Tag: scotus

More Devastating News for Democrats

The Supreme Court’s bombshell ruling striking down racial gerrymandering under the Voting Rights Act sent shockwaves through the political landscape this week — and Southern Republican governors wasted no time acting on it. For Democrats, who have spent years leaning on race-based district engineering to protect their congressional seats, the timing couldn’t be worse.

Alabama and Tennessee both called special legislative sessions on Friday to redraw their congressional maps, and the dominoes are already starting to fall across the South.

Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey moved quickly, calling lawmakers into special session and signaling she wants the state ready to hold new primary elections if the courts move fast enough to allow it. Right now, Alabama’s May 19 primaries are set to proceed using a court-ordered map that artificially packs black voters into two districts — a map the Supreme Court’s ruling makes unconstitutional. Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall filed an emergency motion Friday asking the court for a quick answer on whether the state can revert to its previously drawn map, which has just one majority-black district and would almost certainly deliver an additional Republican seat in Congress.

“By calling the Legislature into a special session, I am ensuring Alabama is prepared should the courts act quickly enough to allow Alabama’s previously drawn congressional and state Senate maps to be used during this election cycle,” Ivey said Friday afternoon.

Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee followed suit, calling his own special session to review the state’s congressional map. The current map includes a single Democratic-controlled district anchored in Memphis, and Lee’s office has warned that “any change to Tennessee’s congressional map must be enacted as soon as possible,” ahead of the August 6 primary.

It’s not hard to read the tea leaves on where this is headed.

Keep reading

Barack Obama Weighs In On Supreme Court “Gutting” Voting Rights Act by Striking Down Louisiana’s Racially Gerrymandered Map and It Instantly Backfires

Former President Barack Obama lashed out at the United States Supreme Court for crippling the racial gerrymandering schemes practiced by his party, and Americans were quick to put him in his place.

As The Gateway Pundit reported, the Supreme Court issued a 6-3 ruling on Wednesday, correctly declaring Louisiana’s newly-drawn Democrat-friendly Congressional map an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.

The case, State of Louisiana v. Phillip Callais (and the related Press Robinson v. Phillip Callais), stems from Louisiana’s cowardly lawmakers caving to activist left-wing judges and creating a second “majority-minority” congressional district designed to elect a Democrat.

While the decision does not abolish the Voting Rights Act (VRA) or Section 2, ABC News notes that it raises the bar for challenges to election maps that liberal critics claim limit the ability of minority voters to elect candidates of their choosing, even if lawmakers did not intend to discriminate.

Leftist Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan whined in her dissent that the “gutting of Section 2 puts that achievement in peril.”

“If other states follow Louisiana’s lead,” Kagan added, “the minority citizens residing there will no longer have an equal opportunity to elect candidates of their choice.”

Obama agreed with Kagan that the VRA was gutted and slammed the Court for not only “weakening” minority voting power but “abandoning its vital role in ensuring equal participation in our democracy.”

“Today’s Supreme Court decision effectively guts a key pillar of the Voting Rights Act, freeing state legislatures to gerrymander legislative districts to systematically dilute and weaken the voting power of racial minorities – so long as they do it under the guise of ‘partisanship’ rather than explicit ‘racial bias,” Obama wrote.

“And it serves as just one more example of how a majority of the current Court seems intent on abandoning its vital role in ensuring equal participation in our democracy and protecting the rights of minority groups against majority overreach,” he added.

“The good news is that such setbacks can be overcome. But that will only happen if citizens across the country who cherish our democratic ideals continue to mobilize and vote in record numbers – not just in the upcoming midterms or in high-profile races, but in every election and every level.”

Keep reading

Republicans Could Gain DOZENS of House Seats After SCOTUS Outlaws Racial Gerrymandering — Here’s How

Republicans could pick up as many as 27 additional House seats following the Supreme Court’s decision to curb race-based redistricting, a shift that could reshape the 2026 midterm map.

