Three-judge district court panel rejects Texas’ preposterous argument that VRA precludes private enforcement of Section 2. I love the wry sarcasm, “it would be ambitious indeed for a district court-even a three judge court-to deny a private right of action in e light of precedent and history.”

“The United States adds that “although the Supreme Court has not addressed an express challenge to private Section 2 enforcement, the Court’s precedent permits no other holding. We agree, at least to the extent that it would be ambitious indeed for a district court-even a three judge court-to deny a private right of action in the light of precedent and history.

We also suspect that the Defendants misconstrue Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275, 288-89 (2001), in which the Court held up the text of 42 U.S.C. § 2000d as paradigmatic rights creating language. That language seems to mirror Section 2’s.

Absent contrary direction from a higher court, we decline to break new ground on this particular issue. The Defendants’ motion to dismiss for want of a private cause of action to enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is therefore DENIED.”