WASHINGTON, May 11 (Reuters) &#8211; The U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way on Monday for Alabama Republicans to pursue a congressional voting map more favorable to the GOP ahead of November&#8217;s midterm elections, the latest fallout from the court&#8217;s seismic voting rights ruling.
The justices lifted a lower court&#8217;s decision that had blocked state Republicans&#8217; preferred map as racially discriminatory and for illegally diluting the voting power of black Alabamians.
Federal courts had previously ruled Alabama&#8217;s map likely violated the Voting Rights Act by failing to create a second majority-black district in the state.
The Supreme Court said the lower courts must reconsider previous rulings in light of the high court&#8217;s recent decision in the Voting Rights Act case, Louisiana v. Callais, which struck down a majority-black district in that state as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The ruling limited how race can be used in drawing congressional districts under the Voting Rights Act. President Donald Trump called on states to redraw maps after that decision.
Alabama is expected to revert to a map passed in 2023, which would reduce the number of districts where black voters comprise a majority or near-majority from two to one of the state&#8217;s seven U.S. House districts.
<a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-clears-path-alabama-redraw-congressional-map/">According</a> to CBS News, the ruling &#8220;appears to be 6 to 3.&#8221; Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by fellow liberal Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, broke with the majority in a written dissent, arguing the lower court&#8217;s conclusion that Alabama deliberately discriminated against black voters should remain in place. Sotomayor was the only justice to disclose their vote publicly, The Hill <a href="https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5873190-supreme-court-alabama-redistricting/">reported</a>.
The ruling could reshape control of the U.S. House by allowing states to redraw maps to reduce minority-opportunity districts.
Alabama is one of several red Southern states attempting to redraw its congressional map before the November midterms.
Tennessee lawmakers approved a congressional map expected to hand Republicans control of all nine of the Volunteer State&#8217;s congressional districts. The map, signed by Republican Gov. Bill Lee, spreads out the heavily Democratic population centers in Memphis and Nashville across multiple Republican-favorable districts and is likely to eliminate the state&#8217;s lone Democratic seat, currently held by Rep. Steve Cohen of Memphis.
In Florida, Republicans led by Gov. Ron DeSantis passed new congressional district boundaries projected to give the GOP four additional House seats.
Lawmakers in Louisiana, South Carolina, and Mississippi are also reviewing potential redistricting plans that could further shift seats to Republicans.
Before the Supreme Court decision last week, Alabama had been required to maintain one majority-black district and a second with a near-majority black population under an interpretation of the Voting Rights Act that has now been ruled an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. After the ruling, Attorney General Steve Marshall, a Republican, <a href="https://www.alabamaag.gov/attorney-general-marshall-applauds-momentous-supreme-court-redistricting-decision/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> the state would move quickly to ensure its maps “reflect the will of the people, not a racial quota system the Constitution forbids.”
“The Court rightly acknowledged that the South has made extraordinary progress, and that laws designed for a different era do not reflect the present reality,” Marshall stated.
&nbsp;
&nbsp;

Rally over voting rights and redistricting outside the state capitol in Montgomery

Supreme Court Move Puts Alabama Redistricting Back In Play

Alabama

Courts

Politics

Redistricting

SCOTUS

Supreme Court

Voting Rights Act

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito on Monday rebuked one of his liberal colleagues for writing an &#8220;insulting&#8221; and &#8220;utterly irresponsible&#8221; dissent.
In a Monday night order, the high court allowed its landmark Voting Rights Act ruling to take effect immediately.
The 6-3 decision, authored by Alito, struck down Louisiana&#8217;s congressional map and sharply limited the ability of states to consider race when drawing congressional maps, reigniting redistricting battles nationwide ahead of the 2026 midterms.
Later that day, a group of Louisiana voters asked the justices to bypass the usual 32-day waiting period between when a ruling is issued and when the Supreme Court clerk releases the opinion to a lower court.
&#8220;Time is of the essence,&#8221; <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25A1197/405667/20260429182953938_4-29-2026_Application%20to%20Expedite.pdf">they wrote in an emergency application</a>, noting how a delay could force &#8220;thousands of Louisiana voters who suffered through one racially gerrymandered election in 2024 and face the looming prospect of another in 2026.&#8221;
A majority of the justices agreed. In an unsigned order, the court said the typical 32-day waiting period is <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25a1197_097c.pdf">&#8220;subject to adjustment.&#8221;</a>
The routine order took an unexpected turn, however, when Justice Jackson issued a lone dissent, calling the court&#8217;s action &#8220;unwarranted and unwise.&#8221;
Jackson, a liberal appointed by President Biden, said her conservative colleagues have &#8220;spawned chaos&#8221; and urged the court to &#8220;stay on the sidelines.&#8221;
&#8220;But, today, the Court chooses the opposite. Not content to have decided the law, it now takes steps to influence its implementation,&#8221; Jackson wrote.
&#8220;The Court unshackles itself from both constraints today and dives into the fray. And just like that, those principles give way to power. Because this abandon is unwarranted and unwise, respectfully, I dissent.&#8221;
Justice Alito was having none of it.
&#8220;The dissent in this suit levels charges that cannot go unanswered,&#8221; Alito wrote in a concurrence joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch. &#8220;The dissent would require that the 2026 congressional elections in Louisiana be held under a map that has been held to be unconstitutional.&#8221;
Alito called Jackson’s legal arguments “baseless,” “insulting,” and “trivial at best.”
&#8220;The dissent goes on to claim that our decision represents an unprincipled use of power. That is a groundless and utterly irresponsible charge,&#8221; he said. &#8220;It is the dissent’s rhetoric that lacks restraint.&#8221;
The fiery exchange highlights rising tensions at the court.
Last month, Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/clarence-thomas-issues-stark-warning-about-americas-survival-under-the-left?author=Jacob+Wheeler&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=undefined&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Clarence+Thomas+Issues+Stark+Warning+About+America%E2%80%99s+Survival+Under+The+Left">rare public apology</a> for going after Justice Brett Kavanaugh in personal terms.
The controversy began in Kansas, where she criticized Kavanaugh for his <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/25a169_5h25.pdf">concurring opinion</a> in an immigration case involving ICE raids.
“I had a colleague in that case who wrote, you know, these are only temporary stops,” Sotomayor said, according to a <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-04-08/sotomayor-faults-kavanaugh-over-immigration-stops-concurrence">Bloomberg report</a>. “This is from a man whose parents were professionals. And probably doesn’t really know any person who works by the hour.”
Days later, Sotomayor said her remarks were inappropriate.
“I regret my hurtful comments. I have apologized to my colleague,&#8221; she said in a statement.
In a viral speech at the University of Texas School of Law, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/clarence-thomas-issues-stark-warning-about-americas-survival-under-the-left?author=Jacob+Wheeler&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=undefined&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Clarence+Thomas+Issues+Stark+Warning+About+America%E2%80%99s+Survival+Under+The+Left">Justice Thomas decried “progressivism,”</a> saying the political ideology, pushed by elites in Washington, threatens the foundational values of the United States.
“They water down their message, negotiate against themselves, vote against their principles, and hide in the tall grass,” Thomas asserted. “They recast themselves as institutionalists, pragmatists, or thoughtful moderates, all as a way of justifying their failures to themselves, their consciences, and their country.”

