Supreme Court defers decision on challenge to Louisiana congressional map
The map is being challenged by non-Black voters who said it relied too heavily on race to sort voters.
The Louisiana legislature last year created a second majority-Black district after lower courts said the state's initial map unfairly diluted the power of the Black vote.
The case tests the balancing act that states must strike, complying with a civil rights law that protects the voting power of a racial minority while not discriminating against other voters.
Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, saying there's no reason to delay a decision.
"Congress requires this Court to exercise jurisdiction over constitutional challenges to congressional redistricting, and we accordingly have an obligation to resolve such challenges promptly," he wrote.
The dispute started after Louisiana drew new boundaries for its six congressional districts to account for population shifts following the 2020 Census.
The map included only one majority-Black district even though the state's population is about one-third Black.
A Baton Rouge-based federal district court and the Louisiana-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said it seemed likely that Louisiana could reasonably create a second majority-Black district.
But when the GOP-controlled legislature did so, a divided panel of three federal judges said the new map amounted to racial gerrymandering.
The state asked the Supreme Court to intervene.
The high court last year agreed to keep the map in place for 2024 and later decided to settle the underlying dispute.
The congressman elected from the new district, Rep. Cleo Fields, is a Democrat and the voters challenging the boundary lines say a 'racial quota' cost the state a Republican seat in a narrowly divided Congress.
In an unusual alliance, both the state and civil rights advocates defended the map.
The second majority-Black district runs diagonally through the state, an unusual configuration but one that civil rights advocates said joined communities with shared interests along the Red River.
And Louisiana's Republican leaders said the map met their goal of protecting powerful incumbents.
The consolidated cases are Louisiana v. Callais and Robinson v. Callais.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
7 minutes ago
- CNN
Trump calls for a new census to exclude undocumented immigrants
Donald Trump ImmigrationFacebookTweetLink Follow President Donald Trump announced in a social media post on Thursday that he has directed the Department of Commerce to begin work on a new US census that excludes undocumented immigrants from the population count. 'I have instructed our Department of Commerce to immediately begin work on a new and highly accurate CENSUS based on modern day facts and figures and, importantly, using the results and information gained from the Presidential Election of 2024,' Trump wrote in a Truth Social post. 'People who are in our Country illegally WILL NOT BE COUNTED IN THE CENSUS,' the president added. Trump's proposal marks a dramatic shift from longstanding census practices. The survey has historically counted all residents regardless of immigration status. The announcement also comes amid growing pressure from the White House for Republican-led states to redraw congressional maps in a way that could strengthen the GOP going into the 2026 midterms. The Constitution mandates a national census every ten years to determine congressional representation, and the census website states it is 'designed to count every resident in the United States.' Trump previously attempted to change the 2020 Census during his first term, repeatedly saying he would continue fighting to insert a citizenship question into the 2020 census, despite the Supreme Court blocking the effort. Trump then retreated from his quest, instead asking government agencies to provide records that could determine a head count of citizens without polling census-takers directly.
Newsweek
8 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Justice Department Issues Birthright Citizenship Update
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The U.S. Department of Justice has released an update confirming that it plans to ask the Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality of President Donald Trump's executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship. The announcement was disclosed in a joint status report filed Wednesday, August 6, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. Why It Matters The Justice Department's plan to seek a Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of President Donald Trump's executive order to end birthright citizenship—entitled "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship"—marks a critical juncture in the national debate over immigration and constitutional rights. Signed on January 20, 2025, it directs the federal government to deny citizenship documents to children born in the U.S. to undocumented or temporary immigrant parents. At stake is the interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which has long been understood to guarantee citizenship to nearly all individuals born on U.S. soil. A ruling in favor of the order could reshape federal authority over citizenship, impact millions of U.S.