Latest news with #Callais
Yahoo
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme Court decisions: Top cases to watch
Decision season starts Thursday for the Supreme Court, kicking off a race against the clock to release this term's opinions before the court's summer break begins. The justices are set to hand down major decisions implicating the role of religion in public life, efforts to restrict gender-affirming care and a host of environmental issues. Here's a look at the major cases this term: Case name: United States v. Skrmetti What they're weighing: Is Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for minors constitutional? Tennessee's SB1 prohibits healthcare providers from prescribing puberty blockers or hormones to allow a transgender minor to live consistent with their gender identity. The Biden administration and a group of transgender adolescents and doctors argue the law violates the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The Trump administration abandoned the government's challenge upon taking office but has urged the court to still decide the case. What it will impact: Similar laws passed by Republican-led legislatures in roughly half the country. Case name: Louisiana v. Callais and Robinson v. Callais What they're weighing: Is Louisiana's congressional map an unconstitutional racial gerrymander? This case is the latest stage of the long-running legal battle over Louisiana's congressional map design following the 2020 census. Initially, the Republican-led Legislature overrode the Democratic governor's veto to approve a map with only one majority-Black district. A district court struck it down for likely violating the Voting Rights Act by diluting the power of Black voters. At issue now is a new design, which the legislature drew with an additional Black-majority district to prevent the courts from taking over. A group of white voters argues the legislature went too far in boosting Black voter power, and it is now an unconstitutional racial gerrymander in violation of the 14th Amendment. What it will impact: States' latitude to draw additional minority-majority districts to remedy a Voting Rights Act violation. Case name: Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton What they're weighing: Is Texas's age-verification law for porn websites constitutional? Texas's HB 1181, passed in 2023, requires websites to verify users that are 18 years or older if its content is more than one-third 'sexual material harmful to minors.' The porn industry, backed by the ACLU, is challenging the law, which it claims is materially identical to the federal Child Online Protection Act – a measure the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional in 2002. What it will impact: Similar laws limiting children's access to online pornography in nearly half the country. Case name: Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond and St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School v. Drummond What they're weighing: Can Oklahoma officials approve the nation's first publicly funded religious charter school? In 2023, the Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board approved a contract for St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, which would be the nation's first publicly funded religious charter school. Oklahoma's Attorney General Gentner Drummond (R) contests the school's approval. This case tests whether the school complies with the First Amendment's religion clauses. What it will impact: The bounds of religion in publicly funded education. Case name: Mahmoud v. Taylor What they're weighing: Must Montgomery County, Md., provide parents an opt-out option from LGBTQ-inclusive books in elementary schools? In 2022, the Montgomery County Board of Education introduced LGBTQ-inclusive books in elementary schools. Initially, parents could opt out, but the county later eliminated the option. A group of parents with religious beliefs at odds with the books' teachings argue the lack of an opt-out option violates their religious rights under the Constitution's Free Exercise Clause. What it will impact: When parents can opt-out their children from instruction inconsistent with their religious beliefs. Case name: Becerra v. Braidwood Management What they're weighing: Does the structure of the Preventive Services Task Force violate the Constitution's Appointments Clause? The Affordable Care Act requires insurers to cover preventive services without any cost for the patient. The law empowers the federal Preventive Services Task Force, a group of medical experts, to recommend which services should be covered. A group of individuals and small businesses sued after the task force recommended covering HIV-prevention medication. The plaintiffs contend the task force members are principal officers who needed Senate confirmation under the Constitution's Appointments Clause. What it will impact: The task force's recommendations, which could all be thrown into question if the justices rule against it. Case name: Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic What they're weighing: Can Planned Parenthood challenge South Carolina deeming it an unqualified provider for Medicaid recipients? Known as the free choice-of-provider provision, the Medicaid Act allows recipients to receive health services from any 'qualified' provider. In 2018, South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster (R) signed executive orders deeming abortion clinics unqualified. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic and a patient are challenging McMaster's decision. The Supreme Court is hearing the state's arguments that private parties have no right to sue under the provision. What it will impact: Whether private parties can enforce the Medicaid Act's free choice-of-provider provision. Case name: Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos What they're weighing: Is Mexico's lawsuit against the American firearms industry barred by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA)? Mexico sued a group of prominent American firearms companies over their guns turning up in cartel violence, seeking $10 billion and injunctive relief that would change the state of U.S. firearm regulation. But in 2005, Congress passed the PLCAA, which provides broad legal immunity to the gun industry. The Supreme Court is hearing the gun industry's appeal after a lower court held Mexico's lawsuit falls under an exception to the law's immunity shield. What it will impact: The scope of the gun industry's liability shield. Case name: Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services What they're weighing: Do members of a majority group have to clear a higher legal bar than minority groups to win an employment discrimination claim? Marlean Ames alleges the Ohio Department