Senate Holds Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings For Ketanji Brown Jackson

Alito Torches Jackson’s ‘Baseless And Insulting’ Voting Rights Meltdown

Justice Alito

Justice Jackson

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday temporarily restored access to the abortion pill mifepristone, blocking a federal appeals court ruling and teeing up a showdown at the high court.
On Friday, a three-judge panel of the ⁠Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals blocked a nationwide Biden-era policy allowing the abortion pill mifepristone to be prescribed online and delivered by mail. The court held that the regulation is likely unlawful and inflicts ongoing harm while litigation proceeds.
Over the weekend, manufacturers of the abortion drug filed emergency appeals asking the Supreme Court to intervene.
Acting alone, Justice Samuel Alito on Monday <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/28093011-25a1207-admin-stay-and-cfr/">entered an administrative stay</a> of the Fifth Circuit ruling, which is a short-term, procedural order that freezes legal proceedings to maintain the status quo. 
The emergency order, set to expire next Monday, directs Louisiana to file briefs for consideration by the full court.
After the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the Biden administration expanded access to chemical abortion nationwide. Under the 2023 rules, mifepristone could be prescribed via telehealth and shipped without an in-person doctor visit.
The majority of abortions in the U.S. are obtained through medications, usually a combination of mifepristone and a second drug, misoprostol, <a href="https://apnews.com/article/abortion-pills-mifepristone-supreme-court-louisiana-0533e83d67148fdfec53b1d0d30c1e8a">according to the Associated Press</a>. The policy aims to circumvent some of the abortion bans that conservative states have implemented.
Louisiana challenged the Biden-era policy under the Administrative Procedure Act, arguing the FDA relied on flawed or nonexistent data while eliminating safety protocols. <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/court-issues-major-ruling-on-biden-abortion-pill-policy">The Daily Wire previously reported</a> that the agency acknowledged it had not adequately studied the safety of remote dispensing and is still conducting a review, with no clear timeline for completion.
The Fifth Circuit rejected the argument that courts should wait on the FDA’s ongoing review. Allowing the policy to continue, the panel argued, would effectively permit the agency to maintain a potentially unlawful regulation indefinitely.
“Every abortion facilitated by FDA’s action cancels Louisiana’s ban,” the court wrote, emphasizing that such sovereign harms cannot be undone.
The ruling outraged Democrats. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) called the decision &#8220;<a href="https://x.com/SenSchumer/status/2051307954926723410?s=20">an appalling overreach</a>.&#8221;
The Trump administration has <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/justice-department-moves-to-shut-down-red-state-lawsuit-over-abortion-pill">defended the F.D.A. in court</a> as the agency conducts a new review of mifepristone. Some anti-abortion advocates have been frustrated with the speed of the review, putting the White House in an uncomfortable political position going into the November midterms.
Susan B. Anthony, a prominent Pro-Life group, blasted the Trump administration and called for the immediate termination of FDA Commissioner Martin A. Makary.
&#8220;Indifference is completely unacceptable to millions of pro-life voters expecting the administration to act to save lives. Abortions are up, not down, after Dobbs, with at least 1.1 million deaths a year,&#8221; <a href="https://sbaprolife.org/newsroom/press-releases/sba-pro-life-america-intensifies-call-to-fire-makary">the group said in a statement</a>. &#8220;More than 90,000 abortions occur each year just in states that protect babies in the law throughout all nine months of pregnancy — a direct result of Biden’s Covid-era mail-order abortion drug rule, which the Trump administration inexplicably allows to continue.&#8221;
“This is a five-alarm crisis for the pro-life movement and for the GOP,&#8221; the group added. &#8220;The GOP cannot win without its base and simply will not get the enthusiasm that drives turnout without leadership from the top.&#8221;
In a statement to The Daily Wire, White House spokeswoman Allison Schuster said the Trump administration is closely following the litigation.
&#8220;In the meantime, the FDA continues to work on a rigorous, Gold Standard Science review to get to the bottom of widespread concerns about mifepristone,&#8221; Schuster said.

