Back to the Supreme Court: Alabama plans 3rd appeal in congressional redistricting suit
The Alabama Attorney General's Office plans to go to the U.S. Supreme Court a third time in an ongoing lawsuit over Alabama's congressional districts.
The office filed notice of an intent to appeal Friday. Late on Monday, the office and plaintiffs who successfully challenged a 2021 state congressional map said in a court filing they had failed to reach an agreement in the ongoing lawsuit.
While the state has indicated it will stick with a court-drawn congressional map that includes two districts with majority or near-majority populations of Black voters, the state and the plaintiffs disagreed on whether the court should oversee any future problems or challenges related to congressional redistricting after the 2030 Census.
'What we've always requested with respect to preclearance is that Alabama be put under preclearance for congressional maps through the post-2030 redistricting cycle, and that's to confirm that there's no backsliding after 2030 with any new district lines that get drawn,' said Deuel Ross, an attorney with the NAACP Legal Defense Fund representing the plaintiffs, in a phone interview Tuesday.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
A three-judge panel in the U.S. Northern District of Alabama, which includes two judges appointed by President Donald Trump, has repeatedly ruled that the 2021 congressional map approved by the Alabama Legislature violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by failing to give Black Alabamians a meaningful opportunity to elect their preferred leaders. The panel has cited racial polarization of voting in the state — where white Alabamians tend to support Republicans and Black Alabamians tend to support Democrats — in ordering the state to draw districts that give Black Alabamians the ability to substantially participate in the process.
The U.S. Supreme Court in 2023 twice upheld the lower court rulings.
Federal court: Alabama Legislature intentionally discriminated against Black voters in redistricting
Messages seeking comment were left with the offices of the Alabama Attorney General and Secretary of State on Tuesday.
'They're saying they're not going to redistrict before the 2030 census, but they're obviously challenging the map as well, so it's not as if they're giving up,' Ross said.
Alabama has until June 16 to file a brief on the position. The plaintiffs will have until June 23 to file a response, and any reply should be filed by June 27. If the three-judge panel decides a hearing is necessary, they will schedule it for July 29.
The three-judge panel has repeatedly criticized the Legislature for drawing a map in a 2023 special session that it said did not follow its guidance on drawing congressional districts. The court appointed a special master to draw the map that will now be used for the 2026, 2028, and 2030 election cycles, as well as any special election.
That map was also used in the 2024 elections, when U.S. Rep. Shomari Figures, D-Mobile, won in the 2nd Congressional District last November. That election marked the first time in history that Alabama elected two Black U.S. Representatives at the same time.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
On Sanctuary Cities, It's Trump vs. the 10th Amendment
Over the past three months, the Trump administration has filed lawsuits against Los Angeles, Illinois, Colorado, New York state, New York City, and other places for the express purpose of forcing them to abolish their "sanctuary city" policies and start aiding the feds in rounding up undocumented immigrants and enforcing federal immigration laws. But unless the U.S. Supreme Court rapidly overturns several of its own precedents, including a recent one from 2018, all of these cases will be constitutional losers for President Donald Trump. Why? Here is how the late conservative legal hero and long-serving Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia once spelled it out. "The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems," Scalia wrote for the Court's majority in Printz v. United States (1997), "nor command the States' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program." At issue in Printz was the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, which, among other things, required state and local police to help the feds enforce federal gun control laws. However, Scalia held, such "federal commandeering of state governments" violated the constitutional principles of federalism secured by the 10th Amendment. Scalia's ruling in Printz was recently reaffirmed and expanded by the Supreme Court in Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (2018), which struck down a federal law that prohibited states from legalizing sports gambling. At the time it was decided, Printz was widely criticized by liberals, who objected to the idea of state and local officials stymying a federal gun control scheme. Now, the same anticommandeering doctrine that led to a "conservative" result in Printz is standing in the way of Trump's immigration crackdown. According to Trump's Justice Department, sanctuary city policies, such as when