The projection stems from analysis of how congressional districts may be redrawn now that states are no longer required to prioritize race when complying with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

Estimates indicate that weakening Section 2 enforcement could ultimately produce even larger gains, with Axios reporting that 27 seats could shift toward Republicans over time.

The changes would be concentrated primarily in Southern states, where previous maps were challenged and altered to create additional majority-minority districts.

With the Court ruling that racially gerrymandered maps are unconstitutional, states now have broader authority to redraw districts using traditional and political considerations rather than racial targets.

The impact could be significant given the current balance of power in the House, where relatively small seat changes determine control.

The Louisiana case at the center of the ruling involved a dispute over a second majority-Black district added after legal challenges.

A group of voters later sued, arguing the map relied too heavily on race, and federal courts agreed before the issue reached the Supreme Court.

The Court’s decision effectively limits how Section 2 can be used to force states into drawing districts based on racial composition.

This removes a major legal obstacle for Republican-led legislatures seeking to revisit congressional maps ahead of 2026.

Ongoing legal battles in Texas and Florida suggest that mid-cycle redistricting efforts are already underway, with courts allowing those maps to remain in place while challenges proceed.

Republicans are also expected to benefit from structural advantages in turnout and district geography, which, combined with new map flexibility, could further strengthen their position.

The ruling does not eliminate the Voting Rights Act but significantly narrows its application in redistricting cases, reducing the likelihood of successful legal challenges based on racial representation claims.

While most pollsters believe that Democrats will take back the House in November, there are some signs that a so-called “blue wave” is not a foregone conclusion.

Keep reading

Supreme Court Issues Landmark Ruling on Voting Rights Act: 4 Things to Know

The U.S. Supreme Court in a landmark decision on April 29 reinterpreted a provision of the Voting Rights Act and struck down a majority-black congressional district in Louisiana, opening the door for more redistricting across the United States.

In a 6–3 ruling, the high court found that the Louisiana district represented by Rep. Cleo Fields (D-La.) relied on race when the congressional map was drawn up.

Ruling Impacts Key Voting Rights Act Section

The ruling was authored by Justice Samuel Alito and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett.

Alito wrote that “allowing race to play any part in government decisionmaking represents a departure from the constitutional rule that applies in almost every other context.”

He said Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is effectively limited to instances of intentional discrimination, a very high standard.

“Only when understood this way does (Section 2) of the Voting Rights Act properly fit within Congress’s 15th Amendment enforcement power,” Alito wrote.

The 15th Amendment, a Reconstruction-era amendment of the Constitution that was ratified in 1870 following the end of the Civil War, allows Congress to pass laws ensuring that the right to vote cannot be denied “on ​account of race, color or previous condition of servitude.”

Interpreting Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which was signed into law in 1965, to “outlaw a map solely because it fails to provide a sufficient number of majority-minority districts would create a right that the amendment does not protect,” Alito argued, referring to the 15th Amendment.

Louisiana Map ‘Unconstitutional’

With the decision, the high court blocked an electoral map in Louisiana that would have given the state a second majority-black congressional district.

The Supreme Court’s ruling was issued amid a battle unfolding between Republican-led and Democratic-led states ​around the country involving the redrawing of electoral maps to change the composition of House of Representatives districts ahead of the November elections.

“That map is an unconstitutional gerrymander,” Alito wrote for the majority, adding that the Voting Rights Act doesn’t “require Louisiana to create an additional majority-minority district” and ruling that there is “no compelling interest” that justified Louisiana using race to create Fields’ district.

The U.S. Constitution, he added, “almost never permits a State to discriminate on the basis of race, and such discrimination triggers strict scrutiny.”

The decision was issued as other states have moved to implement new congressional districts ahead of the November 2026 midterm elections.

Florida legislators were debating a proposed redrawing of the state’s congressional lines, which was submitted this month by Gov. Ron DeSantis and was intended to give Republicans a chance to pick up as many as four seats in the House of Representatives.

