Supreme Court doesn't rule on Louisiana's second majority Black congressional district
Justice Clarence Thomas noted in a brief dissent from Friday's order that he would have decided the case now and imposed limits on 'race-based redistricting.'
The order keeps alive a fight over political power stemming from the 2020 census halfway to the next one. Two maps were blocked by lower courts, and the Supreme Court intervened twice. Last year, the justices ordered the new map to be used in the 2024 elections, while the legal case proceeded.
Get Starting Point
A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
The call for new arguments probably means that the district currently represented by Democratic Rep. Cleo Fields probably will remain intact for the 2026 elections because the high court has separately been reluctant to upend districts as elections draw near.
Advertisement
The state has changed its election process to replace its so-called jungle primary with partisan primary elections in the spring, followed by a November showdown between the party nominees.
The change means candidates can start gathering signatures in September to get on the primary ballot for 2026.
Advertisement
The state's Republican-dominated legislature drew a new congressional map in 2022 to account for population shifts reflected in the 2020 census. But the changes effectively maintained the status quo of five Republican-leaning majority white districts and one Democratic-leaning majority Black district in a state in which Black people make up a third of the population.
Civil rights advocates won a lower-court ruling that the districts likely discriminated against Black voters.
The Supreme Court put the ruling on hold while it took a similar case from Alabama. The justices allowed both states to use congressional maps in the 2022 elections even though both had been ruled likely discriminatory by federal judges.
The high court eventually affirmed the ruling from Alabama, which led to a new map and a second district that could elect a Black lawmaker. The justices returned the Louisiana case to federal court, with the expectation that new maps would be in place for the 2024 elections.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals gave lawmakers in Louisiana a deadline of early 2024 to draw a new map or face the possibility of a court-imposed map.
The state complied and drew a new map, with two Black majority districts.
But white Louisiana voters claimed in their separate lawsuit challenging the new districts that race was the predominant factor driving the new map. A three-judge court agreed.
Louisiana appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
27 minutes ago
- New York Times
Mourners Stream Into Minnesota Capitol as Assassination Victims Lie in State
Elected officials and everyday Minnesotans streamed into the white-domed State Capitol on Friday to pay their respects to State Representative Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark, who were fatally shot at their suburban Minneapolis home this month. At one point, a line of mourners stretched around the block outside the Capitol in St. Paul as people slowly passed through the rotunda to mourn the Hortmans, who were lying in state in wooden caskets adorned with floral arrangements. An urn for their dog, Gilbert, who was also killed in the attack, was displayed alongside photographs. The authorities have described the killing of Ms. Hortman, a Democrat who previously served as speaker of the Minnesota House of Representatives, as an assassination. The suspect in the couple's deaths appeared briefly in federal court on Friday. At the Capitol, Gov. Tim Walz and his wife Gwen were the first to approach the caskets. Mayor Melvin Carter of St. Paul wiped tears from his eyes as he passed. Lisa Demuth, the Republican speaker of the State House, was also among the first to pay respects. Dozens of Capitol workers stopped by, some crying or exchanging hugs on the building's steps as they left. Nearby, inside the House chamber, a picture of Ms. Hortman was displayed on her desk alongside a vase holding flowers. As mourners lined up outside the building, some carried bouquets or were accompanied by their dogs. Hours after the procession started, hundreds of people remained in line. Anna Richey, a former Capitol staff member, said she had crossed paths with Ms. Hortman frequently. 'She was as real as she was tough as she was empathetic,' Ms. Richey said. Outside, Faith Mainor said, 'I'd like to see some scaling back of the dialogue that led to this.' And Amy Schulte held flowers and a dog toy that she planned to leave in the rotunda as a tribute to the Hortmans. 'I just felt like it was just a senseless death, just violent, indescribable,' said Ms. Schulte, a Minneapolis resident. Mike Starr arrived hours before the Capitol doors opened. He said he had met Ms. Hortman years ago when he was running for office, and felt it was important to honor her. The shootings, he said, had left him with a series of questions: 'Why? What for? How come?'
Wall Street Journal
30 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
About Those ‘Millions' Losing Medicaid
Senate Republicans have to rework provisions in their big budget bill to pass muster with esoteric parliamentary rules, but tune out the Democratic wishcasting that the entire project is in jeopardy. On the other hand, here's some Capitol Hill news worth knowing: The GOP bill isn't throwing all and sundry off their health insurance, no matter the media claims to the contrary. A Congressional Budget Office letter this week adds important explanatory details to the claim that 7.8 million more Americans won't have health insurance in 2034 because of GOP Medicaid changes. Democrats broadcast this CBO estimate to frighten voters that Republicans are locking vulnerable Americans out of hospitals. But here are the facts CBO offered to the GOP House Budget Committee. Of that 7.8 million, some 4.8 million are uninsured because they don't comply with the bill's part-time work requirement. This is a torpedo in the hull for the Democratic talking point that everyone on Medicaid already works. The bill asks able-bodied, prime-age adults without children to work or volunteer roughly 20 hours a week. The serious academic evidence suggests perhaps half of that able-bodied population isn't clearing that basic work bar. A recent report from the American Enterprise Institute is sobering: 'For Medicaid recipients who do not report working, the most common activity after sleeping is watching television and playing video games. They spend 4.2 hours per day watching television and playing video games, or 125 hours during a 30-day month.' In a healthier political culture, even Democrats would agree that men who decline to work shouldn't get free health insurance to check out of life. The real 'Call of Duty' is getting a job.
CNN
32 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.