local police are generally forbidden from notifying the feds about a noncitizen's custody status or release date from custody, "reflect an intentional effort to obstruct federal law enforcement." But federal agents still retain their own independent authority to enforce federal immigration law inside of sanctuary states and cities, just as federal authorities retain the independent authority to enforce other federal laws in states and cities. The key point under Printz is that it is unconstitutional for the feds to compel local officials to lend them a helping hand in carrying out the enforcement of federal law. Because these sanctuary cases all feature the federal government in direct and open conflict with a state or city, one or more of them will probably end up before the Supreme Court in due time. Perhaps it will be United States v. Illinois. Last week, Judge Lindsay Jenkins of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division ruled that the Prairie State's various sanctuary laws were safeguarded from the Trump administration's lawsuit by the anticommandeering principle embraced in Printz, Murphy, and related precedents. "The Sanctuary Policies reflect [Illinois'] decision to not participate in enforcing civil immigration law—a decision protected by the Tenth Amendment and not preempted by" the Immigration and Nationality Act, the judge wrote. I expect a majority of the Supreme Court to adopt the same position if or when the opportunity arises. If it is unconstitutional for the feds to mandate local cooperation in enforcing federal gun control, it is unconstitutional for the feds to mandate local cooperation in enforcing federal immigration control. The national policies under dispute may be different, but the underlying constitutional issue is the same. As long as Printz remains good law, Trump's efforts to override the actions of sanctuary states and cities will be thwarted by Scalia's judgment. The post On Sanctuary Cities, It's Trump vs. the 10th Amendment appeared first on Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Court Lets Trump Block Billions of Dollars in Foreign Aid
(Bloomberg) -- The Trump administration can cut billions of dollars in foreign assistance funds approved by Congress for this year, a US appeals court ruled. Sunseeking Germans Face Swiss Backlash Over Alpine Holiday Congestion To Head Off Severe Storm Surges, Nova Scotia Invests in 'Living Shorelines' New York Warns of $34 Billion Budget Hole, Biggest Since 2009 Crisis Five Years After Black Lives Matter, Brussels' Colonial Statues Remain For Homeless Cyclists, Bikes Bring an Escape From the Streets In a 2-1 decision on Wednesday, the appellate panel reversed a Washington federal judge who found that US officials were violating the Constitution's separation of powers principles by failing to authorize the money to be paid in line with what the legislative branch directed. The ruling is a significant win for President Donald Trump's efforts to dissolve the US Agency for International Development and broadly withhold funding from programs that have fallen out of favor with his administration, regardless of how Congress exercised its authority over spending. Trump's critics have assailed what they've described as a far-reaching power grab by the executive branch. The nonprofits and business that sued could ask all of the active judges on the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit to reconsider the three-member panel's decision. If the panel's decision stands, it wasn't immediately clear how much it would affect other lawsuits contesting a range of Trump administration funding freezes and cuts besides foreign aid. Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson wrote in the majority opinion that the challengers lacked valid legal grounds to sue over the Trump administration's decision to withhold the funds, also known as impoundment. The US Comptroller General — who leads an accountability arm of Congress — could sue under a specific law related to impoundment decisions, Henderson wrote, but the challengers couldn't bring a 'freestanding' constitutional claim or claim violations of a different law related to agency actions. Henderson, appointed by former President George H.W. Bush, was joined by Judge Greg Katsas, a Trump appointee. The court didn't reach the core question of whether the administration's unilateral decision to refuse to spend money appropriated by Congress is constitutional. Judge Florence Pan, nominated by former President Joe Biden, dissented, writing that her colleagues had turned 'a blind eye to the 'serious implications' of this case for the rule of law and the very structure of our government.' White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said in a statement that the appeals court 'has affirmed what we already knew – President Trump has the executive authority to execute his own foreign policy, which includes ensuring that all foreign assistance aligns with the America First agenda.' A lead attorney for the grant recipients did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The two consolidated cases before the appeals court only deal with money that Congress approved