of Youth Services discriminated against her because she is heterosexual. Ames unsuccessfully applied for a promotion in 2019, but the job long remained vacant until her gay boss offered the job to a gay person who didn't apply. Then, Ames says she was given a demotion and replaced by yet another gay person. A lower court agreed Ames met the normal requirements to bring a federal discrimination lawsuit but ruled against her, saying she needed to additionally prove 'background circumstances' since she was a member of a majority group. What it will impact: How easily white and straight individuals can bring employer discrimination suits. Case name: Barnes v. Felix, Jr. What they're weighing: What legal test governs 4th Amendment unreasonable force claims? Ashtian Barnes was shot and killed by a police officer during a 2016 traffic stop for driving a rental car that had unpaid toll fees. Officer Roberto Felix, Jr. asked Barnes to step out of the car, but the vehicle started moving forward, prompting Felix to shoot Barnes. Barnes's mother sued for damages, claiming Felix used unreasonable force against her son. The justices must decide whether courts should assess everything that happened during the traffic stop or just the split seconds when the officer feared for his safety. What it will impact: The standard for use of deadly force by police. Case name: Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission What they're weighing: Can Wisconsin deny its unemployment tax religious exemption to Catholic Charities Bureau? Catholic Charities Bureau, the charitable arm of a Wisconsin diocese, is challenging the state's refusal to grant a religious exemption from paying state unemployment taxes. The exemption requires recipients to be 'operated primarily for religious purposes.' The state and its top court held that the charity does not meet that requirement because it employs non-Catholics, provides services that could be provided by secular groups and does not proselytize. What it will impact: The extent to which states can scrutinize a group's professed religious purpose. Case name: Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado What they're weighing: Did the Surface Transportation Board conduct a sufficient environmental review in approving an 88-mile proposed railway in Utah? In 2021, the Surface Transportation Board approved plans for an 88-mile railroad in Utah. The parties are battling over the board's review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which requires federal agencies to consider the 'reasonably foreseeable' environmental effects of a proposed action. Eagle County, Colo., and several environmental groups are challenging the approval, arguing the board ignored required upstream and downstream effects. What it will impact: The scope of environmental reviews required by NEPA. Case name: Gutierrez v. Saenz What they're weighing: Can death-row inmate Ruben Gutierrez proceed in his quest for DNA testing? Texas death row inmate Ruben Gutierrez has sought DNA testing for more than a decade, claiming it will make him ineligible for the death penalty by showing he had no major role in a 1998 robbery and murder. Texas's law only allows DNA testing when favorable results would prove a defendant's innocence, which Guttierez claims violates due process. He is appealing a ruling that he has no legal standing to move forward. What it will impact: The use of DNA as a tool in capital cases. Case name: Martin v. United States What they're weighing: Can a family whose house was mistakenly raided by the FBI seek damages from the federal government? The FBI raided an Atlanta family's home – detonating a flash-bang grenade with guns raised – in 2017 before realizing they had the wrong house. The family sued for damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act, but lower courts tossed their challenge. What it will impact: When people injured by certain actions of federal officers can bring damages claims. Case name: FCC v. Consumers' Research and SHLBC v. Consumers' Research What they're weighing: Does the Universal Service Fund violate the nondelegation doctrine? The Universal Service Fund (USF) spends $9 billion annually to subsidize telecommunications services for rural and low-income consumers. A conservative nonprofit asserts it violates the nondelegation doctrine, which prevents Congress from delegating its legislative authority to the executive branch. Congress allows the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to determine how much telecommunications companies must contribute to the fund, which the FCC, in turn, sets based on a private company's financial projections. What it will impact: The court has not struck down a statute under the doctrine since 1935, but anti-regulatory interests are hoping the case will revitalize the doctrine and place more limits on federal agency power. Case name: Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization and United States v. Palestine Liberation Organization What they're weighing: Does the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act (PSJVTA) violate the Fifth Amendment? Congress in 2019 passed a law easing terror victims' ability to seek damages from the Palestinian Authority and Palestine Liberation Organization. The Supreme Court is reviewing two lower court decisions ruling the law violates due process by forcing the groups to consent to U.S. courts' authority. What it will impact: Whether Americans injured in Middle East terror attacks to take Palestinian leadership groups to U.S. courts for damages. Case name: Diamond Alternative Energy v. EPA What they're weighing: Do fuel producers have standing to sue over California's car emissions rule? The Clean Air Act generally preempts state laws that regulate car emissions. But the law allows the EPA to grant California (and only California) a waiver, which the state has used to impose stricter standards. During the Obama administration, EPA granted such a waiver, the Trump administration partially withdrew it, and the Biden administration reinstated it in 2022. A group of fuel producers suing over the reinstatement are appealing a lower ruling that found they have no legal standing. What it will impact: Whether the energy industry can revive its effort to axe California's stricter emission standard. Case name: Nuclear Regulatory Commission v. Texas What they're weighing: Can the Nuclear Regulatory Commission license a private entity to temporarily store nuclear waste away from the reactor where it was generated? And who can sue? In 2021, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensed Interim Storage Partners to store up to 5,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuels for 40 years at its West Texas facility. The commission is appealing two findings that