Abortion – Miscarriage

Supreme Court Takes Unusual Step As Legal Showdown Intensifies Over Mail-In Abortion Drug

Abortion Drug

Health

Health Care

An alleged Chinese &#8220;birth tourism&#8221; center — which claims to have facilitated the births of 1,000 American-born babies — has been operating in Texas for nearly two decades.
Now, the Lone Star State is trying to stop them.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton <a href="https://x.com/KenPaxtonTX/status/2049570167475368334">announced</a> a lawsuit Wednesday against the De’Ai Postpartum Care Center in Houston, accusing them of &#8220;exploiting birthright citizenship by unlawfully facilitating the invasion of Chinese nationals &#8230; for the sole purpose of giving birth.&#8221;
“America is for Americans, not foreigners trying to cheat the system to claim citizenship,” Paxton said Wednesday, alleging that the center &#8220;facilitated an invasion of Texas&#8221; while &#8220;shielding and facilitating violations of immigration law.&#8221;
&#8220;Birthright citizenship is a scam that threatens national security, and I will do everything in my power to stop unlawful ‘birth tourism’ schemes like this one,&#8221; Paxton added.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Last week, the center posted a video to TikTok encouraging women to apply for US tourist visas &#8220;before pregnancy,&#8221; stating that the federal government &#8220;will strictly investigate birth tourism.&#8221;
&#8220;It is easy to be rejected if you sign after pregnancy.&#8221; <a href="https://t.co/2E2wSxnFlO">pic.twitter.com/2E2wSxnFlO</a>
— Jennie Taer (@JennieSTaer) <a href="https://twitter.com/JennieSTaer/status/2049585051273228420?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 29, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Last week, the center posted a video to TikTok encouraging women to apply for American tourist visas &#8220;before pregnancy,&#8221; stating that the federal government &#8220;will strictly investigate birth tourism,&#8221; adding, &#8220;It is easy to be rejected if you sign after pregnancy.&#8221;
The center runs at least four homes, which host multiple families at once and can facilitate &#8220;up to twenty new births per day,&#8221; according to the lawsuit.
It also &#8220;claims to offer a variety of options for tourism while expectant families await the birth of their child,&#8221; that include a &#8220;luxury chauffeured black-car service across the Houston area for its high-paying guests, purportedly to visit the variety of different locales advertised on its social media page, including the spring bluebonnets in Brenham, Texas, the Houston Rodeo, Christmas light shows in Houston, and the Louvre Couture exhibition at the Museum of Fine Arts,&#8221; the lawsuit states.
The Daily Wire requested comment from two of the accused clinic partners.
On the first day of his second term in the White House, President Donald Trump signed an executive order ending birthright citizenship. The order, which has been paused due to multiple legal challenges, now sits before the Supreme Court.
The high court heard oral arguments April 1, which were attended by the president himself.
“We are the only Country in the World STUPID enough to allow ‘Birthright’ Citizenship!” Trump posted on Truth Social shortly after the conclusion of the oral arguments.
Republican Kentucky Senator Rand Paul <a href="https://x.com/SenRandPaul/status/2049862587064443291">introduced</a> a constitutional amendment Thursday to end birthright citizenship to ensure &#8220;that only children born to legal residents of the U.S. are automatically citizens.&#8221;
&#8220;Under current interpretations of American law, anyone born on American soil automatically becomes a U.S. citizen, regardless of whether the parent was here legally or not,&#8221; Paul said. &#8220;This is wrong and not at all the intent of those who wrote the 14th Amendment.&#8221;
&#8220;We are a country filled with immigrants, and legal immigration is valuable and should be protected. But we are also a country whose borders have been too open and our generosity exploited too often. President Trump has moved to seal our border from illegal immigrants more than any other president. But we will have more to do,&#8221; he added.

