logo
Louisiana redistricting: Supreme Court punts case until fall

Louisiana redistricting: Supreme Court punts case until fall

CNN5 hours ago

The Supreme Court punted on Friday in a major legal challenge to Louisiana's long-litigated congressional map, taking the unusual step of holding the case over for a second term.
The decision means the sprawling district that added a second Black and Democratic lawmaker to the state's overwhelmingly Republican delegation will remain in place, at least for the time being. The court said it will hear another set of arguments about the questions raised in the case in the term that begins this fall.
Justice Clarence Thomas, a conservative, dissented from the decision to hold the appeal over until next term.
Louisiana filed the appeal, arguing that it was caught in an impossible position: At first, a federal court ruled that the state had likely violated the Voting Rights Act by drawing only one majority Black district out of six.
When the state sought to comply with that decision by drawing a second majority Black district, a group of self-described 'non-Black voters' sued, alleging the state violated the Constitution by relying too much on race to meet the first court's demands.
'Congress requires this court to exercise jurisdiction over constitutional challenges to congressional redistricting, and we accordingly have an obligation to resolve such challenges promptly,' Thomas wrote in his dissent.
Thomas wrote that he would have held that the provision of the Voting Rights Act at issue in the case is unconstitutional.
The Voting Rights Act requires that states not dilute the power of minority voters during the once-a-decade redistricting process, such as by 'packing' those voters into one district or 'cracking' neighborhoods of color up into many districts to spread out their influence. The law was enacted in response to decades of post-Civil War efforts – particularly in the South – to limit the political power of African Americans.
And yet the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause demands that a state not draw a map predominantly based on race. If it does, it must demonstrate that it had a compelling reason to do so and carried out the effort in the narrowest way possible.
Because of that inherent tension between the Voting Rights Act and the equal protection clause, the Supreme Court has tended to give states some 'breathing room' in drawing their maps. One of the central questions in the case, Louisiana v. Callais, was exactly how much room state lawmakers should have.
The high court's conservative majority has grown increasingly skeptical of policies of any kind that, in the court's words, pick 'winners and losers' based on race. In the most notable example, a six-justice majority ended affirmative action in college admissions in 2023 – a decision the Trump administration has used to justify attempts to curb diversity, equity and inclusion programs in both the government and private sector.
The Supreme Court has also in recent years chipped away at the power of the Voting Rights Act, including with a 2013 decision that ended the practice of requiring states with a history of racist policies to preclear changes to their voting rights laws with the Justice Department.
But in a surprise decision a decade later, the high court went in the other direction, bolstering a key provision of the law by ordering Alabama to redraw its map to allow for an additional Black-majority district. Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative, penned the opinion for a 5-4 majority, siding with the court's three liberals. Another conservative, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, agreed with the key parts of the decision.
Part of what was at issue in the Louisiana case is whether race 'predominated' the redistricting process. The plaintiffs said Louisiana lawmakers were entirely focused on race in the redrawing. State officials have said that, while they were responding to the first court's order about a second Black district, they also were focused mainly on politics – specifically a desire to draw the boundaries in a way that would retain incumbents, including House Speaker Mike Johnson.
The Louisiana district the state drew slashes diagonally for some 250 miles from Shreveport in the northwest of the state to Baton Rouge in the southeast to create a district where Black residents make up some 54% of voters – up from about 24% under the old lines. During oral arguments in March, Roberts described it as a 'snake that runs from one end of the state to the other.'
Rep. Cleo Fields, a Democrat, won the seat in last year's election – adding a second Democrat to the state's delegation.
The Biden administration submitted a brief to the Supreme Court that technically supported neither party but urged the justices to reverse a special three-judge district court that would throw out the current map. Days after taking office, the Trump administration submitted a letter declaring that it had 'reconsidered the government's position' and that the earlier brief 'no longer represents the position of the United States.'

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.

Takeaways from the Supreme Court's ruling on power of judges and birthright citizenship
Takeaways from the Supreme Court's ruling on power of judges and birthright citizenship

CNN

time23 minutes ago

  • CNN

Takeaways from the Supreme Court's ruling on power of judges and birthright citizenship