allowed Fasken Land and Minerals and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) to block the license. What it will impact: Limits on who can challenge certain federal agency actions. Case name: EPA v. Calumet Shreveport Refining, Oklahoma v. EPA and Pacificorp v. EPA What they're weighing: What is the proper venue for lawsuits brought under the Clean Air Act? These cases involve the federal government's bid to move to Washington, D.C., a series of lawsuits brought by Republican-led states and the energy industry challenging Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) actions under the Clean Air Act. The EPA is attempting to transfer the first case out of the conservative-leaning 5th Circuit, while the plaintiffs appealed in the other cases after the 10th Circuit agreed to move them to D.C. What it will impact: When more conservative-leaning courts can get involved in key environmental cases. Case name: FDA v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. What they're weighing: Where can vape manufacturers sue when the FDA denies a product's marketing authorization? Federal law requires vape manufacturers to receive FDA approval before marketing their products. 'Any person adversely affected' by a denial can sue in Washington, D.C., or the federal circuit court where they reside. In this case, RJ Reynolds Vapor Company attempted to bring a challenge in the conservative-leaning 5th Circuit by adding as plaintiffs a retail store and a trade association based there. The federal government wants the Supreme Court to shut down the tactic. What it will impact: Whether vape companies can forum shop to challenge FDA denials. The Supreme Court in a 7-2 decision upheld the Biden administration's rule. Case name: Bondi v. VanDerStock What they're weighing: Is the Biden administration's crackdown on 'ghost guns' legal? In 2022, the Biden-era Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) issued a rule cracking down on 'ghost guns,' subjecting them to background-check, licensing and other requirements. The Supreme Court is reviewing whether that the Biden administration could do so by deeming ghost guns as 'firearms' under the Gun Control Act of 1968. The case does not implicate the Second Amendment. What it will impact: The executive branch's ability to regulate ghost guns without congressional approval. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
15-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Supreme Court decisions: Top cases to watch
Decision season starts Thursday for the Supreme Court, kicking off a race against the clock to release this term's opinions before the court's summer break begins. The justices are set to hand down major decisions implicating the role of religion in public life, efforts to restrict gender-affirming care and a host of environmental issues. Here's a look at the major cases this term: Gender-affirming care Case name: United States v. Skrmetti What they're weighing: Is Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for minors constitutional? Tennessee's SB1 prohibits healthcare providers from prescribing puberty blockers or hormones to allow a transgender minor to live consistent with their gender identity. The Biden administration and a group of transgender adolescents and doctors argue the law violates the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The Trump administration abandoned the government's challenge upon taking office but has urged the court to still decide the case. What it will impact: Similar laws passed by Republican-led legislatures in roughly half the country. Racial gerrymandering Case name: Louisiana v. Callais and Robinson v. Callais What they're weighing: Is Louisiana's congressional map an unconstitutional racial gerrymander? This case is the latest stage of the long-running legal battle over Louisiana's congressional map design following the 2020 census. Initially, the Republican-led Legislature overrode the Democratic governor's veto to approve a map with only one majority-Black district. A district court struck it down for likely violating the Voting Rights Act by diluting the power of Black voters. At issue now is a new design, which the legislature drew with an additional Black-majority district to prevent the courts from taking over. A group of white voters argues the legislature went too far in boosting Black voter power, and it is now an unconstitutional racial gerrymander in violation of the 14 th Amendment. What it will impact: States' latitude to draw additional minority-majority districts to remedy a Voting Rights Act violation. Age-verification laws Case name: Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton What they're weighing: Is Texas's age-verification law for porn websites constitutional? Texas's HB 1181, passed in 2023, requires websites to verify users that are 18 years or older if its content is more than one-third 'sexual material harmful to minors.' The porn industry, backed by the ACLU, is challenging the law, which it claims is materially identical to the federal Child Online Protection Act – a measure the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional in 2002. What it will impact: Similar laws limiting children's access to online pornography in nearly half the country. Publicly-funded charter schools Case name: Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond and St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School v. Drummond What they're weighing: Can Oklahoma officials approve the nation's first publicly funded religious charter school? In 2023, the Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board approved a contract for St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, which would be the nation's first publicly funded religious charter school. Oklahoma's Attorney General Gentner Drummond (R) contests the school's approval. This case tests whether the school complies with the First Amendment's religion clauses. What it will impact: The bounds of religion in publicly funded education. Parent opt-outs for LGBTQ schools Case name: Mahmoud v. Taylor What they're weighing: Must Montgomery County, Md., provide parents an opt-out option from LGBTQ-inclusive books in elementary schools? In 2022, the Montgomery County Board of Education introduced LGBTQ-inclusive books in elementary schools. Initially, parents could opt out, but the county later eliminated the option. A group of parents with religious beliefs at odds with the books' teachings argue the lack of an opt-out option violates their religious rights under the Constitution's Free Exercise Clause. What it will impact: When parents can opt-out their children from instruction inconsistent with their religious beliefs. Obamacare Case name: Becerra v. Braidwood Management What they're weighing: Does