-born children, and redefine the limits of executive power—making this one of the most consequential legal battles in recent memory. What To Know On February 6, 2025, the district court in Seattle issued a nationwide preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of President Trump's executive order. The case under review, State of Washington v. Trump, was just one of several ongoing legal challenges in which lower courts have largely rejected the administration's legal theory. District courts in Maryland (February 5), New Hampshire (February 10), and Massachusetts (February 13), have each upheld that the order conflicted with constitutional protections and halted its enforcement in their respective jurisdictions. A map showing states where President Donald Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship remains restricted, following the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on June 27, 2025. A map showing states where President Donald Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship remains restricted, following the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on June 27, 2025. Newsweek/Flourish One of those judges, U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin, an appointee of former President Barack Obama who sits on the federal bench in Boston, granted a nationwide preliminary injunction, affirming that the constitutional guarantee of citizenship applies broadly, and finding the policy to be, "unconstitutional and contrary to a federal statute." The government appealed the ruling and sought partial stays from the district court, the Ninth Circuit, and the Supreme Court. After the Supreme Court denied a partial stay, the Ninth Circuit requested further briefing and, on July 23, upheld the injunction. The new update came in a joint status report filed August 6, 2025, in which the DOJ stated that Solicitor General D. John Sauer intends to file a petition "expeditiously" for certiorari—a legal term that refers to the process by which a higher court (most commonly the U.S. Supreme Court), agrees to review a lower court's decision—in order to place the case before the Court during its next term, which begins in October. This means the Justice Department has now formally indicated it will seek a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of President Trump's executive order; though it has not yet chosen which specific case—or combination of ongoing cases—it will use as the basis for its appeal. The parties plan to update the court further once those appellate steps are finalized. An editorial stock photo of a new USA passport. Photographed isolated on a white background. An editorial stock photo of a new USA passport. Photographed isolated on a white background. Stock Photo - Getty Images Fourteenth Amendment At Stake Since the adoption of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution on July 9, 1868, the citizenship of persons born in the United States has been controlled by its Citizenship Clause, which states: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." Courts have consistently upheld this principle for more than a century, most notably in the 1898 Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark. However, the Trump administration argues that the amendment should not apply to children of parents who lack permanent legal status, a position that has been repeatedly rejected by lower courts. What People Are Saying President Trump, during an interview with NBC's Meet the Press, December 8, 2024, said: "Do you know if somebody sets a foot—just a foot, one foot, you don't need two—on our land, 'Congratulations you are now a citizen of the United States of America,' … Yes, we're going to end that, because it's ridiculous." Adding: "...we're going to have to get it changed. We'll maybe have to go back to the people, but we have to end it. … We're the only country that has it, you know." Attorney General Pam Bondi told reporters in June 2025: "Birthright citizenship will be decided in October, in the next session by the Supreme Court." DOJ attorneys wrote in the filing: "In light of the Ninth Circuit's decision, Defendants represent that the Solicitor General plans to seek certiorari expeditiously to enable the Supreme Court to settle the lawfulness of the Citizenship Order next Term." Jessica Levinson, constitutional law professor at Loyola Law School, said: "You can't 'executive order' your way out of the Constitution. If you want to end birthright citizenship, you need to amend the Constitution, not issue an executive order." What Happens Next The Justice Department must decide which case or combination of cases it will use to challenge lower court rulings and bring the birthright citizenship issue before the Supreme Court. Once it makes that decision, the DOJ will file a petition for certiorari. The Court is not required to accept every petition, but because this involves a major constitutional question, it is likely to grant review. If that happens, the Court could hear arguments in 2026 and issue a ruling by June of that year. For now, the Justice Department and attorneys representing plaintiff states—including Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon—have agreed to submit another update once the appellate process is clarified or if further proceedings in the district court are required. Until then, the order remains unenforceable, lower court rulings blocking Trump's executive order remain in effect, and current birthright citizenship protections continue to apply.