for the 2024 fiscal year, which ends on Sept. 30. Grantees are poised to lose access to funds if they haven't yet been approved to be spent by federal officials — a precursor to actual payouts — or unless a court order is in place. The administration lost one of its few battles before the US Supreme Court earlier this year in the foreign aid fight. In March, a majority of justices refused to immediately stop US District Judge Amir Ali's injunction taking effect while the legal fight went forward. Since then, however, the challengers have filed complaints with Ali that the administration is failing to obligate or pay out the funds. They've rebuffed the government's position that the delay is part of a legitimate effort to 'evaluate the appropriate next steps' and accused officials of angling to use a novel tactic to go around Congress in order to cut appropriated money. The Trump administration has dramatically scaled back the US government's humanitarian work overseas, slashing spending and personnel and merging the USAID into the State Department. The challengers say the foreign aid freeze has created a global crisis, and that the money is critical for malaria prevention, to address child malnutrition and provide postnatal care for newborns. The groups argued that the president and agency leaders couldn't defy Congress' spending mandates and didn't have discretion to decide that only some, let alone none, of the money appropriated by lawmakers should be paid. The president can ask Congress to withdraw appropriations but can't do it on his own, the challengers argued. The Justice Department argued Ali's order was an 'improper judicial intrusion into matters left to the political branches' and that the judge wrongly interfered in the 'particularly sensitive area of foreign relations.' The government also said that the Impoundment Control Act, which restricts the president from overruling Congress' spending decisions, wasn't a law that the nonprofits and business could sue to enforce. The challengers countered that Ali's order blocking the funding freeze was rooted in their constitutional separation-of-powers claim, not the impoundment law. The cases are Global Health Council v. Trump, 25-5097, and AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition v. US Department of State, 25-5098, US Court of Appeals, DC Circuit. (Updated with White House comment.) Bessent on Tariffs, Deficits and Embracing Trump's Economic Plan Why It's Actually a Good Time to Buy a House, According to a Zillow Economist Dubai's Housing Boom Is Stoking Fears of Another Crash The Social Media Trend Machine Is Spitting Out Weirder and Weirder Results Americans Are Getting Priced Out of Homeownership at Record Rates ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
San Francisco Chronicle
2 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
A $200 million endowment focused on Black Americans is taking shape
Started in 2020 as a five-year initiative inspired by the racial justice outcry following the police murder of George Floyd, the California Black Freedom Fund plans to expand to a $200 million endowment. The move is both rare in the world of philanthropy and politically bold, given the Trump administration's efforts to eliminate race-based grant making. Originally a designated fund of the Silicon Valley Community Foundation, the fund spun off on July 1, renaming itself the Black Freedom Fund, to indicate its new national scope. Over the past five years, it has drawn more than $97 million in donations. Of that, it has directed $45 million to 206 nonprofits in California, largely working to increase the sway of nonprofits that serve Black people, with a portion of the remainder being reserved to start the endowment. Marc Philpart, the fund's executive director, said the endowment will let the fund make grants of $10 million a year without cutting into its asset base, assuming historical rates of return on investments. By establishing a durable institution with a sizable reservoir of cash, the fund can serve as a lasting beacon to smaller organizations serving Black communities in California, Philpart said. 'When a crisis occurs in the Black community, philanthropy parachutes in, there's a wave of support, and then as soon as the news cameras turn away, the support recedes,' he said. 'We need enduring institutions that are led by and committed to the Black community in ways that have a lasting impact.' DEI targeted Philpart's fundraising for the endowment comes as the Trump administration has characterized diversity, equity, and inclusion programs as illegal and has called for investigations of large foundations that support diversity programs. Under Philpart's leadership, the California Black Freedom Fund started the Legal Education, Advocacy, and Defense for Racial Justice Initiative, which provides pro bono legal consulting and training for nonprofits. The program operates on the premise that there isn't anything illegal about racial justice funding. But the 2023 Supreme Court ruling against considering race in college admissions, in a pair of cases brought by Students for Fair Admissions against Harvard University and the University of North Carolina, was viewed by some as an indication that private philanthropies could not legally engage in race-based grant making — and the issue is far from settled. While Philpart's fundraising pitch might resonate with some donors, others are sure to be nervous, given the scrutiny placed on race-based grant making by the White House, said Dan Morenoff, executive director of the American Civil Rights Project, a litigation and advocacy nonprofit that has challenged affirmative action programs. The White House has directed the Department of Justice to root out instances of race-based grantmaking, which it considers discriminatory. 