Keep reading

US Supreme Court weighs claims Cisco aided Chinese human rights abuses

The U.S. Supreme Court confronted a case on Tuesday with broad implications for human rights litigation in American courts, a long-running lawsuit brought by members of the Falun Gong spiritual movement who have accused Cisco Systems of facilitating religious persecution in China.

The justices heard arguments in Cisco’s appeal of a lower court’s 2023 ruling that breathed new life into the 2011 lawsuit, brought under the Alien Tort Statute of 1789, that accused the company of knowingly developing technology that allowed China’s government to surveil and persecute Falun Gong members.

The court has a 6-3 conservative majority, and some of its conservative justices signaled agreement with the stance taken by Kannon Shanmugam, the lawyer for Cisco, during the arguments.

San Jose, California-based Cisco urged the Supreme Court to further limit the scope of the Alien Tort Statute, which lets non-U.S. citizens seek damages in American courts for violations of international law. The court in a series of decisions since 2013 has restricted the law’s reach, making it more difficult to hold U.S. corporations legally liable for human rights abuses.

President Donald Trump’s administration sided with Cisco in the case.

Paul Hoffman, a lawyer for the Falun Gong plaintiffs, argued strenuously against Cisco’s views.

“Under Cisco’s theory, even the corporate actors who provided the poison gas for Nazi crematoria would not be liable” under the Alien Tort Statute, Hoffman told the justices.

Keep reading

Supreme Court rejects Florida parents’ challenge to school that ‘socially transitioned’ daughter

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal by Florida parents challenging school officials who withheld their child’s “social transition” from them under a since-rescinded policy.

In 2018, the Leon County School Board adopted a policy empowering schools to develop a “support plan” for students who wished to be treated as the opposite sex, including withholding the news from parents if a student did not want them to know. The policy was changed in 2022 after Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis signed Florida’s Parental Rights in Education law, but not before one pair of parents sued the school district for keeping them in the dark about “socially transitioning” their middle-school-age daughter.

CBS News reported that January and Jeffrey Littlejohn’s daughter, identified in court documents only as AG, had asked her parents to change her name and address her with male pronouns. They refused, allowing her only to adopt “J” as a nickname, so AG discussed her gender confusion with a school counselor. A “support plan,” complete with preferred name and pronouns, was established, but the Littlejohns were not notified until their daughter told them herself.

The parents sued in 2021 but lost through multiple appeals, based largely on the conclusion that the 2022 policy change rendered the issue moot. They had sought damages on the grounds that it was the school’s “course of conduct, not the contents” of the 2018 plan that were at issue.

So the Littlejohns appealed to the nation’s highest court, but Monday’s order list confirmed their petition has been denied without elaboration. How individual justices voted was not listed, but CBS noted that Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Clarence Thomas previously urged the Court to resolve similar questions, indicating they most likely would have taken the case. If true, that would mean that all six remaining justices voted to deny the petition, as only four votes are necessary to hear a case.

The indoctrination of children with left-wing ideology on sexuality, race, and other agenda items has long been a major concern in American public schools and libraries, from book shelves to drag events to classroom materials to even “transitioning” troubled children without parental input. Many schools have also displayed hostility to the rights and employment of individual teachers who refuse to go along with such agendas. Across the nation, controversy has also erupted in recent years over schools and libraries adopting books that expose sexual themes and activity to children, often in graphic detail and with pornographic imagery depicting specific sexual acts.

Keep reading

Supreme Court To Review Geofencing In Pivotal Case For Privacy Rights

The Supreme Court on April 27 will hear oral arguments in a case with major implications for privacy rights—and how law enforcement uses Americans’ cell phone data while investigating crimes.

The case, Chatrie v. United States, centers on law enforcement’s use of “geofencing warrants”—judge-authorized requests for cell phone location data near the scene of a crime.

