logo
Group suing over Trump's birthright order seeks to convert case to a class action lawsuit

Group suing over Trump's birthright order seeks to convert case to a class action lawsuit

Politico4 hours ago

The Supreme Court's punt on a Louisiana redistricting case on Friday has injected uncertainty into the battle for the House, with one Democratic-held House seat in limbo as Republicans look to defend their razor-thin majority next year.
The court on Friday delayed its decision in Louisiana v. Callais, which would have determined whether one of the state's two majority-Black congressional districts was a racial gerrymander.
The court — over the noted dissent of Justice Clarence Thomas — said the case will be reargued. The justices will likely hear the case in the fall when the court returns from its summer recess.
Because of the state's election timeline, it isn't immediately clear what map will be in use for the midterms. Louisiana's primaries are currently scheduled for April.
At first glance, redistricting experts and advocates thought that the court's choice to punt the decision means the current map will likely stay in place for the midterms.
But the court has a bevy of options. It could rule quickly in the case — particularly if the court decides that lawmakers will need to draw new lines — to have new maps ready to go before April. The court could reschedule the primaries, although federal courts recently have been loath to do that.
The justices could also rule to keep current maps in place for 2026 and later demand a redraw ahead of the 2028 elections.
Advocates on both sides of the case were caught by surprise on Friday and are now waiting to see what questions the court will ask in its rehearing.
Under the current election timeline, candidates can start collecting signatures for the April primary starting in September, likely before the court will have heard the case.
If the court ultimately throws out the current map, the state's newest district, which is held by Rep. Cleo Fields (D-La.), would likely be redrawn to favor Republicans. Before Fields' district was created ahead of 2024 it was a safe red seat.
The redraw would present an obvious pickup opportunity for the GOP ahead of the 2026 midterms.
By not issuing a ruling on Friday, the court has continued the already long-running litigation over redistricting in Louisiana.
After the 2020 census, the state legislature drew a congressional map that contained only one majority-Black district out of six total districts, despite the fact that Black residents make up about a third of the state's population. Courts struck down that map under the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits election practices that abridge the right to vote on account of race.
To comply with those court rulings, the Legislature drew a new map with two majority-Black districts. But some voters — who self-identified as not Black — sued over the new map, alleging the state had violated the constitutional rights of non-Black voters by carving up districts based on race.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

In their own words: What justices, Trump and groups say about courts and birthright citizenship
In their own words: What justices, Trump and groups say about courts and birthright citizenship

Associated Press

time9 minutes ago

  • Associated Press

In their own words: What justices, Trump and groups say about courts and birthright citizenship

At the Supreme Court Friday, justices lambasted one another over the extent of judicial authority. Dissenting Justice Sonia Sotomayor accused President Donald Trump of trying to game the courts to break the law. The president expressed joy in reclaiming some power back from the judiciary, while advocates sounded worries for immigrant families before filing new legal challenges. The high court ruled that federal judges lack the authority to grant nationwide injunctions, but the decision left unclear whether Trump's restrictions on birthright citizenship could soon take effect in parts of the country. Here are some of the arguments and comments made by justices, Trump and advocates regarding the court's 6-3 ruling over an effort by the president to deny birthright citizenship to children born to immigrants. Barrett, Jackson on the judiciary's role Justice Amy Coney Barrett defended the majority opinion that the judiciary does not have 'unbridled authority' to enforce the president's duty to follow the law. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who joined Sotomayor's dissent, wrote that the role of lower courts should ensure that. 'For that to actually happen, courts must have the power to order everyone (including the Executive) to follow the law — full stop,' Jackson wrote. Barrett called Jackson's arguments 'extreme' and said her reasoning was not tethered 'to any doctrine whatsoever.' 'She offers a vision of the judicial role that would make even the most ardent defender of judicial supremacy blush,' Barrett wrote. She later stated: 'We will not dwell on Justice Jackson's argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries' worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself. We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.' Sotomayor accuses Trump of 'gamesmanship' Sotomayor did not mince words when arguing the ruling presents a threat. She accused the Trump administration of using tactics to game the courts and said it has been defying the Constitution. 'The gamesmanship in this request is apparent and the government makes no attempt to hide it,' she wrote. 'Yet, shamefully, this Court plays along.' Sotomayor also wrote that Trump's order is 'patently unconstitutional under settled law,' and argued that granting relief through Friday's decision 'is nothing less than an open invitation for the Government to bypass the Constitution.' 'The rule of law is not a given in this Nation, nor any other. It is a precept of our democracy that will endure only if those brave enough in every branch fight for its survival. Today, the Court abdicates its vital role in that effort,' she wrote. A warning about what may be next Sotomayor expressed worries about the chaos that may follow before the Supreme Court gets to decide on whether these children should get U.S. citizenship. She worried about the decision leaving some children 'stateless,' risking deportation even when their parents are in the country legally with temporary status visas or other programs. Sotomayor also warned about the possible wider impact of the ruling. 'No right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates. Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship. Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law-abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship,' she wrote. Trump celebrates Trump, meanwhile, quickly celebrated the ruling, calling it a 'monumental victory for the Constitution,' the separation of powers and the rule of law. 'These judges have attempted to dictate the law for the entire nation,' Trump told reporters during a news conference in the White House briefing room. 'Thanks to this decision, we can now promptly file to proceed with numerous policies that have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis.' The president said he would try to advance restrictions on birthright citizenship and other policies that had been blocked by lower courts. Immigrant rights group responds One of the groups that challenged Trump's order quickly went back to court seeking to keep his new restrictions on birthright citizenship at bay. CASA, a nonprofit immigrant rights organization, asked a federal court in Maryland to certify a class-action lawsuit that would represent all newborns who would no longer automatically be citizens if Trump's order goes into effect. 'Scotus has carelessly put at risk the citizenship of many hundreds of thousands of newborns and yet to be born innocent. But in the end, this ruling does nothing more than guarantee that the fight and the movement towards justice continue,' said George Escobar, CASA's chief of programs and services.

