It was recently in the news that the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals has decided that only the federal government can sue under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
However, this past June, the Supreme Court ruled on a case under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, brought by someone other than the federal government, in Allen v. Milligan. Which, under the Eight Circuit ruling, would seem to not be allowed.
Is the court system entertaining the possibility that, since June, it has been discovered that actually private parties can't have standing in these types of cases? If this case goes to the Supreme Court, would the justices there be able to say that actually they erred this past June in ruling on a case brought by private parties, and actually only the federal government can sue under Section 2? Or would they be bound by their own precedent? Or were they somehow not able to consider the question of standing in Allen?
If the Supreme Court can change its mind on the timescale of months, and they rule that private parties have no standing, why would lower courts abide by that precedent any more than the Eight Circuit seems to be doing here with respect to Allen? Couldn't people just keep on filing cases, and lower courts keep on agreeing to hear them, on the theory that another few months have passed and perhaps standing has been discovered yet again?