the structure of the Preventive Services Task Force violate the Constitution's Appointments Clause? The Affordable Care Act requires insurers to cover preventive services without any cost for the patient. The law empowers the federal Preventive Services Task Force, a group of medical experts, to recommend which services should be covered. A group of individuals and small businesses sued after the task force recommended covering HIV-prevention medication. The plaintiffs contend the task force members are principal officers who needed Senate confirmation under the Constitution's Appointments Clause. What it will impact: The task force's recommendations, which could all be thrown into question if the justices rule against it. South Carolina's bid to defund Planned Parenthood Case name: Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic What they're weighing: Can Planned Parenthood challenge South Carolina deeming it an unqualified provider for Medicaid recipients? Known as the free choice-of-provider provision, the Medicaid Act allows recipients to receive health services from any 'qualified' provider. In 2018, South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster (R) signed executive orders deeming abortion clinics unqualified. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic and a patient are challenging McMaster's decision. The Supreme Court is hearing the state's arguments that private parties have no right to sue under the provision. What it will impact: Whether private parties can enforce the Medicaid Act's free choice-of-provider provision. Mexico's suit against US gun makers Case name: Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos What they're weighing: Is Mexico's lawsuit against the American firearms industry barred by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA)? Mexico sued a group of prominent American firearms companies over their guns turning up in cartel violence, seeking $10 billion and injunctive relief that would change the state of U.S. firearm regulation. But in 2005, Congress passed the PLCAA, which provides broad legal immunity to the gun industry. The Supreme Court is hearing the gun industry's appeal after a lower court held Mexico's lawsuit falls under an exception to the law's immunity shield. What it will impact: The scope of the gun industry's liability shield. Reverse discrimination Case name: Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services What they're weighing: Do members of a majority group have to clear a higher legal bar than minority groups to win an employment discrimination claim? Marlean Ames alleges the Ohio Department of Youth Services discriminated against her because she is heterosexual. Ames unsuccessfully applied for a promotion in 2019, but the job long remained vacant until her gay boss offered the job to a gay person who didn't apply. Then, Ames says she was given a demotion and replaced by yet another gay person. A lower court agreed Ames met the normal requirements to bring a federal discrimination lawsuit but ruled against her, saying she needed to additionally prove 'background circumstances' since she was a member of a majority group. What it will impact: How easily white and straight individuals can bring employer discrimination suits. Unreasonable force standard Case name: Barnes v. Felix, Jr. What they're weighing: What legal test governs 4th Amendment unreasonable force claims? Ashtian Barnes was shot and killed by a police officer during a 2016 traffic stop for driving a rental car that had unpaid toll fees. Officer Roberto Felix, Jr. asked Barnes to step out of the car, but the vehicle started moving forward, prompting Felix to shoot Barnes. Barnes's mother sued for damages, claiming Felix used unreasonable force against her son. The justices must decide whether courts should assess everything that happened during the traffic stop or just the split seconds when the officer feared for his safety. What it will impact: The standard for use of deadly force by police. Catholic Charities tax exemption Case name: Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission What they're weighing: Can Wisconsin deny its unemployment tax religious exemption to Catholic Charities Bureau? Catholic Charities Bureau, the charitable arm of a Wisconsin diocese, is challenging the state's refusal to grant a religious exemption from paying state unemployment taxes. The exemption requires recipients to be 'operated primarily for religious purposes.' The state and its top court held that the charity does not meet that requirement because it employs non-Catholics, provides services that could be provided by secular groups and does not proselytize. What it will impact: The extent to which states can scrutinize a group's professed religious purpose. Encironmental reviews Case name: Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado What they're weighing: Did the Surface Transportation Board conduct a sufficient environmental review in approving an 88-mile proposed railway in Utah? In 2021, the Surface Transportation Board approved plans for an 88-mile railroad in Utah. The parties are battling over the board's review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which requires federal agencies to consider the 'reasonably foreseeable' environmental effects of a proposed action. Eagle County, Colo., and several environmental groups are challenging the approval, arguing the board ignored required upstream and downstream effects. What it will impact: The scope of environmental reviews required by NEPA. Texas DNA testing law Case name: Gutierrez v. Saenz What they're weighing: Can death-row inmate Ruben Gutierrez proceed in his quest for DNA testing? Texas death row inmate Ruben Gutierrez has sought DNA testing for more than a decade, claiming it will make him ineligible for the death penalty by showing he had no major role in a 1998 robbery and murder. Texas's law only allows DNA testing when favorable results would prove a defendant's innocence, which Guttierez claims violates due process. He is appealing a ruling that he has no legal standing to move forward. What it will impact: The use of DNA as a tool in capital cases. Mistaken FBI raid Case name: Martin v. United States What they're weighing: Can a family whose house was mistakenly raided by the FBI seek damages from the federal government? The FBI raided an Atlanta family's home – detonating a flash-bang grenade with guns raised – in 2017 before realizing they had the wrong house. The family sued for damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act, but lower courts tossed their challenge. What it will impact: When people injured by certain actions of federal officers can bring damages claims. Universal Service Fund Case name: FCC v. Consumers' Research and SHLBC v. Consumers' Research