The Supreme Court delivered a major win to President Donald Trump on Friday in his ongoing war with the federal judiciary, limiting the power of courts to step in and block policies on a nationwide basis in the short term while judges review their legality. Though the case was intertwined with Trump's executive order effectively ending birthright citizenship, the ruling does not settle the issue of whether the president can enforce that order. And there were signs that lower courts could move swiftly to block the policy. But the high court's decision does mean that Americans seeking to challenge Trump's future policies may have to jump through additional hoops to succeed. Exactly how that will work remains to be seen and will be hashed out by lower courts in coming days. Here's what to know about the court's decision: The Supreme Court's 6-3 ruling could have far-reaching consequences for Trump's second term, even if his birthright citizenship order is never enforced. That's because it will limit the power of courts to strike down other policies in the future. Presidents of both parties have complained about nationwide injunctions for years and Trump has noted, correctly, that there have been far more issued against him than presidents in the past. Lower courts, for instance, have used the orders to temporarily block his efforts to deport migrants under the Alien Enemies Act and prohibit transgender service members in the military. 'This was a big decision,' Trump said from the White House shortly after the ruling was issued. The president described the outcome as an 'amazing decision, one that we're very happy about.' But exactly how future litigation shakes out remains to be seen. Private parties – in the birthright citizenship case, a group of pregnant women who sued – may still be able to get a court to shut down a policy temporarily through a class-action lawsuit. And states may still be able to secure a hold on an administration's policies in the short term as well. By siding with Trump, the conservative Supreme Court ended a term with a second blockbuster decision in his favor for the second time in as many years. Last year, a 6-3 majority ruled that Trump – and other presidents – are at least presumptively immune from criminal prosecution for actions taken in office. The decision allowed Trump to avoid a trial on federal election subversion charges that were pending against him. And since taking office again in January, Trump has won case after case on the Supreme Court's emergency docket. A decision earlier in the week allowing Trump to deport certain migrants to countries other than their homeland marked the 10th time the court has granted a request from Trump on the emergency docket, though a few of those cases amounted to a mixed win for the administration. The court has allowed Trump to fire board members at independent agencies, remove transgender Americans from military service and end other protections for migrants, even those in the country legally. Friday's ruling, from Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who Trump has disparaged behind closed doors, is his biggest win yet. The court's three liberals split from their conservative colleagues' blockbuster ruling in blistering dissents, ringing the alarm on how the decision will permit Trump or future presidents to enforce unlawful policies even as legal challenges to them play out. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for the liberal wing, said the majority had 'shamefully' played along with the administration's 'gamesmanship' in the case, which she described as an attempt to enforce a 'patently unconstitutional' policy by not asking the justices to bless the policy, but instead to limit the power of federal judges around the country. 'The court's decision is nothing less than an open invitation for the Government to bypass the Constitution. The executive branch can now enforce policies that flout settled law and violate countless individuals' constitutional rights, and the federal courts will be hamstrung to stop its actions fully,' she wrote. The court's senior liberal member took the rare step of reading parts of her dissent from the bench on Friday for around 20 minutes. In doing so, she added in a line not included in her written dissent to invoke the court's landmark ruling last year that granted Trump broad immunity from criminal prosecution. 'The other shoe has dropped on executive immunity,' Sotomayor declared from the bench. Separately, in a scathing solo dissent on Friday, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson appeared to raise the stakes of the injunction case even more, accusing her conservative colleagues of creating 'an existential threat to the rule of law' by allowing Trump to 'violate the Constitution.' 'I have no doubt that, if judges must allow the executive to act unlawfully in some circumstances, as the court concludes today, executive lawlessness will flourish, and from there, it is not difficult to predict how this all ends,' she wrote. 'Eventually, executive power will become completely uncontainable, and our beloved constitutional republic will be no more.' Though the court significantly curtailed the ability of Trump's legal foes to get the type of court orders that block or slow down his enforcement of various policies nationwide, the conservative justices left on the table one key legal avenue: class-action lawsuits in which a litigant sues on behalf of a larger group of similarly situated individuals to get relief for all people who could be potentially be affected by a policy. Several groups moved quickly Friday to do just that. The immigrant rights groups and pregnant women challenging Trump's order in Maryland pressed the federal judge who previously blocked the policy to do so again through a class action lawsuit. Such class-action litigation could potentially lead to the same outcome as nationwide injunctions – and during arguments in the case, several justices questioned the significance of shifting the emphasis to class-action suits. One difference is that a judge generally must take the extra step of thinking about who should be covered by an injunction. During arguments in the case in May, Justice Brett Kavanaugh said the difference may be nothing more than 'technicality.' 'We care about technicalities,' he said at the time. 'And this may all be a technicality.' Lawyers for the Maryland plaintiffs asked US District Judge Deborah Boardman to certify a nationwide class that would include any children who have been born or would be born after February 19, 2025, and would be affected by Trump's order. They filed an updated lawsuit that would challenge Trump's order on behalf of all of those potential class members. They also asked Boardman, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, for an emergency order that would temporarily block Trump's executive order from applying to members of a 'putative class' of individuals that would be impacted by the policy. 'Consistent with the Supreme Court's most recent instructions, the Court can protect all members of the putative class from irreparable harm that the unlawful Executive Order threatens to inflict,' the lawsuit states The American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing challengers in another case over Trump's order, on Friday filed a new class action lawsuit targeting Trump's order. 'That's one of the ways in which people who are harmed around the country by President Trump's effort to end birthright citizenship will be able to go and get protection from the courts for this fundamental American right,' ACLU national legal director Cecillia Wang told CNN. Barrett was careful to say that parties could still seek nationwide relief to pause a policy if that was required to address their harm. That is precisely the argument nearly two dozen Democratic states made challenging the birthright policy and while the court didn't directly address it, it left wide room for states to make that claim again. The states had argued they needed a nationwide block on Trump's birthright citizenship policy because it was too easy for people to cross state borders to have a baby in New Jersey – where that child would be a citizen – rather than staying in Pennsylvania, where it might not. Now, the states will likely return to a lower court and argue that the birthright policy should remain on hold while courts decide its constitutionality. 'We believe that we will prevail and that we've made the case already, and when the lower courts, under the instruction of the US Supreme Court, do that review, we will secure a nationwide injunction to provide relief to the plaintiff states,' California Attorney General of California Rob Bonta, a Democrat, told reporters. 'It's now up to the lower courts to reconsider if the nationwide injunction is appropriate and necessary to provide complete relief to the states whose AG's sued to challenge this order,' he said. That litigation could eventually work its way back to the Supreme Court. Attorney General Pam Bondi said the administration was 'very confident' the Supreme Court would eventually rule in its favor on the merits of Trump's executive order. 'Birthright citizenship will be decided in October, in the next session by the Supreme Court,' Bondi predicted at the White House. While Bondi's predicted timing might be optimistic, given the court's usual pace, there is a good chance the issue will eventually wind up before the justices.

