Jay Mitchell to run for Alabama attorney general
'This isn't just my race — it's our fight for Alabama's future. I'll take on the radical left, advance the Trump agenda, and never stop fighting for our state,' Mitchell said.
Mitchell resigned from the Supreme Court last month. The attorney general serves as the state's top law enforcement officer.
Brighton City Councilman Jerome McMullin charged with releasing video of double homicide during active investigation
Mitchell said in a statement announcing his campaign that he will focus on combating violent crime, enforcing immigration laws and supporting law enforcement. He also promised 'to protect the unborn' and fight what he called the 'woke agenda.'
'No boys in girls' sports. No DEI. No more woke nonsense,' Mitchell said in a statement.
During his time on the bench, Mitchell is best known for writing a Supreme Court ruling saying frozen embryos are considered children under the state's Wrongful Death of Minor Act. The ruling allowed several couples to pursue wrongful death lawsuits after their frozen embryos were destroyed in a 2020 accident at a south Alabama storage facility. The ruling temporarily upended IVF services and drew national attention as clinics became concerned about civil liability. Mitchell did not directly mention the frozen embryo ruling in his campaign announcement.
Blount County District Attorney Pamela Casey is also running for the office.
Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall cannot seek another term because of term limits.
Marshall is running for the U.S. Senate seat currently held by Sen. Tommy Tuberville, who is running for governor instead of seeking another term in the Senate.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
15 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.
Fox News
28 minutes ago
- Fox News
Dem governor defies FBI: 'Unwelcome' to pursue Texas Democratic lawmakers
Democratic Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker said Wednesday that the FBI would be "unwelcome" to pursue Texas lawmakers who fled to his home state to stall a redistricting vote. In an interview with "News Not Noise with Jessica Yellin," Pritzker argued that the Texas lawmakers had not broken any federal law, and, therefore, the FBI doesn't have jurisdiction. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, disagreed, sending a letter to FBI Director Kash Patel earlier this week asking the bureau to help locate or arrest "potential lawbreakers" who fled Texas in a maneuver to avoid legislative responsibilities "in violation of their oath of office." "They're grandstanding. There's literally no federal law applicable to this situation. None," Pritzker told the podcaster on Wednesday. "They can say that they're sending FBI. FBI agents might show up to, I don't know, put a show on. But the fact is, our local law enforcement protects everybody in the state in Illinois. Our state troopers protect anybody in Illinois, and anybody who's here in Illinois. And so, whether it's federal agents coming to Illinois or state rangers from Texas, if you haven't broken federal law, you're basically unwelcome, and there's no way that our state legislators here, Texas state legislators, can be arrested." Pritzker categorized Cornyn's plea as political theater, noting that Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is challenging his U.S. Senate seat. The Illinois governor also took swipes at President Donald Trump and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott. "We follow the law," Pritzker said. "But as you know, Donald Trump does not follow the law. Indeed, he's a convicted felon. And in Texas, they are also not following the law. They are thwarting the Constitution with the Voting Rights Act and making threats that they can't carry out. John Cornyn, of course, is running against Ken Paxton, for his seat in the U.S. Senate, and so they're fighting, bickering over who can be tougher on this topic. But the fact is, I think they're demonstrating as a result of that bickering, and Abbott has weighed in as well, that this really is all about politics." Abbott convened a special session to try to advance a congressional redistricting plan which could add five new Republican-leaning House seats before the midterms next year. Trump is pushing Republican states to open the process for redistricting mid-cycle to give the GOP a better chance of maintaining control of the House in the 2026 midterm elections. In Texas, more than 50 Democratic lawmakers fled the state earlier this month to prevent a necessary quorum in the Texas House, which requires at least 100 members of the 150-member body to be present. Pritzker and fellow Democrats, California Gov. Gavin Newsom and New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, offered sanctuary to those Texas Democrats, applauding the gridlock as a fight to save democracy. Both Newsom and Hochul vowed to "fight fire with fire." Meanwhile, Texas state Republicans voted to issue civil arrest warrants and $500 daily fines for Democratic colleagues who abandoned their duties. Trump told reporters on Tuesday that the FBI "may have to" intervene. In a phone interview on CNBC's "The Squawk Box" on Tuesday, Trump argued that Democratic states, including Massachusetts, California and Illinois, have already pushed redistricting to benefit their own party, so Republicans will do the same. "In Illinois, where you have probably the dumbest of all governors, Illinois. That guy's really sending – I mean, the business is flowing out of his state. It's terrible. It's a terrible thing that Pritzker is doing. He's you know, he was the black sheep of the family. They threw him out of the business," Trump said. "But in Illinois, what's happened is, is terrible what they're doing – You notice they go to Illinois for safety. But that's all gerrymandered." "California's gerrymandered," the president continued. "We should have many more seats in Congress in California. It's all gerrymandered. And we have an opportunity in Texas to pick up five seats. We have a really good governor, and we have good people in Texas. And I won Texas. I got the highest vote in the history of Texas, as you probably know. And, we are entitled to five more seats."
