In a recent decision by the 8th Circuit panel, concerns have been raised regarding the potential limitations on individuals' ability to sue under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA). The ruling, echoed by two Trump-appointed judges, has drawn criticism for disregarding decades of precedent and undermining the fight against racial gerrymandering.

Section 2 of the VRA addresses vote dilution in redistricting, particularly in states where minority voters are packed into a single district or dispersed to weaken their voting power. Traditionally, private litigants such as good government groups and individual voters have played a crucial role in bringing these cases to federal court.

However, U.S. District Judge Lee Rudofsky and 8th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge David Stras, both Donald Trump appointees, adopted an interpretation that only the U.S. attorney general has the authority to bring lawsuits under Section 2. This stance disregarded numerous federal court decisions, Supreme Court guidance, and the clear intentions expressed by Congress when enacting the legislation.

The decision by the 8th Circuit panel, if upheld by the Supreme Court, could have significant consequences for voting rights cases. It could lead to a steep decline in lawsuits challenging racial gerrymandering, making it even more challenging to combat this issue effectively. Furthermore, under Republican administrations, enforcement of the VRA may cease altogether, exacerbating concerns about minority voter disenfranchisement.

Legal experts have highlighted the potential chaos that could ensue if the ruling stands, particularly with regards to past VRA cases. States that previously lost lawsuits to private litigants could seek to have those decisions reversed or vacated, which would disrupt legal precedents built over the past 50 years.

The implications of the decision extend beyond the 8th Circuit's jurisdiction. Other states currently involved in redistricting litigation, with potential impacts on the 2024 House elections, may also cite the ruling to defend their actions. In Louisiana, where officials have sought creative ways to delay redrawing district maps, the 8th Circuit decision is already being referenced in a lawsuit before the 5th Circuit.

Despite concerns raised by voting rights advocates, many experts doubt that the Supreme Court will uphold the 8th Circuit's ruling. Justice Brett Kavanaugh's previous opposition to creating electoral chaos and Chief Justice John Roberts' majority opinion in a previous VRA case indicate a potential lack of support for limiting individuals' right to sue under Section 2.

This decision and its ramifications represent a microcosm of the ongoing dynamics in the judiciary since Donald Trump's presidency. It underscores the influence of Trump-appointed judges willing to depart from precedent for political purposes, the dialogue between these judges and Supreme Court justices through their written opinions, and the pursuit of legal victories to maintain minority rule by right-wing actors.