Okello Chatrie told the Supreme Court that the government’s use of these warrants, which resulted in a criminal conviction over his robbing a bank while his smart phone was on his person, violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The government, meanwhile, has argued that such data is not protected when provided voluntarily to a “third party” like Google.

The court said it would focus on the circumstances of Chatrie’s case rather than the constitutionality of geofencing more generally. However, experts say that the Supreme Court’s decision will reverberate through future cases concerning privacy in the digital age.

Dr. David Super, a professor of law at the Georgetown University Law Center, described the case to The Epoch Times as “once-in-a-generation,” whatever the outcome.

Chatrie’s Warrant

In 2019, law enforcement received a geofence warrant from a state court seeking anonymized location data for devices within 150 meters (about 500 feet) of the bank robbery. In this form, the data couldn’t be used to identify specific cellphone users.

After Google complied with the first request, law enforcement then sought location data for devices over a longer, two-hour period, without seeking an additional court warrant. Google again provided the information.

Then—still without seeking a warrant—investigators asked Google for “de-anonymized subscriber information for three devices,” and Google complied.

One of those devices belonged to Chatrie, and the information provided the basis for Chatrie’s eventual conviction for armed robbery.

Though Chatrie confessed, his lawyers argue that the geofencing evidence should be tossed because the warrant deprived him of his Fourth Amendment rights, which guarantees that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause.”

Chatrie’s lawyers argued that the geofence warrant allowed investigators to gather the location history of people who were near the scene of the crime even though there was no other probable cause.

Super told The Epoch Times that geofencing was “pivotal” to the case against Chatrie. “The question in Chatrie is whether something as dramatic as a geofencing search is limited by the Fourth Amendment and requires the government to show specific needs with a proper basis,” he said.

Keep reading

“You Don’t Have the Right to Say Climate Change is a Hoax!”- Purple-Haired Democrat LOSES IT as Lee Zeldin Schools Her on Two Landmark Supreme Court Cases

Congress’s purple-haired congresswoman had a near-complete meltdown after EPA administrator Lee Zeldin completely embarrassed her during an an exchange on ‘climate change’ and the law.

On Monday, Zeldin testified before the House Appropriations Committee regarding President Trump’s 2027 budget request. As The Washington Examiner notes, the proposed budget would cut the agency’s budget in half if approved by Congress.

During the hearing, Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) angrily attacked Zeldin for “appeasing polluters” and ignoring Americans under “the false flag of economic growth.”

Zeldin responded by explaining that he’s following the law, pointing out that it says nothing about fighting climate change.

Then, he asked DeLauro if she was familiar with the Loper Bright Supreme Court case.

Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo is a landmark Supreme Court case in 2024 which overturned the long-standing Chevron doctrine, fundamentally altering the balance of power between the judiciary and federal agencies.

The Chevron doctrine, established in the 1984 case Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, has long been a source of contention. It granted deference to federal agencies in interpreting ambiguous statutes, effectively allowing unelected bureaucrats to make laws through their regulatory actions.

However, by a 6-3 majority, SCOTUS declared that such power is unconstitutional and goes against the principles of democratic governance.

DeLauro had no clue what Zeldin was talking about and went berserk:

“You do not, excuse, you don’t have the right to say climate change does not exist, that it’s a hoax!” she yelled at the EPA Administrator.

The exchange got even worse for DeLauro when Zeldin exposed her for not knowing about another landmark Supreme Court decision: West Virginia Vs. EPA.

In this 2022 case, The Court determined by a 6-3 margin that Congress did not authorize the EPA to compel existing power plants to combat climate change using the Clean Air Act, thereby curbing the agency’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from them.

All DeLauro could do was yell at Zeldin and finally snapped completely by saying, “I don’t have to listen to this BS!”

Keep reading

The United States of America v. John Roberts

The Supreme Court is under attack. It has been under attack for years, almost exclusively from the left. And by “under attack,” I don’t mean the peaceful criticism. I mean everything from challenges to its legitimacy to outright ignoring its rulings to death threats against conservative justices.

