Supreme Court hears Louisiana racial gerrymandering claim
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday hears an unusual case in which civil rights groups are in a tentative alliance with Republican officials in defending a Louisiana congressional map that includes two majority Black districts for the first time in decades.
The justices took up an appeal brought by the state over its efforts to draw a map while being sued from the left and right about whether it appropriately considered race in doing so.
The case has a complicated history, resulting from an original map drawn by the Legislature after the 2020 census that included just one Black majority district out of the state's six districts. About a third of the state's population is Black.
Civil rights groups, including the Legal Defense Fund, sued and ultimately won, arguing that the Voting Rights Act required two majority Black districts.
That led to a new lawsuit filed by a group of self-identified "non-African American" voters led by Phillip Callais and 11 other plaintiffs who said the latest map, which is currently in effect, violated the Constitution's 14th Amendment, which requires that the law applies equally to everyone.
A federal court struck the new map down, but the state successfully asked the Supreme Court to block the ruling last year, meaning the map was used in November's election. Rep. Cleo Fields, D-La., ultimately won the newly drawn district.
Now, the Supreme Court will decide whether the 2024 map can remain in place, weighing several legal questions, including whether the plaintiffs who sued even had standing to do so.
The court could also go further and delve into the fraught question of to what extent the Voting Rights Act, which requires the consideration of race when drawing districts, is in tension with the 14th Amendment, which conservatives say bars any consideration of race in government decisions.
Although state officials are defending the new map, they also said in court filings that the court should consider barring such lawsuits altogether as "non-justiciable," meaning they are so inherently political that the issue should be left to the political branches.
Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguiñaga wrote that currently the state is being sued no matter what it does, causing it to spend millions of dollars on legal expenses.
"No one truly wins that fight — the state loses, its voters lose, the judiciary loses, and democracy itself loses," he wrote.
The challengers said in court papers that the new map constitutes an "odious racial gerrymander." None of the state's reasons constitute a "compelling justification for violating the 14th Amendment," they added.
Meanwhile, the civil rights groups that originally sued urged the court to uphold the new map, pointing out that in drawing it, the state relied in part on partisan political considerations aimed at protecting incumbent Republicans, including House Speaker Mike Johnson, of Louisiana.
The Supreme Court has a 6-3 conservative majority that is often receptive to conservative claims that the Constitution is "colorblind," meaning no consideration of race can ever be lawful even if it is aimed at remedying past discrimination.
But in an unexpected move, the court in 2023 reaffirmed the Voting Rights Act in another congressional redistricting case arising from Alabama.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
3 hours ago
- NBC News
Tennessee Republican Mark Green to resign from Congress for private sector job
WASHINGTON — Rep. Mark Green, R-Tenn., said Monday that he will resign from Congress after it passes a massive policy bill to advance President Donald Trump's domestic agenda. 'It is with a heavy heart that I announce my retirement from Congress. Recently, I was offered an opportunity in the private sector that was too exciting to pass up,' Green said in a statement, adding that he notified Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., that he would vacate his congressional seat following the House's next vote on the legislative package that's currently in the Senate. Green, the chair of the House Homeland Security Committee, represents a safe Republican district in Tennessee. He had announced his intentions to retire during Congress' previous session, but reversed course weeks later.