Untitled design – 2026-04-30T111930.945

How A Chinese ‘Birth Tourism’ Center Has Been Operating In Plain Sight

birthright citizenship

China

Immigration

Texas

A serious threat to the pro-life movement and to the First Amendment was halted this week. The Supreme Court unanimously <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-unanimously-slaps-down-blue-state-targeting-pro-life-group">ruled in favor</a> of First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, affirming that Christian nonprofits do not forfeit their constitutional rights simply because their beliefs don’t align with those of powerful politicians supporting anti-Christian ideologies.
New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin targeted First Choice because of its religious and pro-life views by issuing a subpoena and opening an unjustified and unfounded investigation against it. This was never about protecting the public.
Platkin — whose crusade has been continued by his successor, Jennifer Davenport  — engaged in a bald-faced fishing expedition, proposing to troll unlawfully in waters protected by the First Amendment simply because of convictions that did not align with his own.
Deeply sensitive information was demanded, including the names, addresses, phone numbers, and places of employment of First Choice donors, along with up to 10 years of internal, confidential documents. There was no allegation of fraud, no evidence of financial misconduct, and no suggestion that funds were being misused or improperly handled. The organization was targeted for one reason alone: its Christian, pro-life convictions.
Platkin’s gross misuse of his office should concern every American.
When the government can single out nonprofits for investigation solely because of their beliefs, no organization is truly safe. The harassment of one faith-based pregnancy help organization places donors of all ministries nationwide at risk. This kind of intimidation has a chilling effect — not just on speech, but on generosity, service, and the freedom to live out one’s faith in the public square.
Life and its protection are foundational to a Judeo-Christian worldview because life is precious to God and, therefore, at the core of everything we value as a nation. Indeed, it is the first right identified in our founding documents. When we begin to penalize and isolate the organizations and individual donors who defend that right, we set society on a trajectory toward one that no longer values or protects life or liberty at all. We become an anti-life, pro-death culture.
We are grateful that the Supreme Court intervened, but this decision does not mean the danger has passed. This case exposed a deeply troubling willingness by some state officials to weaponize government authority against organizations they ideologically oppose.
This is not an isolated incident. It is yet another front in a broader campaign against pro-life, faith-based organizations — particularly Christian ones. It reflects a growing hostility toward those who work to protect unborn lives and walk alongside mothers and families long after a pregnancy test turns positive.
Faith-based nonprofits must have the assurance that sensitive donor records will not be seized simply because their mission is unpopular with those in power. Similarly, donors who sacrificially support these causes deserve to have their privacy and identities protected from gross governmental overreach. Pregnancy centers must be free to do the work they have faithfully done for decades: offering compassion, truth, and tangible support to women and children in need. When pregnancy help organizations are attacked, the entire pro-life movement is disrupted, and the entire nonprofit landscape is threatened.
Other hostile states, including California and New York, have already demonstrated a pattern of politically targeting pregnancy help organizations and infringing on their constitutional rights to speak, serve, and operate freely.
We cannot afford to let our guard down.
As leaders of Christian, pro-life nonprofits that work hand in hand with pregnancy centers every day, we stand firmly with them. Heartbeat International is the largest global network of pregnancy help organizations, including First Choice Women’s Resource Centers. Lifeline Children’s Services is a holistic child welfare ministry that provides pregnancy counseling and long-term support for women, children, and families — walking with mothers not only through pregnancy, but through postpartum care and beyond.
We have seen firsthand the life-saving and life-changing good this work accomplishes. We have also seen how quickly freedom can erode when deeply held personal convictions become grounds for prosecution. No one should face investigation, intimidation, or imprisonment simply for holding a pro-life belief.
That is why we must stand together — across organizations, across states, and across denominations. This is not just a First Choice Pregnancy Center issue, nor is it a Heartbeat International or Lifeline Children’s Services concern alone. It is a matter that affects the entire pro-life movement and every American who values constitutional freedom.
While this latest attack was thwarted, the responsibility to remain vigilant remains. The freedoms promised in the Constitution are preserved only when actively defended.
And these freedoms are worth defending, because life is precious and both are the backbone of our nation.
***
Herbie Newell is the president and executive director of Lifeline Children’s Services, host of The Defender podcast, and author of “Image Bearers: Shifting from Pro-Birth to Pro-Life.”
Jor-El Godsey serves as president of Heartbeat International, the largest and most expansive network of pregnancy help in the world, with nearly 4,000 affiliates located in about 100 countries.

Demonstrators Participate In National March For Life

SCOTUS Unanimously Hands Pro-Life Pregnancy Centers A Big Win But The Fight Continues

DW Opinion

pregnancy centers

Pro-Life Movement

Louisiana has suspended its May 16 primary elections for congressional races following the Supreme Court ruling on Wednesday on its congressional map, as districts need to be redrawn in order to be legally compliant.
The Supreme Court ruled that one of the state’s majority-minority districts was illegally racially gerrymandered.
“Yesterday’s historic Supreme Court victory for Louisiana has an immediate consequence for the State. The Supreme Court previously stayed an injunction against the State’s enforcement of the current Congressional map,” Gov. Jeff Landry (R-LA) and Attorney General Liz Murrill (R-LA) said in a statement on Thursday. “By the Court’s order, however, that stay automatically terminated with yesterday’s decision. Accordingly, the State is currently enjoined from carrying out congressional elections under the current map. We are working together with the Legislature and the Secretary of State’s office to develop a path forward.”
Justice Samuel Alito wrote in his majority opinion of the court that “the State’s attempt to satisfy the Middle District’s ruling, although understandable, was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.”
Rep. Troy Carter (D-LA), the only Democrat in the state&#8217;s congressional delegation, blasted the Supreme Court&#8217;s decision as a &#8220;devastating blow.&#8221;
&#8220;The consequences of this decision are immediate and severe: the hard-fought progress that led to the creation of two majority-Black congressional districts in Louisiana is now in jeopardy,&#8221; Carter said in a statement.
“Let’s be clear: this is not about so-called ‘colorblind’ principles. History has shown us time and again that policies claiming neutrality, from literacy tests to poll taxes, have been used to silence Black voices. Louisiana knows this history all too well. Without the protections of the Voting Rights Act, there is no evidence to suggest that Black voters in our state will be able to elect candidates of their choice,&#8221; Carter continued.
It&#8217;s unclear if and how the move will impact other races in the state, as other contests are set to occur that day as well, including the hotly-competitive Republican Senate primary between Rep. Julia Letlow (R-LA) and Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA).
In multiple other states, including Tennessee and Mississippi, map redraws are being weighed that could get rid of deep blue districts that were created under the previous legal scope.
&#8220;I&#8217;ll keep saying it: the Tennessee legislature should reconvene immediately and REDRAW THE LINES!&#8221; Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), who&#8217;s running for governor, posted to X on Thursday. The Volunteer State has a deep blue district in the Memphis area.
Meanwhile, Republican Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves came out ahead of the decision to call for a special session three weeks after the ruling, and it could lead to a redraw of the state&#8217;s Second Congressional District, which is represented by Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS).
In Alabama, Republican Gov. Kay Ivey said her state will not have a special session to change its maps, citing current federal litigation.
“Litigation surrounding Alabama’s congressional districts is pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, and Alabama is currently under a court order prohibiting the use of new congressional districts until after the 2030 census. While we are not in position to have a special session at this time, I hope in light of this new decision, the court is favorable to Alabama,&#8221; she stated, according to <a href="https://1819news.com/news/item/ivey-alabama-not-in-position-to-have-a-special-session-at-this-time-on-redistricting?fbclid=IwY2xjawRgYPtleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBicmlkETF4eHBBZUJ4cml1S21pZzZ4c3J0YwZhcHBfaWQQMjIyMDM5MTc4ODIwMDg5MgABHlCocmN3Zhv-9pRJqL55hgHeyVzlORJ8bmR56akqoP_3QlqgKLRTaFAIf0d3_aem_BKbJw3WmmWStqNC5Kd5ZoA" target="_blank" rel="noopener">1819 News</a>.
Before the court&#8217;s decision, states were already taking major mid-decade redistricting actions, including five Democrat-favored seats in California and five Republican-favored seats in Texas. Virginia voted earlier this month to switch to a 10-1 map favoring Democrats with a net gain of four seats, but it is facing a dicey state Supreme Court battle.
In Florida, the legislature rapidly approved a map for four more Republican-favored seats in the Sunshine State following a push from Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis.

