This Day in Legal History: Voting Rights Act

On August 6, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act into law, marking a pivotal moment in American legal and civil rights history. The legislation aimed to enforce the Fifteenth Amendment by prohibiting racial discrimination in voting, especially in the southern states where such practices were deeply entrenched. The Act outlawed literacy tests and other mechanisms that had been used for decades to suppress the Black vote. It also authorized federal oversight of voter registration and election procedures in jurisdictions with histories of discrimination.

The law came in the wake of sustained activism, including the Selma to Montgomery marches and the brutal attack on peaceful demonstrators in what became known as “Bloody Sunday.” Johnson, in a powerful address to Congress, tied the moral imperative of the Act to the nation’s founding ideals, declaring that “it is wrong—deadly wrong—to deny any of your fellow Americans the right to vote.” Within months of the Act’s passage, hundreds of thousands of Black Americans were registered to vote, reshaping political representation across the South.

The Voting Rights Act has since been amended and interpreted by courts, with key provisions reauthorized multiple times. However, in Shelby County v. Holder (2013), the Supreme Court invalidated the formula used to determine which jurisdictions required federal oversight, significantly weakening the Act’s enforcement mechanism. This decision opened the door to new state laws that voting rights advocates argue disproportionately affect minority voters.

Legal scholars and civil rights lawyers continue to debate the future of the Act, with efforts ongoing to restore and update its protections. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 remains one of the most consequential civil rights statutes in American history, transforming the legal landscape of democratic participation.

Ghislaine Maxwell, convicted in 2021 for aiding Jeffrey Epstein in sexually abusing minors, is opposing the U.S. government's attempt to release transcripts from the grand jury that indicted her. Her legal team argues that public disclosure could irreparably damage her reputation and complicate a potential retrial, especially as she seeks to overturn her conviction at the U.S. Supreme Court. They claim the grand jury testimony is incomplete and lacks the scrutiny of cross-examination. The Department of Justice, citing public interest, requested permission from two Manhattan judges to release the material, prompting responses from Maxwell’s lawyers, Epstein’s estate, and alleged victims.

President Donald Trump recently pushed for the release of the documents, seeking to address criticism from both allies and opponents about the handling of the Epstein-Maxwell case. Trump's Justice Department acknowledged that a rumored Epstein client list does not exist, which disappointed some supporters. While Epstein’s estate took no stance on the release, attorneys for victims advocated for limited disclosure that protects victims’ identities and allows pre-review by their legal teams.

The Justice Department said the grand jury testimony largely aligned with evidence presented at Maxwell’s trial. Maxwell’s appeal to the Supreme Court argues that a 2007 plea agreement between Epstein and prosecutors should have protected her as well. Additionally, she recently met with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche about potential information she may have on other individuals.

Epstein partner Maxwell opposes release of her grand jury materials | Reuters

A federal judge in Boston has blocked the Trump administration from diverting over $4 billion away from a disaster prevention grant program known as Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC). The ruling, issued by U.S. District Judge Richard Stearns, grants a preliminary injunction to stop the government from redirecting funds intended to help state and local governments prepare for natural disasters like floods and hurricanes.

The lawsuit was filed by 20 predominantly Democratic-led states, led by Massachusetts and Washington, arguing that FEMA lacked authority to cancel or repurpose the BRIC program without congressional consent. The judge agreed that the states faced potential irreparable harm and shouldn't have to wait until the funding was fully withdrawn to challenge the decision.

FEMA, a part of the Department of Homeland Security, had labeled the program as wasteful and ineffective earlier this year, announcing plans to shut it down. However, Judge Stearns noted that such a move violated proper legal procedures and posed serious risks to public safety and infrastructure.

The BRIC program was created in 2018 during Trump's first term and has since approved around $4.5 billion in funding for nearly 2,000 infrastructure projects, largely in coastal areas. Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell said the ruling affirms the importance of federal support for community disaster preparedness.

US judge blocks Trump administration from diverting disaster prevention grants | Reuters

Tesla and CEO Elon Musk are facing a proposed class action lawsuit from shareholders who allege they committed securities fraud by misrepresenting the safety and readiness of Tesla's self-driving technology, including the Robotaxi. The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Austin, Texas, follows a June test of the Robotaxi that revealed troubling behavior such as sudden braking, wrong-lane driving, and unsafe passenger drop-offs. After the test, Tesla’s stock dropped 6.1%, erasing roughly $68 billion in market value.

Shareholders argue that Musk and Tesla overstated the capabilities of their autonomous driving systems, misleading investors about the company’s prospects. Key statements under scrutiny include Musk’s April 2025 assertion that Tesla was "laser-focused" on launching the Robotaxi in Austin and Tesla’s public claims of a scalable and safe autonomous approach. The lawsuit covers shareholders who bought stock between April 19, 2023, and June 22, 2025.

Tesla CFO Vaibhav Taneja and former CFO Zachary Kirkhorn are also named as defendants. The complaint arrives as Tesla confronts lagging demand for its existing EV models and public concern over Musk’s leadership and political views. Meanwhile, Tesla is appealing a recent Florida jury verdict holding it partially liable for a 2019 crash involving its self-driving software, which resulted in a $243 million damages award.

Tesla, Elon Musk sued by shareholders over Robotaxi claims | Reuters

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), led by Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., announced a sweeping rollback of government-funded mRNA vaccine projects, cutting 22 initiatives worth $500 million. The move affects high-profile organizations including Moderna, Emory University, and Tiba Biotech. Kennedy justified the decision by claiming mRNA vaccines have not effectively protected against upper respiratory illnesses like COVID-19 and influenza. He also indicated a policy pivot toward “safer, broader vaccine platforms” that could maintain effectiveness despite viral mutations.

This decision marks a dramatic shift in federal vaccine policy under the Trump administration and reflects Kennedy’s long-standing skepticism toward vaccine safety. It follows previous actions he’s taken, including firing 17 CDC vaccine advisers, removing COVID-19 vaccines from recommended use in healthy children and pregnant women, and reducing contracts with Moderna and Novavax. The Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), which oversees U.S. pandemic preparedness, is now being redirected to focus on vaccine platforms with what the agency calls “stronger safety records” and more transparency.

Critically, the rationale for these cuts leans heavily on Kennedy's controversial views, which conflict with the broader scientific consensus on the safety and efficacy of mRNA technology. While it is reasonable to assess long-term vaccine strategy, completely abandoning mRNA platforms — particularly after their role in containing the COVID-19 pandemic — appears ideologically driven rather than data-based. Public health experts warn this may jeopardize future preparedness and undercut decades of scientific advancement, especially when the HHS has not publicly released the data allegedly supporting its decision.

RFK Jr. Pulls Back on mRNA Projects as Vaccine Shakeup Continues