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Ohio to play key role in national fight for Congress as redistricting battle rages
Across the nation, the redistricting arms race is on to secure control of the U.S. House of Representatives. President Donald Trump has floated using the FBI to retrieve Texas Democrats who fled voting on a Republican-drawn congressional map. Vice President JD Vance is asking Indiana Republicans to consider adding another GOP seat there. Meanwhile, California Gov. Gavin Newsom and other Democratic governors have threatened to redraw their maps to add more Democratic seats if Republicans move forward with their plans. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul recently said: "This is a war. We are at war." More: Trump says FBI 'may have to' force Democratic lawmakers back to Texas Ohio Senate Minority Leader Nickie Antonio said she would be "very concerned" about Democrats' response in a normal world. "This is not normal," said Antonio, D-Lakewood. "It appears we have to do everything we can to fight back." More: Redistricting: Ohio must draw a new congressional map. Republicans hold all the cards In Ohio, the fight over a new congressional map has yet to begin. But it will play out over the next few months under tremendous political pressure from Washington, D.C. Here's what to expect: Why is Ohio drawing a new congressional map? Unlike other states, Ohio's political leaders don't have a choice on whether to redraw the state's congressional map. Ohio Republicans approved the state's current congressional map in 2021. But the map lasted only four years because no Democrats voted for it. Ohio's leaders must now draw a new map for the next three elections. What's the current split on Ohio's congressional map? Ohio's current congressional delegation includes 10 Republicans and 5 Democrats. That means Republicans control 66% of seats even though Trump won 55% of the votes in the 2024 election − a decisive 11-point victory over Democrat Kamala Harris. Which congressional seats could Republicans target to pick up seats in Ohio? Republicans are likely to target two competitive congressional seats held by Democratic Reps. Marcy Kaptur, of Toledo, and Emilia Sykes, of Akron. They could try to rearrange the 1st congressional district in Cincinnati, currently held by Democratic Rep. Greg Landsman. That would be more of a stretch because the city of Cincinnati must be kept whole under anti-gerrymandering rules approved by voters in 2018. What's the timeline for approving a new map in Ohio? Ohio must approve a new congressional map by Nov. 30 to use in the 2026 elections. But there are other deadlines before that final one. Lawmakers have until Sept. 30 to pass a congressional map with support from at least three-fifths of lawmakers in each chamber and half of the Democrats. Legislative Republicans and Democrats each get up to $200,000 to spend on mapmaking. Then, the Ohio Redistricting Commission has until Oct. 31 to pass a map with bipartisan support. That commission includes three Republican statewide officials, two Republican lawmakers and two Democratic lawmakers. The pen returns to lawmakers, who can approve a map with support from three-fifths of members and one-third of Democrats on board. The final option is for Republican lawmakers to pass a map without any Democratic support. If Republicans take that route, they must follow some rules: they cannot "unduly" favor a political party or incumbents or "unduly" split counties, townships and municipalities. Any map approved by lawmakers will be sent to Gov. Mike DeWine for his signature or veto. After that, voters could collect signatures via the referendum process to put the map up for a vote. What have Ohio leaders said about redistricting? Ohio House Speaker Matt Huffman, who was a powerful figure in the last redistricting cycle, said through a spokesperson that he supports "a fair and data-driven redistricting process that accurately reflects Ohio's political landscape and provides consistency for voters." "The Speaker is focused on delivering a durable outcome for Ohio, not on meeting external expectations." Antonio said she wants to take Republicans at their word: "in spite of the national landscape, that Republican leaders are going to do their best for the people of Ohio." Still, Antonio is troubled by how the White House has influenced redistricting across the nation. "This is an authoritarian government that is in control of the United States, and they are dictating, and that's something we should all be concerned about." Obama calls Texas GOP's redistricting plan a 'power grab that undermines our democracy' Former President Barack Obama jumped into the nation's cross-country redistricting fight, calling Texas Republicans' push to add five new GOP congressional seats "a power grab that undermines our democracy." Obama's remarks, made in a statement posted Aug. 5 on X, come as President Donald Trump has pressured Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and Republicans in the GOP-controlled Texas state legislature to approve new congressional maps to help Republicans maintain control of the U.S. House during the 2026 midterm elections. Read more here JD Vance to visit Indiana amid push for redistricting Vice President JD Vance is visiting Indianapolis on Aug. 7 to speak with Gov. Mike Braun and Republican legislative leaders about the possibility of redistricting the state's congressional districts amid the Trump administration's push to increase the GOP majority in the House. Vance plans to meet with Braun, House Speaker Todd Huston and Senate Pro Tempore Rodric Bray. The group expects to discuss several topics, Braun said, but any discussion about redistricting would be "exploratory" and no commitments have been made at this point. Read more on what's happening in Indiana here. USA TODAY and The Indianapolis Star contributed to this article. State government reporter Jessie Balmert can be reached at jbalmert@ or @jbalmert on X.