'You don't want to be on their radar because they are fervently looking for people to make examples of at this point,' Morenoff said. While some corporations and philanthropies, including the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, an early supporter of the California Black Freedom Fund, have retreated from supporting racial justice, Philpart is counting on securing support from donors who want to stay with the cause even as the issue is argued in various court cases stemming from Trump's anti-DEI executive orders. The attacks from the administration, Philpart said, have been a 'clarifying moment' for many donors and have generated interest in the fund. 'People have rallied to us and really doubled down on their commitments to support Black freedom and Black power,' he said. 'That is the most telling thing coming out of this moment — that there is a critical mass of leaders throughout the country who care very deeply about the community.' 70 financial supporters One grantmaker that has doubled down is the California Wellness Foundation. The foundation made an initial grant of $500,000 when the fund was first launched, then made a $200,000 commitment to a separate fund created by the California Black Freedom Fund in response to the January Los Angeles fires, and recently added $500,000 to support the spin-off. Richard Tate, president of the California Wellness Fund, said the new fund is 'needed now more than ever' because of attempts by the administration to roll back equity efforts. 'The fact that we are talking about a Black Freedom Fund is an acknowledgment that not everyone has equal standing in the culture,' he said. 'Whatever headwinds that may exist because of this political moment, now is the time for us to continue to be explicit about our intentions of supporting a community.' Philanthropy needs to act quickly by unleashing more money in grants to support areas like litigation, public advocacy, and the replacement of lost federal funds, said Glenn Harris, president of Race Forward, a nonprofit racial justice advocacy group. But, he said, lasting institutions that can respond to future challenges are also needed. 'There's a balancing act,' Harris said. 'It's really clear that struggles for liberation and justice are going to be with us for a minute.' Among the two dozen grant makers that chipped in to start the fund are the Akonadi, Conrad Hilton and San Francisco foundations as well as the Emerson Collective, Crankstart, the Evelyn and Walter Haas Jr. Fund and the Silicon Valley Community Foundation. The total of institutional funders to the effort since 2020 now exceeds 70. Why endowments Among the groups the fund has supported are the East Bay Permanent Real Estate Cooperative, a community-owned cooperative that 'removes land and housing from the speculative market and places it into permanent community stewardship,' according to the fund. A late 2023 survey of nearly 300 foundations conducted by the Center for Effective Philanthropy found that more than two thirds of grantmakers did not offer endowment grants. Half of those that did so made them to arts organizations and museums. Nonprofits led by Black people receive endowment grants even more rarely, according to a 2022 analysis of social change organizations by the Bridgespan Group, a philanthropy consultancy, which found that nonprofits led by Black people had endowments that were only a fourth as big as those led by white people. Since then, some grant makers have stepped forward to support endowments at organizations serving members of Black communities, said Darren Isom, a partner at Bridgespan. For instance, in 2022 the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation made grants of $5 million each to three racial justice organizations led by people of color: UnidosUS, the NAACP, and Faith in Action. 'Endowments are transfer of power from philanthropic organizations to the organizations that are closest to the work,' he said. 'From an impact perspective, the work is more high impact, more beneficial, and more durable if it's owned by and led by those that are the closest to issues and closest to the communities.' Philpart is confident that despite the blow-back against diversity and racial justice, the fund can raise enough money to meet its goal. 'We're drawing people out who want to prove we are greater than divisiveness, we are greater than bigotry, and we are a greater than racism,' he said. 'We are better than all the things that pull us apart and don't fundamentally improve anyone's well-being.'