This began years ago. Chief Justice John Roberts initially responded by trying to stay apolitical and by trying to ignore the criticism. When President Barack Obama called him out during his 2010 State of the Union address, Roberts called the stunt “very troubling.” In the last two decades, that has been the entire extent of his pushback against the left.

In the last couple years, leftist district judges and leftist federal judges issue decrees and stays that directly contradict recent rulings from the Supreme Court itself. Last August, Justices Brett Kavanaugh Neil Gorsuch also publicly rebuked lower courts for having to reverse orders from lower courts regarding issues that the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) had already addressed. But not by Roberts.

Last September, a group of anonymous federal judges criticized recent emergency stays that SCOTUS granted. In interviews with NBC News, these judges said such rulings imply that the lower courts are doing shoddy work (yes, that’s the point). One judge quipped, “It’s inexcusable. They don’t have our backs.” Far be it from me to explain to this judge that the job of SCOTUS is not to “have their backs.” It’s John Roberts’ job to explain this to them. And yet, nary a peep.

District Judge Brian Murphy has twice openly flouted SCOTUS decisions. For his obstinacy, Justice Elena Kagan, of all people, publicly rebuked him. But still nothing from Roberts.

Then there is the internal drama.

It burst into the open with the Dobbs decision, which the liberal justices deliberately slow-rolled in an attempt to stave off the inevitable. The problem arises because no SCOTUS decision is binding until the justices’ opinions are finalized and publicized. If a justice happens to die in the interim, then that justice’s vote is nullified.

This rule applies even if a justice dies from assassination. Like, you know, what almost happened to Brett Kavanaugh in June 2022. An armed suspect showed up outside his home, and his presence was made known to the authorities only because the suspect got cold feet and called the police and turned himself in.

Keep reading

Trump Says His Supreme Court Picks Misrepresented Their Ideology

President Donald Trump on April 21 criticized recent Supreme Court decisions and said some of the justices he nominated “misrepresented” themselves during the confirmation process. 

“I put certain people on the United States Supreme Court who totally misrepresented who they were, and the true ideology for which they stand!” Trump said in a post on Truth Social.

Trump’s comments came amid escalating tension between him and the court, which has seen a large number of cases challenging his second-term policies.

In February, two of the justices he appointed—Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch—joined a 6–3 majority that struck down his global tariffs.

Trump has since criticized those justices.

In a post on April 22, Trump said the court’s decision would “cost America massive amounts of money but, more importantly, it will cost America its DIGNITY!”

That majority decision was formed by Barrett, Gorsuch, Chief Justice John Roberts, and the three liberal justices—Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, one of Trump’s nominees from his first term, penned a dissent, while Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito also opposed the decision.

On TruthSocial, Trump said that some of the “Democrat Justices” are known to “stick together like glue,” which the president said he respected.

“Certain Republican Appointees let the Democrats push them around, always wanting to be popular, politically correct, or even worse, wanting to show how ‘independent’ they are, with very little loyalty to the man who appointed them or, more importantly, the ideology from which they came to be Nominated and Confirmed,” he said.

At the end of the month, the court is expected to hear challenges to the Trump administration’s termination of temporary protected status for certain migrants.

It also recently heard a challenge to Trump’s order limiting birthright citizenship.

Trump attended the oral arguments, which were widely viewed as indicating that the court would rule against him.

On social media, the president asked how Democrats could “not like” how the Supreme Court votes, again citing concern about the outcome of the birthright citizenship case.

“It was meant for the babies of slaves, not for the babies of Chinese Billionaires. No, certain ‘Republican’ Justices have just gone weak,” Trump said. 

He also criticized the way the Supreme Court handled tariff refunds in its decision.

Its handling was “unexplainable” and an “unnecessary and expensive slap in the face to the U.S.A,” he said.

Keep reading