Louisiana’s Election Calendar Just Got Blown Up After Supreme Court Ruling

Congress

Louisiana

On Wednesday, after the Supreme Court ruled that the Fifteenth Amendment’s prohibition on intentional racial discrimination forbids race-based redistricting, former President Barack Obama issued a screed denouncing the decision that was, in turn, harshly criticized on social media.
“Today’s Supreme Court decision effectively guts a key pillar of the Voting Rights Act, freeing state legislatures to gerrymander legislative districts to systematically dilute and weaken the voting power of racial minorities &#8211; so long as they do it under the guise of ‘partisanship’ rather than explicit ‘racial bias,’” Obama wrote on X. “And it serves as just one more example of how a majority of the current Court seems intent on abandoning its vital role in ensuring equal participation in our democracy and protecting the rights of minority groups against majority overreach. The good news is that such setbacks can be overcome. But that will only happen if citizens across the country who cherish our democratic ideals continue to mobilize and vote in record numbers &#8211; not just in the upcoming midterms or in high profile races, but in every election and every level.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Today’s Supreme Court decision effectively guts a key pillar of the Voting Rights Act, freeing state legislatures to gerrymander legislative districts to systematically dilute and weaken the voting power of racial minorities &#8211; so long as they do it under the guise of…
&mdash; Barack Obama (@BarackObama) <a href="https://twitter.com/BarackObama/status/2049561079605588184?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 29, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The response came quickly:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
You have absolutely lost your mind.
YOU were the guy who was supposed to get us PAST sorting people by race.
You said judge people by character not color.
Now you&#39;re calling it &quot;voter suppression&quot; when the Court strikes down a district drawn ENTIRELY BY SKIN COLOR??!!
The… <a href="https://t.co/2NQ5Xq8Xmh">pic.twitter.com/2NQ5Xq8Xmh</a>
&mdash; Matt Van Swol (@mattvanswol) <a href="https://twitter.com/mattvanswol/status/2049579727061463538?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 29, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
As with tour characterization of Citizens United, not true! Today’s voting-rights blockbuster was the right call and a victory for the colorblind Constitution. The bottom line is that the Voting Rights Act doesn’t require majority-minority districts and states can’t use race to…
&mdash; Ilya Shapiro (@ishapiro) <a href="https://twitter.com/ishapiro/status/2049590119485632845?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 29, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
I can’t imagine being a nations first black president and wanting to take them all the way backwards on race but if you like your garbage legacy you can KEEP your garbage legacy.
&mdash; Jimmy Failla (@jimmyfailla) <a href="https://twitter.com/jimmyfailla/status/2049577005146845426?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 29, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&nbsp;
It was pointed out that the districts as apportioned in Illinois, Obama’s home state, which is run by Democrats, are crazy:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
lol. This is your home state <a href="https://t.co/95DsjmFZox">pic.twitter.com/95DsjmFZox</a>
&mdash; Megan Basham (@megbasham) <a href="https://twitter.com/megbasham/status/2049628329876009449?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 29, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&nbsp;
As well as the current map of Lousiana’s districts, which is well-nigh ridiculous:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
These are the 2 illegal racially gerrymandered districts that the Supreme Court overturned. Any fair map of Louisiana will look nothing like this 👇 <a href="https://t.co/UOzzq2Hus4">pic.twitter.com/UOzzq2Hus4</a>
&mdash; Izengabe (@Izengabe_) <a href="https://twitter.com/Izengabe_/status/2049604602404696464?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 29, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&nbsp;
Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the court, stated, “Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was designed to enforce the Constitution — not collide with it. Unfortunately, lower courts have sometimes applied this Court’s precedents in a way that forces States to engage in the very race-based discrimination that the Constitution forbids.”
“Allowing race to play any part in government decision making represents a departure from the constitutional rule that applies in almost every other context,” he continued.
Obama’s denigrative use of the phrase “guise of partisanship” was a deliberate attempt to ignore that the Supreme Court opinion was in strict line with the fact that the United States is a constitutional republic. As Alito explained, “Disapproval of partisan gerrymandering dates back to the founding. But partisan gerrymandering claims are not justiciable in federal court. Thus, in considering the constitutionality of a districting scheme, courts must treat partisan advantage like any other race-neutral aim: a constitutionally permissible criterion that States may rely on as desired. For this reason, as we have repeatedly made clear, when a State defends a districting scheme on the ground that it was drawn for partisan purposes, plaintiffs have a ‘special’ burden to overcome.”