Supreme Court Rules On Birthright Citizenship: What It Means For Lawsuits Against Trump
Supreme Court Rules On Birthright Citizenship: What It Means For Lawsuits Against Trump

Forbes

time24 minutes ago

  • Forbes

Supreme Court Rules On Birthright Citizenship: What It Means For Lawsuits Against Trump

The Supreme Court's ruling Friday saying lower federal judges can't unilaterally block the Trump administration's policies nationwide will have a widespread impact on the dozens of pending lawsuits over the president's agenda, slowing down efforts to halt controversial actions and likely giving the Supreme Court a greater role over which policies stay in place. President Donald Trump points to a reporter to take a question on June 27, 2025, in the briefing ... More room of the White House in Washington. Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that federal district judges cannot issue nationwide injunctions, which pause government policies nationwide while litigation over their legality moves forward. Judges have issued dozens of nationwide injunctions in lawsuits that have been brought over Trump administration policies in the months since President Donald Trump's inauguration, sparking the ire of the president and his allies as much of his agenda has been blocked in court. The Supreme Court's ruling means lower district judges will be limited going forward to only issuing orders that directly impact parties in the case—meaning if a state sues over a certain policy, the court could only block that policy from being in effect for the one state that sued, for instance. The court did keep in place a few ways that plaintiffs can still seek broader relief from government policies, such as bringing class action lawsuits. For cases that can't be brought through some of the carveouts outlined by the courts, even clearly unlawful policies would take much longer to be blocked nationwide, as the cases would have to first make it to the Supreme Court, which is now the only court that could unilaterally block policies across the country. Class Action Lawsuits: The Supreme Court expressly said Friday that plaintiffs can still try to halt Trump policies nationwide by bringing class action lawsuits, in which a court could provide relief to anyone who belongs to a certain class. In the case over Trump's executive order restricting birthright citizenship—which sparked Friday's ruling—for instance, plaintiffs asked Friday to change the lawsuit to a class action suit brought on behalf of every child who's born or will be born in the U.S. after February 19 and is impacted by Trump's order. That carveout means there are still cases where a court could provide widespread relief, but there are more federal rules around class action lawsuits, such as restricting people who lose a case in one court from just bringing their litigation in a different court. Administrative Procedure Act: The Supreme Court noted in its ruling that lower federal courts can also still block federal policies under the Administrative Procedure Act, a federal law that governs how the executive branch can issue regulations. Courts can still declare that policies are unlawful under that law and block them nationwide as a result, the Supreme Court said, pointing to federal rules that grant courts the power to 'hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions.' Many lawsuits against the Trump administration accuse the government of violating the Administrative Procedure Act, and thus could be left untouched by the Supreme Court's ruling. Logistical Need For Nationwide Relief: The Supreme Court also acknowledged there are instances in which it's necessary to block a policy nationwide in order for a party in the case to actually get 'complete relief.' States that challenged the birthright citizenship policy, for instance, have argued it's necessary for the policy to be blocked nationwide in order for them to have full relief, because otherwise it would create a situation where children born in their state could be citizens, but would not be considered citizens in a different state. The Supreme Court declined to decide Friday whether the ruling blocking the birthright citizenship order should extend nationwide—leaving it to the lower court—but its ruling leaves room for parties in lawsuits to argue that a policy has to be blocked nationwide for them to actually get relief. What Happens To Policies That Are Already Blocked? Trump told reporters Friday that his administration is likely to go swiftly back to court in a number of cases to now challenge injunctions that have blocked the government's policies nationwide. In addition to the case over birthright citizenship, the president suggested the administration will also fight rulings on issues like sanctuary city funding, transgender healthcare and refugee admissions, among others. It remains to be seen how those cases will play out, and