What they're weighing: Does the Universal Service Fund violate the nondelegation doctrine? The Universal Service Fund (USF) spends $9 billion annually to subsidize telecommunications services for rural and low-income consumers. A conservative nonprofit asserts it violates the nondelegation doctrine, which prevents Congress from delegating its legislative authority to the executive branch. Congress allows the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to determine how much telecommunications companies must contribute to the fund, which the FCC, in turn, sets based on a private company's financial projections. What it will impact: The court has not struck down a statute under the doctrine since 1935, but anti-regulatory interests are hoping the case will revitalize the doctrine and place more limits on federal agency power. Suing Palestine Case name: Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization and United States v. Palestine Liberation Organization What they're weighing: Does the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act (PSJVTA) violate the Fifth Amendment? Congress in 2019 passed a law easing terror victims' ability to seek damages from the Palestinian Authority and Palestine Liberation Organization. The Supreme Court is reviewing two lower court decisions ruling the law violates due process by forcing the groups to consent to U.S. courts' authority. What it will impact: Whether Americans injured in Middle East terror attacks to take Palestinian leadership groups to U.S. courts for damages. California's emission standard Case name: Diamond Alternative Energy v. EPA What they're weighing: Do fuel producers have standing to sue over California's car emissions rule? The Clean Air Act generally preempts state laws that regulate car emissions. But the law allows the EPA to grant California (and only California) a waiver, which the state has used to impose stricter standards. During the Obama administration, EPA granted such a waiver, the Trump administration partially withdrew it, and the Biden administration reinstated it in 2022. A group of fuel producers suing over the reinstatement are appealing a lower ruling that found they have no legal standing. What it will impact: Whether the energy industry can revive its effort to axe California's stricter emission standard. West Texas nuclear facility Case name: Nuclear Regulatory Commission v. Texas What they're weighing: Can the Nuclear Regulatory Commission license a private entity to temporarily store nuclear waste away from the reactor where it was generated? And who can sue? In 2021, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensed Interim Storage Partners to store up to 5,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuels for 40 years at its West Texas facility. The commission is appealing two findings that allowed Fasken Land and Minerals and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) to block the license. What it will impact: Limits on who can challenge certain federal agency actions. Clean Air Act Case name: EPA v. Calumet Shreveport Refining, Oklahoma v. EPA and Pacificorp v. EPA What they're weighing: What is the proper venue for lawsuits brought under the Clean Air Act? These cases involve the federal government's bid to move to Washington, D.C., a series of lawsuits brought by Republican-led states and the energy industry challenging Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) actions under the Clean Air Act. The EPA is attempting to transfer the first case out of the conservative-leaning 5th Circuit, while the plaintiffs appealed in the other cases after the 10th Circuit agreed to move them to D.C. What it will impact: When more conservative-leaning courts can get involved in key environmental cases. Vape product challenges Case name: FDA v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. What they're weighing: Where can vape manufacturers sue when the FDA denies a product's marketing authorization? Federal law requires vape manufacturers to receive FDA approval before marketing their products. 'Any person adversely affected' by a denial can sue in Washington, D.C., or the federal circuit court where they reside. In this case, RJ Reynolds Vapor Company attempted to bring a challenge in the conservative-leaning 5th Circuit by adding as plaintiffs a retail store and a trade association based there. The federal government wants the Supreme Court to shut down the tactic. What it will impact: Whether vape companies can forum shop to challenge FDA denials. Ghost guns The Supreme Court in a 7-2 decision upheld the Biden administration's rule. Case name: Bondi v. VanDerStock What they're weighing: Is the Biden administration's crackdown on 'ghost guns' legal? In 2022, the Biden-era Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) issued a rule cracking down on 'ghost guns,' subjecting them to background-check, licensing and other requirements. The Supreme Court is reviewing whether that the Biden administration could do so by deeming ghost guns as 'firearms' under the Gun Control Act of 1968. The case does not implicate the Second Amendment.
Yahoo
24-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
The Supreme Court Just Put the Voting Rights Act in Its Crosshairs Again
Sign up for the Slatest to get the most insightful analysis, criticism, and advice out there, delivered to your inbox daily. On Monday, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Louisiana v. Callais, an important battle over Black voters' electoral power under Louisiana's congressional map. In the lower courts, seven judges from across the ideological spectrum concluded that Louisiana's map needed to include two majority-Black districts to remedy a prior violation of the Voting Rights Act. But during Monday's arguments, a number of conservative justices indicated that the inclusion of those two districts may now make the map unconstitutional. And, even more troublingly, the conservative supermajority's questions made clear that Louisiana's remedial map may not be the only thing in danger: The Voting Rights Act itself may also be on the line. Although Black residents account for a third of Louisiana's population, the state had originally passed a congressional map in 2022 that had one majority-Black district out of six. Press Robinson and other Black voters sued, arguing that the map violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits states from diluting the voting strength of Black voters. In June 2022, a district judge held that the 2022 map likely violated Section 2. The case then went through some complex procedural machinations, including a Supreme Court order that allowed the dilutive map to be used in the 2022 congressional elections. Eventually, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit directed Louisiana to either pass a map that remedied the Section 2 violation or proceed to trial so that a lawful map could be put in place before the 2024 election. The Louisiana Legislature opted to enact its own map, known as S.B. 8. Importantly, while S.B. 8 includes two majority-Black districts as required by the VRA, it also accomplished the Legislature's political priorities: protecting the seats of certain incumbent U.S. representatives, including Speaker of the House Mike Johnson. In 2024, however, a group of self-described 'non-African Americans' challenged S.B. 8, arguing that it was a racial gerrymander in violation of the Constitution. Under Supreme Court precedent, the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause prohibits race from being the 'predominant factor' in state legislatures' redistricting decisions. The challengers to S.B. 8 argued that by creating a second Black majority district to comply with the VRA, race prevailed over the Louisiana Legislature's decision to make that district. After a truncated trial, a divided three-judge district court struck down S.B. 8, essentially holding that because the Legislature was committed to remedying the Section 2 violation, race predominated. Louisiana and the Black voters from the original 2022 litigation appealed to the Supreme Court. At its core, this case is about the discretion that states need to draw maps that comply with the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution and satisfy the state's other legitimate redistricting goals, including the state's political aims. As my colleagues and I discussed in a brief we filed in the case, the Supreme Court has held that states must have 'breathing room' when drawing these maps. So if a state has 'good reasons' to believe that it must draw majority-Black districts, federal courts must uphold those legislative judgments unless they conclude that the states considered race more than was necessary to remedy the VRA violation. As Justice Elena Kagan explained at oral argument, a federal court order instructing Louisiana to draw a second majority-Black congressional district is surely a 'good reason' to do so. And here, that order was subsequently affirmed by six different judges on the notoriously conservative 5th Circuit. After appealing the district court decision and losing (twice), the state opted to pass its own remedial map rather than continue litigating a case in which it was doomed to fail and risk having a federal court-drawn map imposed on its citizens. Then, as Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson detailed, the Legislature's choice of S.B. 8 over other possible maps was based on 'strictly politics': to protect incumbents. That should be the end of this case. The high court has, after all, blessed overtly political considerations in redistricting. Unsurprisingly, however, the court's conservative justices appeared skeptical that S.B. 8 was lawful and that a second majority-Black district was necessary in the first place. The Roberts court has long been hostile to voting rights, and this case appears to be no exception. Throughout Monday's arguments, Chief Justice John Roberts found fault with Louisiana's second majority-Black district, calling it a 'snake,' as if its shape demonstrated its unconstitutionality. He pressed Stuart Naifeh—counsel from the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which represented the Black voters—to explain why the district 'runs from one side of the state angling up to the other, picking up Black populations as it goes along.' As Naifeh explained, the Black communities encompassed by the district were not grouped at random but rather shared histories of discrimination and common interests; a mere glance at the map does not reveal the history behind the geographic location of these populations. Justice Neil Gorsuch, for his part, opined that under the 14th Amendment, 'race should play no role' in our laws, including in redistricting. But this view is not the law; it flies in the face of decades of Supreme Court cases, including Allen v. Milligan, which was decided less than two years ago. As Jackson rightfully pointed out, no Supreme Court precedent has ever held that states may not use race to comply with the VRA. To hold otherwise would cast serious constitutional doubt upon all maps enacted to comply with the act. Other justices trained their focus on Section 2 itself. Troublingly, Justice Brett Kavanaugh reiterated his position from his Milligan concurrence that race-conscious remedies like the VRA 'cannot extend indefinitely into the future.' He noted that Louisiana is making this exact argument in separate litigation about the state's legislative redistricting maps that is currently pending in the 5th Circuit. (My colleagues and I also filed an amicus brief in that case refuting this claim.) While Kavanaugh recognized that the plaintiffs here may have forfeited that argument, his insistence on bringing up this point in a case when it's not even at issue is deeply concerning. And as Naifeh explained, this argument makes particularly little sense in the context of Section 2 litigation, given that the test for vote dilution expressly includes consideration of current circumstances. Finally, and perhaps most concerningly, several justices questioned whether Louisiana should have complied with the 2022 district court order at all. Most prominently, Justice Samuel Alito stated that the district court case was wrongly decided, and he suggested that the state did not have good reason to consent to an order that, in his view, was wrong. These justices' willingness to dismiss a state's compliance with a federal court order so long as the state thinks it's incorrect is alarming. Indeed, as the chief justice said just last week, if a party disagrees with a court decision, they should appeal it. Louisiana already did that and lost. As Jackson put it, it doesn't matter whether the district court order was correct; all that matters is that it exists. There is no valid reason for a state to disobey a court order. All in all, at Monday's oral argument, the court's conservative majority displayed its disdain for the VRA and highlighted several ways in which it could make litigating Section 2 cases more difficult for voters of color. Roberts and Kavanaugh rejected an attack on the VRA two years ago in Milligan, but it appears they may now be looking for another way to hobble its power. Black Louisianians have been fighting for three years for a fair map under which they can elect the candidates of their choice. If the Supreme Court rules against them, it could upend decades of precedent, making it infinitely harder for states to comply with the VRA and radically undermining the act's ability to protect our multiracial democracy.