US-POLITICS-RIGHTS-JACKSON

‘Absolutely Lost Your Mind’: Obama Ripped After Criticizing Latest Supreme Court Decision

Barack Obama

Elections

gerrymandering

Race

The easiest way to misunderstand Justice Clarence Thomas’s recent <a href="https://manhattaninstituteny-my.sharepoint.com/personal/pbeston_manhattan_institute/Documents/Documents/CJ/as%20part%20of%20the%20celebration%20of%20the%20250th%20anniversary%20of%20the%20Declaration%20of%20Independence">speech</a> at the University of Texas is as a conventional swipe at contemporary progressives. His target was instead deeper and older: the capital-P Progressive challenge to the American Founding itself.
Appearing in Austin as part of a celebration of the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas framed the issue as one of first principles. “The Constitution is the means of government,” he said, and “it is the Declaration that announces the ends of government.”
Indeed, the American system is bigger than mere elections or policy outcomes. It’s defined by a moral claim about human equality and natural rights, and by a constitutional structure designed to secure them.
<a href="https://www.rawstory.com/clarence-thomas-2676762870">Thomas’s critics</a> seem eager to collapse his argument into today’s partisan disputes. They miss the broader view of his speech, with its focus on the long intellectual revolt against the Declaration’s premises and the Constitution’s architecture. As Thomas put it, “At the beginning of the 20th century, a new set of first principles of government was introduced into the American mainstream.” Its leading apostle was Woodrow Wilson, and the movement was progressivism.
Since then, Thomas said, progressivism has “coexisted uneasily with the principles of the Declaration.” Because it’s opposed to those principles, “it is not possible for the two to coexist forever.”
The original Progressives really did reject the Founding’s understanding of liberty, rights, and constitutional structure. Wilson proposed more than modernizing technical improvements around the edges. He argued for a different theory of government, based on his study of German bureaucracy.
That view dates back to his 1887 journal article “<a href="https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/the-study-of-administration-2">The Study of Administration</a>,” where he insisted that “administration lies outside the proper sphere of politics,” and that “Administrative questions are not political questions.” He praised expert administration as distinct from ordinary constitutional politics and suggested that Montesquieu did not “say the last word” on the distribution of authority — meaning there was more to governance than checks and balances.
Thomas summarized the point bluntly. “Progressivism seeks to replace the basic premises of the Declaration of Independence, and hence our form of government,” he said. “It holds that our rights and our dignities come not from God, but from the government.”
That gets to the heart of the matter: a dispute over the nature of rights, not merely whether the government should act here or there. If rights are granted only by positive law, then liberty becomes contingent and revocable — and ultimately political.
And structure is where that dispute cashes out. The Progressives regarded separation of powers, federalism, and bicameralism as mere impediments to enlightened administration. The New Deal accelerated that tendency, consolidating policymaking and enforcement inside sprawling agencies that would’ve struck the Framers as a dangerous concentration of power.
Thomas was thus right to make an argument about regime-level principles. A country that forgets the Declaration’s account of man and government will not preserve the Constitution’s structure for long. Why bother, after all, with rival institutions, limited jurisdictions, and procedural friction if rights come from benevolent experts rather than from “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”?
That’s why the speech also matters, given the increasingly fevered speculation over possible Supreme Court retirements. Justice Thomas turns 78 in June, while Justice Samuel Alito turned 76 earlier this month. Both men are at the top of their game, enjoying more influence than they’ve ever had — as the most senior associate justices, with Thomas set to become the longest-serving justice in history if he stays through May 2028. Neither has indicated a desire to leave and, while they’re aware of the crass political calculus, Republicans <a href="https://www.realclearpolling.com/latest-polls/senate">are still narrowly favored</a> to keep the Senate in this fall’s midterms.
But the actuarial tables underscore what’s at stake. A hypothetical replacement needs to be not just smart, credentialed, and temperamentally suited for the high court. He or she needs to understand our constitutional order: that government exists to secure pre-political rights, and that constitutional structure is itself a guarantor of liberty. The late Justice Antonin Scalia <a href="https://gwtoday.gwu.edu/us-supreme-court-justices-discuss-first-amendment">captured</a> the point memorably: “Every tinhorn dictator in the world today has a bill of rights. It isn’t the Bill of Rights that produces freedom. It’s the structure of government that prevents anybody from seizing all the power.”
Justice Thomas’s Austin speech was a reminder of that forgotten truth. The American Founding was a claim about human nature, political power, and the institutions needed to keep freedom alive. Any successor worthy of his seat should understand that, too.
***
This was originally published with permission in Manhattan Institute&#8217;s City Journal, found <a href="https://www.city-journal.org/article/justice-clarence-thomas-speech-progressives">here</a>.
Ilya Shapiro is director of constitutional studies at the Manhattan Institute, contributing editor of City Journal, senior counsel to Burke Law Group, PLLC, and author, most recently, of <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Lawless-Miseducation-Americas-Ilya-Shapiro/dp/0063336588/">Lawless: The Miseducation of America’s Elites</a>. He also writes the <a href="https://ilyashapiro.substack.com/">Shapiro’s Gavel</a> newsletter.