As Hortmans lie in state, thousands of Minnesotans line up to pay respects
As Hortmans lie in state, thousands of Minnesotans line up to pay respects

Yahoo

time10 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

As Hortmans lie in state, thousands of Minnesotans line up to pay respects

A woman prays before the caskets as Melissa and Mark Hortman lie in state, along with their dog Gilbert Friday, June 27, 2025 at the Minnesota State Capitol. (Photo by Nicole Neri/Minnesota Reformer) Speaker Emerita Melissa Hortman on Friday was surrounded by things she loved: She laid in the Minnesota Capitol where she dedicated 20 years of her life, next to her husband Mark, her golden retriever Gilbert, leafy trees, bright flowers and legions of Minnesotans whom she sought to help through public service. Minnesotans lined up to pay their final respects to Hortman, who was killed on June 14 in a politically motivated assassination. Mark Hortman was also killed, and Gilbert was injured and had to be euthanized. Melissa Hortman is the first woman in Minnesota history to lie in state at the Capitol, and the 20th Minnesotan to be awarded the honor. In the Capitol Rotunda, members of the Minnesota National Guard's honor guard flanked the Hortmans' wooden caskets. Photos of the couple and their dog were on display among the flowers and greenery. Gov. Tim Walz and First Lady Gwen Walz were the first to pay their respects when the memorial opened to the public at noon. They were followed by Republican House Speaker Lisa Demuth, her husband and Senate Majority leader Erin Murphy. Thousands of Minnesotans followed, many of them part of the Hortmans' vast network of friends, family and colleagues. Jennifer O'Rourke, director of government relations for Ramsey County, said her friendship with Melissa Hortman predates Hortman's first election to the House in 2004. 'She deserves this,' O'Rourke said, gesturing to the line of Minnesotans wrapped around the block. Many brought flowers or letters to add to the memorial outside the House chambers, where extra tables were brought in to accommodate Friday's contributions from the public. Others mourners had no connection to the Hortmans, but came in solidarity at a perilous moment in the history of the republic and its 32nd state. Carla Peck, 69, took work off to attend the memorial alongside her 2-year-old golden retriever Ollie. Peck didn't know much about the Hortmans until they were killed, but she thought it important to attend. 'I wanted to show respect and appreciation for what the Hortmans did for the state of Minnesota. I thought it's important to bring my golden because goldens are great to share the love. Dogs are very healing,' Peck said. Dave Woosley, 65, drove over an hour from Hastings to the Capitol to pay his respects. He didn't know Melissa Hortman, but he had heard of the extensive amount of work she was able to get done in the Legislature. 'I thought it was important for our fellow citizens to see that we can all come together, whether we agree with her or disagree with her. Just have respect for not only Melissa, but this institution,' Woosley said. Jeff Kolstad, 79, met Hortman in passing while doorknocking and respected her work on the environment. Flowers in hand, he stood in line with his dog Gracie, who 'wanted to pay a tribute to Gilbert.' A private funeral for the Hortmans will be held at 10:30 a.m. Saturday. It will be livestreamed.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store