Supreme Court hears Louisiana racial gerrymandering claim
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
The Guardian
42 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Queensland council blocked from evicting homeless sleeping in tents at city park
Queensland's supreme court has temporarily ordered a council not to evict homeless residents from sleeping in a park, warning those sleeping rough faced 'serious risk of harm' if denied shelter. Justice Paul Smith issued the injunction on Friday as part of an ongoing human rights challenge by 11 residents of Goodfellows Road, a park in Kallangur. It prevents the City of Moreton Bay from evicting anyone from the park while an application challenging the council's homelessness policies continues. 'If shelter was to be taken away, the applicants would be placed at serious risk of harm from being exposed to the elements,' Smith said. sign up: au breaking news email The council changed its local laws to ban homelessness in February. In April, it started evicting residents of several homeless shelters with the aid of police, council rangers, a bulldozer and an excavator. Law firms Hall & Wilcox and Basic Rights Queensland challenged the practice under Queensland's Human Rights Act. Many of the residents of Goodfellows Road previously resided in Eddie Hyland Park in Lawnton, before they were moved on from there in April. They were then issued notices ordering them to move on from the new park in June. Smith said he was persuaded that there was a prima facie case suggesting the council had failed to make proper consideration of potential breaches of the Human Rights Act before enacting its new local laws. Under Queensland law, human rights may be limited by government action but only after consideration and where doing so is proportionate. 'I find there is a reasonable argument on the part of the applicants that the relevant decisions infringe these particular rights and insufficient considerations given to those rights before the decisions were made,' he said. Sign up to Breaking News Australia Get the most important news as it breaks after newsletter promotion Smith found the council would be harmed less by his granting the injunction than those sleeping rough would be if he did not grant it. 'I can understand that some of the community might complain about homeless people living in their midst in tents,' he said. 'On the other hand, the Human Rights Act provides protections to all citizens, including the homeless, and I consider it to be wrong not to protect vulnerable applicants from the potential loss of their homes in the midst of winter. 'There is a risk in my mind that the applicants may lose their homes'. The council's lawyer, Scott McCleod, argued that the City of Moreton Bay had promised in correspondence to the court not to enforce the notices. However, Smith said it had not made a formal undertaking to allow the applicants to stay. Barrister Matthew Hickey, acting for the applicants, argued they were vulnerable people who had nowhere else to go if evicted again. Under the order, the council is still permitted to enforce local laws intended to ensure public health and safety that existed before it banned homelessness. The injunction will apply until the case is heard in full in November. The court heard the government may request a later date.
Reuters
5 hours ago
- Reuters
Trump nominates ex-clerk to Kavanaugh, Scalia to become appellate judge
Aug 14 (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump said on Thursday that he is nominating a federal prosecutor who testified in 2018 in support of her former boss Brett Kavanaugh being confirmed to a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court to become a life-tenured judge herself. Trump in a post on his social media platform Truth Social said he was nominating Assistant U.S. Attorney Rebecca Taibleson in Wisconsin to fill a vacancy on the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The Republican president said she had "learned from some of the BEST and most HIGHLY RESPECTED Legal Minds in the Country," after serving as a law clerk to former conservative U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in 2016, and Kavanaugh when he was on an intermediate appeals court. She is Trump's sixth nominee of his second term to serve on one of the nation's 13 appeals courts that sit below the Supreme Court. Trump has announced 22 judicial nominations overall since returning to office in January as he seeks to add to the 234 judicial appointments he made in his first term. Taibleson clerked for Kavanaugh from 2010 to 2011 when he was a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for District of Columbia Circuit and testified in 2018 in support of Trump's decision in his first term to pick him for a seat on the Supreme Court. The Republican-led Senate confirmed Kavanaugh 50-48 after a grueling confirmation battle in which he faced allegations that became public that he sexually assaulted a woman while in high school, which he denied. Those allegations became public after Taibleson had appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee. In her testimony, she highlighted how a majority of the law clerks Kavanaugh hired had been women and, upon hiring them, "goes to bat for us." After clerking for Kavanaugh, she then clerked for Scalia and then worked at the law firm Kirkland & Ellis before joining the U.S. Department of Justice. She served from 2019 to 2022 in the U.S. Office of the Solicitor General and today works in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, according to her LinkedIn profile.
The Independent
8 hours ago
- The Independent
Supreme Court allows Mississippi to require age verification for social media as states move to protect children online
Mississippi can continue to enforce a state law that seeks to protect children online by requiring age verification on social media while litigation on the issue plays out in court, the Supreme Court said on Thursday. In an unsigned order, justices upheld a lower court ruling that sided with Mississippi and allowed the state law known as the ' Walker Montgomery Protecting Children Online Act" to take effect temporarily, as judges determine the law's constitutionality in court. Until a federal appeals court issues a final ruling, anyone under the age of 18 seeking to use Instagram, Reddit, Pinterest, Snapchat, Facebook, YouTube, or X in the state will need to provide parental consent in order to use the social media platforms. As is typical in such orders the justices did not provide a reason for siding with Mississippi. Justice Brett Kavanaugh did issue a short concurring opinion, saying the social media companies failed to show that allowing the law to take effect would cause immediate harm. Kavanaugh contended that he does believe the social media companies, represented by NetChoice LLC., a trade association that advocates for free speech, would 'likely' succeed in their argument that the law violates the First Amendment down the road. The law, enacted by the governor last April, requires social media platforms to obtain parental consent for minors wishing to use their services or face civil penalties of up to $10,000 per violation as well as potential criminal penalties. The law does not apply to websites devoted to news, sports, commerce, or video games. It also exempts email and direct messages. Approximately 12 other states have passed similar laws, seeking to protect children from data collection, online predators, and other social media harms. The debate over how to protect minors from harmful online content or behavior has been hotly contested over the last few years. More lawsuits have been filed at the Supreme Court in recent years, asking the justices to determine at what point protection laws infringe on the First Amendment. Generally, the First Amendment protects a wide breadth of speech, with few exceptions. NetChoice sued the Mississippi Attorney General on behalf of nine social media platforms belonging to its association members, claiming the law violated the First Amendment by infringing on minors' right to speak without parental control. NetChoice also argued that many of the platforms already have 'their own suite of parental controls' to protect minors from certain services and allow parents to make their own decisions. The state's Attorney General Lynn Fitch argued that the Mississippi law is designed similarly to protect young people from activists not protected by the First Amendment such as sexual or physical abuse, extortion, incitement to suicide, and more. This past year, the court upheld a Texas law that requires people visiting sexually explicit websites to verify their age. The law was enacted, in part, to protect minors from viewing pornographic content. While the Supreme Court's ruling is temporary, the justices could return to the issue if the Mississippi Attorney General or NetChoice appeals to the high court. But the lower court, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, must make a final ruling first. Paul Taske, the co-director of the NetChoice Litigation Center, said in a statement, 'Although we're disappointed with the Court's decision, Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence makes clear that NetChoice will ultimately succeed in defending the First Amendment—not just in this case but across all NetChoice's ID-for-Speech lawsuits. This is merely an unfortunate procedural delay.'