Clarence Thomas judge

Clarence Thomas Understands Why The Constitution And A Progressive Worldview Are Incompatible

Clarence Thomas

Founding Fathers

MI x DW

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday sharply limited the ability of states to consider race when drawing congressional maps, a decision that could reshape the balance of power in Washington and intensify redistricting battles ahead of the 2026 midterms.
Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito struck down Louisiana’s congressional map, which included two majority-black districts, as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.
In the court&#8217;s <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-109_21o3.pdf">36-page opinion</a>, Alito emphasized that “the Constitution almost never permits the Federal Government or a State to discriminate on the basis of race,” framing the central <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/04/in-major-voting-rights-act-case-supreme-court-strikes-down-redistricting-map-challenged-as-racia/">question </a>as whether compliance with the Voting Rights Act justifies such actions.
For the court&#8217;s conservative wing, the answer was no.
&#8220;Because the Voting Rights Act did not require Louisiana to create an additional majority-minority district, no compelling interest justified the State’s use of race in creating SB8, and that map is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander,&#8221; the court&#8217;s opinion held.
The ruling stopped short of overturning Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, but it significantly restricts how states can use race in redistricting, a shift that could weaken a key mechanism for creating majority-minority districts.
&#8220;Today&#8217;s 6-3 Supreme Court decision in the Callais case is BIG WIN for Equal Protection under the Law, as it returns the Voting Rights Act to its Original Intent, which was to protect against intentional Racial Discrimination,&#8221; President Trump celebrated in a <a href="https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/116490075773072322">Truth Social post.</a> &#8220;Thank you to the brilliant Justice Samuel Alito for authoring this important and appropriate Opinion.&#8221;
In a bitter dissent, liberal Justice Elena Kagan warned of sweeping consequences that &#8220;are likely to be far-reaching and grave.&#8221;
&#8220;Today’s decision renders Section 2 all but a dead letter,&#8221; Kagan wrote. &#8220;In the States where that law continues to matter—the States still marked by residential segregation and racially polarized voting—minority voters can now be cracked out of the electoral process.&#8221;
Louisiana will be required to redraw its maps, and other Republican-led states will likely revisit their own districts amid an escalating nationwide redistricting battle.
Ryan Girdusky, a conservative political consultant and host of the podcast &#8220;It&#8217;s A Numbers Game,&#8221; said he expects the White House to pressure Republican-led states to act ahead of the November elections.
&#8220;I think the White House was genuinely caught off guard with how ambitious blue states would be, like California and Virginia, to redistrict their states in retaliation to Missouri and Texas,&#8221; Girdusky told The Daily Wire. &#8220;And because they are on the losing side of this calculation, as of right now, of this redistricting calculation, and because Indiana failed to redistrict, there&#8217;s going to be immense pressure on all southern states to redistrict black, majority, mostly rural districts, into Republican districts.&#8221; 
New maps in Louisiana, Florida, Georgia, Alabama, South Carolina, Mississippi, North Carolina, and Tennessee could net Republicans as many as 12 seats in Congress, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/15/upshot/supreme-court-voting-rights-gerrymander.html">according to a New York Times analysis. </a>
<div class="image"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="wp-image-1086665 size-full aligncenter" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/current_plausible_720.jpg" alt="" width="719" height="388" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/current_plausible_720.jpg 719w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/current_plausible_720-300x162.jpg 300w" sizes=" (max-width: 719px) 100vw, 719px" /></div>
Blue states, including California and Virginia, have passed referendums expected to add Democratic seats. The Virginia Supreme Court is currently considering Republican-backed legal challenges.
&#8220;If Virginia cannot redistrict, if Virginia has to go back to its old district lines, and we have a situation where they go back to their old lines, and the South is able to redistrict, it absolutely could be game-changing as far as the midterms go,&#8221; Girdusky added.
Democrats sharply criticized the ruling. Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin called Wednesday&#8217;s ruling a &#8220;dark day for America,&#8221; arguing the court &#8220;effectively killed Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, a major step back in the fight for racial justice and fair representation.&#8221;
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) <a href="https://x.com/SenWarren/status/2049536788625027493?s=20">described the decision</a> as a &#8220;sledgehammer to one of the most important civil rights laws in American history.&#8221;
For Justice Clarence Thomas, who grew up in the segregated South, the court&#8217;s ruling didn&#8217;t go far enough.
&#8220;As I explained more than 30 years ago, I would go further and hold that §2 of the Voting Rights Act does not regulate districting at all,&#8221; Thomas wrote, calling the court&#8217;s prior approach a &#8220;disastrous misadventure.&#8221;

gettyimages-1993984039_720

Supreme Court Ruling Cracks Open Redistricting War And Republicans See Path To Power Shift