plaintiffs could take steps like those in the birthright citizenship case and try to change their lawsuits to class action lawsuits, or otherwise tweak them in order to fit the carveouts the Supreme Court outlined. If they can't, however, judges will be bound by the Supreme Court's ruling to restrict orders that previously applied nationwide, likely leading to a patchwork situation in which policies may be blocked in some areas or against some Americans, but not others. How Long Will It Take Now To Block Trump Policies? The Supreme Court's ruling likely slows down the timeline for Trump policies getting blocked nationwide. While judges could previously block policies within a matter of hours or days—only needing to hold a single hearing before issuing an order—they will now only be able to issue limited orders. As a result, it could be a matter of weeks, or longer, before a policy could potentially be blocked nationwide. After a district court rules, a case will first have to go to an appeals court—which still cannot put a policy in place nationwide—and then to the Supreme Court for a ruling on whether or not it can stay in place nationwide. While appeals courts and the Supreme Court can rule swiftly in some cases, other rulings can get dragged out for longer, potentially leaving challenged policies in place for lengthy periods before a final ruling is issued. What Role Will The Supreme Court Play? The Supreme Court's ruling empowers the court to be the arbiter in more cases over Trump's agenda going forward—which could be beneficial for the president, given that the 6-3 conservative court has so far largely ruled in his favor since Inauguration Day. 'This Court has … often acted as the ultimate decider of the interim legal status of major new federal statutes and executive actions. After today's decision, that order of operations will not change,' Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in an opinion Friday concurring with the majority. Kavanaugh acknowledged the court's ruling will likely result in 'a flood of decisions from lower courts, after which the losing parties on both sides will probably inundate this Court with applications for stays or injunctions'—calling on his colleagues to fulfill their 'vitally important responsibility to resolve applications … with respect to major new federal statutes and executive actions.' While the case at the heart of Friday's ruling centered on Trump's order restricting birthright citizenship for children of non-citizens, the decision still leaves the fate of that policy up in the air. The court did not rule either way on whether the executive order is constitutional, but said it will not take effect for another 30 days. When those 30 days are up, the current court decisions blocking the policy nationwide will only be narrowed to the extent that they give the Democratic-led states and individuals who brought the case 'complete relief.' What that actually means in practice remains to be seen, as a lower court will still have to decide to what extent the policy should be blocked—whether that's nationwide, as plaintiffs argue it still should be, or just in the states that sued over the policy. If the executive order does take effect in at least some states, it's also still unclear how it will be enforced, as Attorney General Pam Bondi declined to answer specific questions Friday about how the government would enforce which children are and aren't eligible for citizenship when they're born. 'There is already considerable uncertainty' over what happens with birthright citizenship, Connecticut Attorney General William Tong told reporters Friday after the court's ruling, noting it's 'not clear what will happen after those 30 days' that the policy is paused. Key Background Friday's ruling over nationwide injunctions marked the Supreme Court's first major ruling on the Trump administration's agenda since Inauguration Day. The Trump administration asked the high court to take up the dispute after judges issued dozens of nationwide rulings halting its policies, leading Trump and his allies to decry so-called partisan judges, whom they claimed were 'abusing' their power by blocking the president's agenda. The outcry over federal judges ruling against Trump sparked calls for judges to be impeached and lawmakers introducing legislation that would restrict nationwide injunctions, though none of those actions appeared likely to pass. Trump hailed the court's ruling as 'amazing' and a 'GREAT WIN' Friday on Truth Social and in comments to reporters, saying the Supreme Court should be 'very proud' and he's 'grateful to the Supreme Court for stepping in and solving this very, very big and complex problem and making it very simple.' Forbes Supreme Court Limits Judges From Blocking Some Trump Policies—But Punts On Birthright Citizenship Rule By Alison Durkee

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