Fast Company
8 minutes ago
- Fast Company
Trump's tariffs are now in effect for over 60 countries, just as signs of strain hit U.S. economy
President Donald Trump began levying higher import taxes on dozens of countries Thursday, just as the economic fallout of his monthslong tariff threats has begun to create visible damage for the U.S. economy. Just after midnight, goods from more than 60 countries and the European Union became subject to tariff rates of 10% or higher. Products from the EU, Japan and South Korea are taxed at 15%, while imports from Taiwan, Vietnam and Bangladesh are taxed at 20%. Trump also expects the EU, Japan and South Korea to invest hundreds of billions of dollars in the U.S. 'I think the growth is going to be unprecedented,' Trump said Wednesday afternoon. He added that the U.S. was 'taking in hundreds of billions of dollars in tariffs,' but he couldn't provide a specific figure for revenues because 'we don't even know what the final number is' regarding tariff rates. Despite the uncertainty, the Trump White House is confident that the onset of his broad tariffs will provide clarity about the path of the world's largest economy. Now that companies understand the direction the U.S. is headed, the Republican administration believes they can ramp up new investments and jump-start hiring in ways that can rebalance the U.S. economy as a manufacturing power. But so far, there are signs of self-inflicted wounds to America as companies and consumers alike brace for the impact of new taxes. What the data has shown is a U.S. economy that changed in April with Trump's initial rollout of tariffs, an event that led to market drama, a negotiating period and Trump's ultimate decision to start his universal tariffs on Thursday. Risk of economic erosion Economic reports show that hiring began to stall, inflationary pressures crept upward and home values in key markets started to decline after April, said John Silvia, CEO of Dynamic Economic Strategy. 'A less productive economy requires fewer workers,' Silvia said in an analysis note. 'But there is more, the higher tariff prices lower workers' real wages. The economy has become less productive, and firms cannot pay the same real wages as before. Actions have consequences.' Even then, the ultimate transformations of the tariffs are unknown and could play out over months, if not years. Many economists say the risk is that the American economy is steadily eroded rather than collapsing instantly. 'We all want it to be made for television where it's this explosion — it's not like that,' said Brad Jensen, a professor at Georgetown University. 'It's going to be fine sand in the gears and slow things down.' Trump has promoted the tariffs as a way to reduce the persistent trade deficit. But importers sought to avoid the taxes by importing more goods before the taxes went into effect. As a result, the $582.7 billion trade imbalance for the first half of the year was 38% higher than in 2024. Total construction spending has dropped 2.9% over the past year. The economic pain isn't confined to the U.S. Germany, which sends 10% of its exports to the U.S. market, saw industrial production sag 1.9% in June as Trump's earlier rounds of tariff hikes took hold. 'The new tariffs will clearly weigh on economic growth,' said Carsten Brzeski, global chief of macro for ING bank. Dismay in India and Switzerland The lead-up to Thursday fit the slapdash nature of Trump's tariffs, which have been variously rolled out, walked back, delayed, increased, imposed by letter and frantically renegotiated. The process has been so muddled that officials for key trade partners were unclear at the start of the week whether the tariffs would begin Thursday or Friday. The language of the July 31 order to delay the start of tariffs from Aug. 1 only said the higher tax rates would start in seven days. Trump on Wednesday announced additional 25% tariffs to be imposed on India for its buying of Russian oil, bringing its total import taxes to 50%. A top body of Indian exporters said Thursday the latest U.S. tariffs will impact nearly 55% of the country's outbound shipments to America and force exporters to lose their long-standing clients. 'Absorbing this sudden cost escalation is simply not viable. Margins are already thin,' S.C. Ralhan, president of the Federation of Indian Export Organizations, said in a statement. The Swiss executive branch, the Federal Council, was expected to hold an extraordinary meeting Thursday after President Karin Keller-Sutter and other top Swiss officials returned from a hastily arranged trip to Washington in a failed bid to avert steep 39% U.S. tariffs on Swiss goods. Import taxes are still coming on pharmaceutical drugs, and Trump announced 100% tariffs on computer chips. That could leave the U.S. economy in a place of suspended animation as it awaits the impact. Stock market remains solid The president's use of a 1977 law to declare an economic emergency to impose the tariffs is also under challenge. The impending ruling from last week's hearing before a U.S. appeals court could cause Trump to find other legal justifications if judges say he exceeded his authority. Even people who worked with Trump during his first term are skeptical that things will go smoothly for the economy, such as Paul Ryan, the former Republican House speaker, who has emerged as a Trump critic. 'There's no sort of rationale for this other than the president wanting to raise tariffs based upon his whims, his opinions,' Ryan told CNBC on Wednesday. 'I think choppy waters are ahead because I think they're going to have some legal challenges.' Still, the stock market has been solid during the recent tariff drama, with the S&P 500 index climbing more than 25% from its April low. The market's rebound and the income tax cuts in Trump's tax and spending measures signed into law on July 4 have given the White House confidence that economic growth is bound to accelerate in the coming months. Global financial markets took Thursday's tariff adjustments in stride, with Asian and European shares and U.S. futures mostly higher. Brzeski warned: 'While financial markets seem to have grown numb to tariff announcements, let's not forget that their adverse effects on economies will gradually unfold over time.' As of now, Trump still foresees an economic boom while the rest of the world and American voters wait nervously. 'There's one person who can afford to be cavalier about the uncertainty that he's creating, and that's Donald Trump,' said Rachel West, a senior fellow at The Century Foundation who worked in the Biden White House on labor policy. 'The rest of Americans are already paying the price for that uncertainty.'