NBC News
5 hours ago
- NBC News
Republicans focus on trans athletes in their early attacks against Jon Ossoff in Georgia
Republicans seeking to unseat Georgia Sen. Jon Ossoff in one of the key races of the 2026 midterm elections are leaning heavily into attacks over transgender athletes in women's sports in the early stages of the campaign. In recent weeks, two GOP-aligned outside groups have launched ads on the issue. And GOP Rep. Buddy Carter hit the airwaves with an ad prodding Ossoff on the issue soon after launching his campaign. Republican candidates and campaigns have frequently leaned on culture war issues in recent years as a way to excite the base and frame Democrats as out of touch, particularly in red-leaning states. And they're even more emboldened after President Donald Trump bombarded then-Vice President Kamala Harris with an onslaught of ads that attacked her support for transgender people during the 2024 election. But while Democrats are gearing up for a difficult re-election fight for Ossoff in a state Trump won narrowly in 2024, they think the issue will be drowned out by voters' concerns about the economy, particularly Trump's handling of it. Even so, it's an issue for which Democrats lack a consensus about how to respond to GOP broadsides, as prominent members of the party grapple with whether to embrace protecting the transgender community as part of their values, deflect the question or come out against including transgender athletes in women's sports. Ossoff is the only Democratic incumbent defending a seat in a state Trump won last year, making him far-and-away the top target for Senate Republicans. Still, some Republicans admit that Ossoff will be difficult to beat, particularly now that Gov. Brian Kemp decided not to seek the seat. The early Republican criticism of Ossoff points to the Democratic senator's vote on legislation in February that would make it a Title IX violation (jeopardizing federal education funding) for states to allow transgender women and girls to participate in female sports. The bill failed to get the 60 votes it needed to advance in the Senate. One Nation, the nonprofit aligned with Senate Republicans' main super PAC, has spent at least $400,000 airing an ad reminiscent of a key tagline from one of Trump's anti-Harris ads from last year: 'Man to man defense isn't woke enough for Ossoff, he's playing for they/them.' Carter's opening salvo of ads included a spot touting the congressman's MAGA credentials while a person purporting to be a transgender woman holds sports trophies and stands in front of a transgender pride flag talking about how Ossoff has been an ally to the community. Asked about the GOP criticism of that vote, Ossoff campaign communications director Ellie Dougherty told NBC News in a statement that 'American parents don't need federal bureaucrats confirming our children's genitalia,' a reference to how a state might enforce the mandate in the Republican bill. Scott Paradise, who managed Republican Herschel Walker's losing Senate campaign in 2022, told NBC News that Ossoff's first Senate run in 2020 provided a 'perfect storm' that allowed Ossoff to position himself as a 'centrist' by narrowing his focus to 'bread-and-butter issues.' 'If he's talking about the economy or he's talking about moments where he has stood with the right — whether it's Middle East, to the extent he has on immigration — it's easier for him to muddy the waters. But this is such a black and white issue in a center-right state' that allows Republicans to try to frame him as out of step, he said. Polling broadly shows the American public doesn't support transgender women playing in female sports. Last month's NBC News Stay Tuned Poll, powered by SurveyMonkey found 75% opposed it and 25% supported it. Other national polling has found similar trends. That's one reason why Trump's campaign focused heavily on the issue in ads, arguing that Harris was outside the mainstream and pointing to her past support for gender-affirming treatments for prison inmates. After the election, Democrats have disagreed over whether the party's position on transgender rights, particularly in women's sports cost them electorally. Asked about the attacks last month during an interview on "Political Breakfast," a podcast hosted by Georgia's public radio affiliate, Ossoff said the big early spending is a signal to him that "demonstrates the national GOP understands the strength that I'll be bringing to this re-election campaign." The Democrat called Republicans, particularly GOP political consultants, "obsessed and preoccupied with this issue." Thinking ahead about "top of mind" issues for voters in 2026, Ossoff added, will it be "whether or not federal bureaucrats are investigating the sexual biology of adolescent athletes? I don't think so," he added. Amy Morton, a Democratic strategist in Georgia, elaborated that she believes the midterms will instead be a "referendum on the economy" and Trump's handling of it, emphasizing the Democratic attacks on the GOP's broad policy bill that's working its way through Congress. "They're going to continue to lean into that issue because they don't want to talk about the issues that are really impacting Georgians," she said, adding, "They made a strategic decision to wrap their arms around Donald Trump so there won't be a degree of separation between his failure as an executive and their failure." A Democratic strategist who worked on Sen. Raphael Warnock's successful re-election in Georgia in 2022 added that like their former boss, Ossoff's high-profile elections have helped to define him in the state, making them skeptical that a GOP attempt to brand him as extreme will stick. They added that while Warnock's 2022 Republican opponent, Herschel Walker, leaned heavily on social issues during his unsuccessful bid, Kemp won comfortably with a very different message on the same ballot, showing how a campaign can focus on the issues it wants and leave others to the side. "You saw Brian Kemp run an extremely disciplined race on the economy. You were hard pressed to get Kemp on the record about abortion in 2022 — the man was laser-focused on small businesses, jobs and the economy. That was the consistent message you heard out of Brian Kemp. You compare that to Herschel Walker and, you can do the math: 300,000 votes," the Democrat said. But the economy was also a top issue in the 2024 election, and Trump and the Republican Party still managed to turn their attacks on trans issues into a memorable tagline that stuck with some voters. That's why one national Republican strategist told NBC News that the attack isn't a "replacement" for a cogent economic argument, but "part of the equation. 'It's an issue that obviously had a massive impact in 2024. The Trump campaign's 'Harris is for they/them' ad is one of the greatest ads of our generation in that it's so simple and was so effective,' the strategist said. Ads about transgender participants in women's sports can run "on top of: Oh, he also voted to help ensure that illegal immigrants get government-paid health care and he voted against the Laken Riley amendment in 2024 before it was convenient," the strategist added. While the transgender sports attacks are drawing headlines, both sides have been running ads focused on spending in Washington too. Democrats have attacked the GOP's policy bill working its way through Washington, and Republicans hit Ossoff for backing former President Joe Biden's signature spending bill in 2022. Tharon Johnson, a Georgia Democratic strategist who worked for Biden's 2020 campaign in Georgia agreed that Republicans are "going to be hard-pressed to make Jon Ossoff into this radical" in part because of his work both in office and on the campaign trail. And while he believes the situation Harris found herself in last year isn't the same one Ossoff finds himself in now, he said Democrats can still draw a lesson from it: "Respond sooner, and more effectively." So far, Ossoff's response has been to stay focused on the economy and try to frame the debate as about local control.