Vox
24-03-2025
- Politics
- Vox
The Supreme Court appears determined to blow up its one good Voting Rights Act decision
is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he focuses on the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the decline of liberal democracy in the United States. He received a JD from Duke University and is the author of two books on the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court sent a rather unfortunate message during Monday's argument in a racial gerrymandering dispute called Louisiana v. Callais: Do not trust us. To understand where that message is coming from, it's helpful to be familiar with a case the Court decided just two years ago that is nearly identical to Callais. In Allen v. Milligan (2023), the Court ruled that Alabama's congressional maps violated the Voting Rights Act's protections against racial gerrymandering, and that the state must draw an additional district with a Black majority to ensure Black citizens' political power in the state wasn't illegally diluted. SCOTUS, Explained Get the latest developments on the US Supreme Court from senior correspondent Ian Millhiser. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. Now the Callais case places Louisiana in the same shoes Alabama wore in Milligan. Louisiana's own lawyers concede that Callais 'presents the same question' as Millligan. If the Supreme Court were the sort of institution that applies its own precedents in a consistent and predictable way, the outcome in Callais would be obvious. Since the Court recently decided a virtually identical case ordering the state of Alabama to draw a second Black-majority district, Louisiana should also be required to draw a second such district. Indeed, Louisiana appears to agree. After a legal battle, it eventually had its legislature draw new maps with two Black-majority districts. Nevertheless, at Monday's argument in Callais, all six of the Court's Republicans suggested the Court does not care about its recent precedent: They all appeared to be looking for a way to strike down these new maps. Four of those justices — Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett — dissented in Milligan, so their questions aren't really surprising. But Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, both of whom joined the Milligan majority, also seemed highly skeptical of Louisiana's new maps. Monday's argument did create some uncertainty about whether Kavanaugh will block Louisiana's new maps in this case — or whether he will wait until a different pending case reaches the Court before attempting a ruling that would blow up nearly four decades worth of voting rights law. Kavanaugh has made it clear he's not entirely sure that much of the Voting Rights Act is still necessary. In the Milligan case, Kavanaugh wrote a separate concurring opinion arguing that the Voting Rights Act's protections against racial gerrymandering must have a sunset date, and he repeatedly asked questions about whether he should impose such a date in Callais. He did, however, suggest at one point that this question may need to wait until a later date — an outcome that could leave some of the Voting Rights Act's anti-gerrymandering safeguards in place, for now. So there is some uncertainty about whether, in the short term, the Court will strike down Louisiana's new maps. However, all six of the Court's Republicans appear eager to abandon a voting rights decision they handed down less than two years ago — and in the long run, that makes the durability of any decision the Court makes questionable. How did this messy dispute wind up before the justices in the first place? Callais is actually one of two cases involving Louisiana's congressional maps. Before the Callais case was even filed, a federal district judge ruled in another case, known as Robinson v. Ardoin, that Louisiana's original maps (which had only one Black-majority district) violated the Voting Rights Act as it was interpreted in the Supreme Court's seminal decision in Thornburg v. Gingles (1986). There have been many twists and turns in the Robinson case since then. Indeed, the Supreme Court briefly put the Robinson litigation on ice while it considered the virtually identical dispute in Milligan. Ultimately, however, Milligan rejected Alabama's arguments that the Court should effectively overrule Gingles and replace it with a new rule that would make racial gerrymandering suits under the Voting Rights Act virtually impossible to win. Then, after the Court decided Milligan, a federal appeals court agreed that the original maps at issue in Robinson are illegal. At that point, the state decided to give up the fight, convene its legislature, and draw new maps that complied with the Robinson order. Ordinarily, that would be the end of the dispute. The state had its chance to defend its old maps. It lost in multiple courts. And it made the entirely rational decision not to litigate the case any further because the Supreme Court had already signaled that it should lose in Milligan. But then a new set of plaintiffs challenged the state's new maps (this is the Callais case) arguing that the state violated the Constitution because it paid too much attention to race when it drew the new maps. The state absolutely did consider race when it drew those maps — it had to draw two Black-majority districts based on the Robinson court order — but the Supreme Court held in Cooper v. Harris (2017) that a state may engage in 'race-based districting' when it has 'a strong basis in evidence' for concluding it must do so to comply with the Voting Rights Act. There's no question that Louisiana had a strong basis to conclude that it had to draw a second Black-majority district when it drew its new maps, as two federal courts had ordered them to do so. But two members of the three-judge panel that heard Callais, the ones appointed by Donald Trump, nevertheless struck down Louisiana's new maps. That left the state trapped between two competing court orders, one that forbids them from using the old maps, and another forbidding them from using the new maps. Now that Callais is before the Supreme Court, the only question that is legitimately before the justices is whether a state may comply with a court order requiring it to draw two Black-majority districts by drawing two Black-majority districts. Because the state decided not to continue fighting the lower courts' conclusions in Robinson, the justices should not have the authority to question what happened in that case. But that didn't stop many of the Court's Republicans from trying to relitigate Robinson. Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch all peppered the lawyers defending Louisiana's new maps with questions about whether, in Thomas's words, the Court must accept Robinson 'as a given.' (The correct answer to Thomas's question is 'yes.') The Milligan dissenters already made their views clear when that case was decided, so Callais is unlikely to turn on their votes. The question is whether either Roberts or Kavanaugh have had a change of heart since Milligan was decided only two years ago. Many of their questions suggest that they have. Roberts and Kavanaugh appear eager to blow up four decades of voting rights law Related How America lost its commitment to the right to vote Kavanaugh's suggestion that racial civil rights laws must sunset at some point, for example, derives from Roberts's majority opinion in Shelby County v. Holder (2013), which concluded that a key provision of the Voting Rights Act is now unconstitutional because the United States was less racist in 2013 than it was in the 1960s. Though Roberts asked few questions during the Callais argument, the handful of questions he did ask suggests that he wants to toss out Louisiana's new maps. At one point, for example, he joined the Thomas/Alito/Gorsuch bloc in questioning whether Robinson was correctly decided. At another point, he suggested that the new maps are illegal because one of the districts resembles a 'snake.' It is true that the Supreme Court has said that, during cases like Robinson, the plaintiffs must demonstrate that it is possible to draw an additional majority-minority district that is reasonably compact. But the plaintiffs met that burden while Robinson was being litigated. The state says that the legislature chose not to use the plaintiffs' more compact maps when it drew the new districts because it wanted to protect a Republican incumbent who sits on the powerful House Appropriations Committee. Under existing law, the state is allowed to draw an uglier map than the one that was under consideration in Robinson. Indeed, the Court's gerrymandering decisions emphasize that 'redistricting is 'primarily the duty and responsibility of the State.'' So Louisiana should have been allowed to draw any map it wants, provided that it complied with the Robinson order. Still, Roberts's skeptical questions about the snake-like district imply that he is looking for a reason to strike the new maps down. Kavanaugh, meanwhile, repeatedly brought up his claim in Milligan that the Voting Rights Act's anti-gerrymandering safeguards need an expiration date. He did, however, acknowledge that this issue was not raised by the Callais plaintiffs until fairly late in this litigation, and that there is another case making its way through the court system which raises this sunsetting issue more directly. So Kavanaugh may vote to uphold Louisiana's new maps, with the understanding that he could potentially eliminate much of the Voting Rights Act once that other case reaches his Court. Even if Kavanaugh does stay his hand in Callais, however, that won't be enough to save Louisiana's new maps. If Roberts joins the four Milligan dissenters, that's a majority. Ultimately, if Louisiana's maps are struck down, one of the biggest losers will be the fairly basic proposition that the law should operate in a predictable way. Because of the Republican justices' longstanding skepticism of the Voting Rights Act, few close observers of the Court expected it to do what it did in Milligan. But the ink on the Milligan opinion is barely dry, and lawyers and lawmakers should be able to rely on a Supreme Court decision that is less than two years old — especially given the fact that no member of the Milligan majority has left the Court.
Yahoo
24-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Battle over Black voter representation in Louisiana heads to Supreme Court
'The Voting Rights Act enshrines the right to an equal opportunity to access our political system – and for Black Louisianans, that means having two congressional districts,' said former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder. The Supreme Court on Monday heard oral arguments in a case that could determine whether Louisiana will have to uphold a second majority-Black congressional district. The case more broadly will focus on the future enforcement of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as it relates to how race is legally considered in the drawing of district lines around the state and beyond. The consolidated cases, Louisiana v. Callais and Robinson v. Callais, are focused on a map first crafted by the Republican-majority Louisiana state legislature in 2022 that was successfully challenged. The plaintiffs argued that the map was racially discriminatory because only one of six congressional districts was majority Black, despite the Black population making up a third of Louisiana's population. After the map was deemed likely unconstitutional under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the state was ordered to draw a new map with a second majority-Black district. That district, Louisiana's 6th Congressional District, is currently represented by U.S. Rep. Cleo Fields, D-La., who is Black. Fields was elected in the November 2024 election as a result of the new map and was sworn in on Jan. 3. However, immediately after the new map with two majority-Black districts was enacted, another lawsuit was filed, arguing that it was racially discriminatory against white voters. Now, the Supreme Court will get a chance to weigh in on the matter, either allowing the second district to remain or striking it down and requiring the state legislature to draw a new map again. 'This Court ruled just two years ago to uphold Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, so any decision coming out of this case should do the same,' said Eric Holder, former U.S. attorney general under President Barack Obama and chairman of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee. 'The Voting Rights Act enshrines the right to an equal opportunity to access our political system – and for Black Louisianans, that means having two congressional districts where their voices can be meaningfully heard. Anything short of that would be a textbook violation of that law.' Holder continued, 'This absurd challenge to Louisiana's fair map presents the same arguments as the anti-civil rights coalition did to prevent the enactment and reauthorizations of the Voting Rights Act a generation ago.' He added, 'In moments like this, it is the duty of the courts to protect the rights of American citizens, and in this case, the Supreme Court must reinstate Louisiana's Voting Rights Act-compliant map.' The legal teeth of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which prohibits racial discrimination in access to voting, have been gradually weakened over the years. In 2013, when the Supreme Court struck down the preclearance provision, Section 5, in Shelby County v. Holder, which required states in the South with a history of racially discriminatory voting laws to first get federal approval before enacting new laws. In 2023, a ruling from the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals raised the threshold for when civil rights groups can challenge voting laws on behalf of Black voters. Civil rights leaders have long decried the rulings from federal courts, saying they have opened the door to more barriers to voting access for Black and brown voters created by partisan Republican lawmakers. 'This case isn't just about a congressional map. It's about representation and living up to the fundamental ideal that should guide our democracy: that every individual has the right to exercise self-determination at the ballot box,' said Marina Jenkins, executive director at National Redistricting Foundation. The Supreme Court's ruling in 2023, which allowed Alabama to move forward with a new map with a second Black-majority district, gives advocates hope in the Louisiana case. In Allen v. Milliagn, the high court ruled that a map excluding the second district diluted the voting power of Black residents. 'It would be a head-spinning reversal of its own precedent,' said Jenkins if the Supreme Court was to rule against Louisiana's second majority-Black district. She added, 'This should be a straightforward decision for the Court…The State of Louisiana chose how to meet that requirement within their own political prerogatives. That should be the end of the story.' More must-reads: Mia Love, former Republican congresswoman, dead at 49 Trump has ordered the dismantling of the Education Department. Here's what it does Trump's move to dismantle DOE sparks fears of racial segregation, 'Attack on Black children'
