as a number of the laws that govern how USPS operates. All of these violations are causing irreparable harm to plaintiff organizations, their members, and the voters they serve. The harm is particularly acute as there are now less than 70 days before the November midterm elections, which is why the plaintiff organizations are asking for emergency relief. After filing, counsel and plaintiffs released the following statement: 鈥淭he court has already found that the executive order unconstitutionally usurps the authority of the states and Congress to regulate elections, and the newly-finalized rule eliminates any doubt about the harms stemming from these unlawful acts. Implementing the newly-finalized rule less than 70 days before the general election would dramatically impair plaintiffs鈥� core voter engagement work and pose a grave risk of disenfranchisement. We are asking the court for emergency relief to prevent this harm and to affirm the public鈥檚 confidence in the systems voters rely on to conduct our elections.鈥� The filings are here: /cases/league-of-women-voters-of-massachusetts-v-trump?document=Supplemental-Complaint#legal-documents /cases/league-of-women-voters-of-massachusetts-v-trump?document=Memorandum-in-Support-of-Plaintiffs-Emergency-Motion-for-Temporary-Restraining-Order-and-Preliminary-Injunction