NBC News
6 hours ago
- NBC News
Supreme Court just gave DOGE access to Social Security data. Here's what personal information is at stake.
The Supreme Court on Friday granted the Department of Government Efficiency access to Social Security Administration data that includes sensitive personal information of millions of Americans. The decision comes as the federal government sought a stay, or temporary suspension, after a federal judge blocked DOGE's access to that data in April. The nation's highest court granted an emergency application from the Trump administration to lift that injunction; the case is expected to proceed in lower courts. In its decision, the Supreme Court concluded the Social Security Administration may give DOGE access to agency records while the case plays out 'in order for those members to do their work.' Both the White House and the Social Security Administration called the Supreme Court decision a victory. In a statement, White House spokesperson Elizabeth Huston said it will allow the Trump administration to 'carry out commonsense efforts to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse and modernize government information systems.' Likewise, Social Security Commissioner Frank Bisignano in a statement said the agency 'will continue driving forward modernization efforts, streamlining government systems, and ensuring improved service and outcomes for our beneficiaries.' Yet others expressed grave concern in reaction to the decision, including Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, advocacy groups and plaintiffs in the case against DOGE and the Social Security Administration. 'This is a sad day for our democracy and a scary day for millions of people,' said the coalition of plaintiffs including American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees; the American Federation of Teachers; and the Alliance for Retired Americans, who are represented by Democracy Forward. 'This ruling will enable President Trump and DOGE's affiliates to steal Americans' private and personal data,' they said, while vowing to 'use every legal tool at our disposal' to prevent the misuse of public data as the case moves forward. Millions of Americans' sensitive data at stake The dispute focuses on how much access DOGE should have to Americans' personal data. The plaintiffs filed an initial complaint in early March, stating the Social Security Administration had 'abandoned its commitment to maintaining the privacy' of the sensitive personal information of millions of Americans under DOGE's influence. The Social Security Administration collects and stores some of the 'most sensitive' personally identifiable information of millions of Americans, ranging from seniors to adults to children, the complaint notes. When applying for a Social Security number, the agency requires the disclosure of place and date of birth, citizenship, ethnicity, race, sex, phone number and mailing address. It also requires parents' names and Social Security numbers. But the agency is also privy to other personal data, including personal health information, the complaint notes. That includes: driver's license and identification information bank and credit cards birth and marriage certificates pension information home and work addresses school records immigration and naturalization records family court records employment and employer records psychological and psychiatric health records hospitalization records addiction treatment records records for HIV/AIDS tests The Social Security Administration also collects tax information, including total earnings, Social Security and Medicare wages and annual employee withholdings. DOGE has not only accessed the agency's sensitive and protected information; it has also publicly shared it, according to the complaint. The actions of the defendants, including the Social Security Administration, DOGE and leaders including former head Elon Musk, have deprived Americans of privacy protections guaranteed by federal law and made their personal information vulnerable, the complaint alleges. In her dissent, Jackson, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, notes that records show 'DOGE received far broader data access' than the Social Security Administration usually allows in fraud, waste and abuse investigations. Typically, those investigations start with high level, anonymized data, with more access to more detailed information only granted as necessary. Justice Elena Kagan also dissented in the 6-3 decision. 'The government wants to give DOGE unfettered access to this personal, non-anonymized information right now – before the courts have time to assess whether DOGE's access is lawful,' Justice Jackson wrote. While litigation is pending, the government has asked to temporarily suspend the lower court's temporary limitations on DOGE's access to Social Security data, she noted. 'But the government fails to substantiate its stay request by showing that it or the public will suffer irreparable harm absent the court's intervention,' Justice Jackson wrote.