Midterms

Democrats on Capitol Hill seethed Wednesday after the Supreme Court ruled that Louisiana violated the Constitution by drawing a majority-black congressional district predominantly on the basis of race.
The court&#8217;s 6-3 decision is expected to reverberate across the country as Republicans and Democrats battle over redistricting ahead of the 2026 midterms. Writing for the majority, conservative Justice Samuel Alito said the Voting Rights Act does not allow states to draw race-based districts for the sole purpose of making minorities the majority voting bloc.
The ruling is likely to benefit Republicans, potentially opening the door for GOP-led states to redraw maps that had been crafted to create minority-majority seats.
Democrats, who have often relied on minority-majority districts, especially in deep red states, sounded off shortly after the ruling was handed down, with party leaders claiming it would weaken protections for black voters.
&#8220;The Supreme Court just turned its back on one of the most sacred promises in American democracy — the promise that every voice counts,&#8221; Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) <a href="https://x.com/SenSchumer/status/2049521716347429207">said</a>. &#8220;The consequence is as clear as it is dangerous: fewer protections for voters, more power for politicians to draw maps that silence them, particularly voters historically disenfranchised.&#8221;
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) went further, accusing Republicans of trying to tilt the political playing field.
&#8220;Voter suppression is a way of life for Donald Trump and far-right extremists on the Supreme Court,&#8221; Jeffries <a href="https://x.com/RepJeffries/status/2049508048012554662">said</a>. &#8220;Republicans know they cannot win a free and fair election in November and so they are desperate to rig it. We will never let them succeed.&#8221;
New York Democratic Rep. Yvette Clarke, chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, <a href="https://x.com/maxpcohen/status/2049525347872313785?s=46">called</a> the Supreme Court &#8220;rogue&#8221; and argued its decision &#8220;effectively signed the death certificate of the Voting Rights Act, undoing decades of Black progress.&#8221;
&#8220;The legitimacy of the Supreme Court has been deeply undermined by this decision,&#8221; Clarke added. &#8220;At its best, the Court has worked to expand our fundamental rights, but this ruling reflects a malignant impulse to reshape American society.&#8221;
Former President Barack Obama also <a href="https://x.com/BarackObama/status/2049561079605588184?s=20">condemned</a> the court over the decision, saying it &#8220;serves as just one more example of how a majority of the current Court seems intent on abandoning its vital role in ensuring equal participation in our democracy and protecting the rights of minority groups against majority overreach.&#8221;
In his opinion, Alito wrote that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is meant to prevent states from &#8220;intentionally [drawing] its districts to afford minority voters less opportunity because of their race.&#8221; While the ruling does not overturn Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, liberal Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her dissent that it is now a “dead letter.”
The decision could lead to multiple states revisiting congressional maps that were designed to create majority-black or Hispanic districts. Some Republicans have already urged GOP-led states in the deep South to redraw those lines.
The court&#8217;s ruling comes as Republicans and Democrats are already in the middle of a redistricting fight ahead of the 2026 midterms. Republican-dominated states like South Carolina and Tennessee — both of which contain minority-majority districts — could draw new maps before the midterm elections following the ruling.

Democratic Leaders Rep. Jefferies And Sen. Schumer Hold News Conference On Capitol Hill

Dems Erupt After SCOTUS Rules On Race-Based Districts

A Christian pregnancy center won a huge legal victory on Wednesday after the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that it could fight back against New Jersey’s attempts to crack down on its life-affirming work. 
The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that First Choice Women’s Resource Centers can challenge in federal court former New Jersey Democrat Attorney General Matthew Platkin’s attempt to gain access to its donor lists and promotion of the abortion pill reversal through subpoena. The opinion was written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, who said that the pregnancy center had provided ample evidence that its First Amendment associational rights were at risk. 
“The question before us isn’t how badly the Attorney General has burdened First Choice’s associational rights; the question is whether he has burdened those rights at all,” Gorsuch <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-781_pok0.pdf">wrote</a>. “And by effectively restricting how First Choice may interact privately with its donors, the subpoena did just that.”
First Choice Executive Director Aimee Huber celebrated the ruling. 
“For more than two years, Attorney General Platkin targeted First Choice with aggressive demands for sensitive documents, including our donors’ identities. He has gone to great lengths to frustrate the important work we do — work that has made a tangible, life-saving difference for tens of thousands of New Jersey women and their children,” she said. “As the Supreme Court recognized, the government can’t evade federal court review when it harasses those who support pro-life ministries just because it disagrees with their message and their mission.”
First Choice has centers in five New Jersey cities: New Brunswick, Newark, Morristown, Montclair, and Jersey City. Services include free pregnancy tests, ultrasounds, and options counseling. They also offer a parenting program that provides essential needs such as baby clothes and diapers. 
Represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, First Choice sued Platkin after he subpoenaed them in November 2023 for 10 years of documents related to its promotion of the abortion pill reversal, information provided to clients and donors, personnel records, and copies of every advertisement the centers had run. 
The case was <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/new-jerseys-war-on-crisis-pregnancy-centers-heads-to-the-supreme-court">argued</a> before the Supreme Court in December. 
“In this resounding victory, the Supreme Court held to its long-standing precedent of recognizing that the Constitution protects First Choice and its donors from demands by a hostile state official to disclose donor identities and contact information,” said Alliance Defending Freedom counsel Erin Hawley. “Should the Attorney General continue these efforts on remand, we look forward to presenting First Choice’s case in federal court.”
In the opinion, Gorsuch noted that the court has long sided against officials infringing on First Amendment rights. 
“Since the 1950s, this Court has confronted one official demand after another like the Attorney General’s. Over and again, we have held those demands burden the exercise of First Amendment rights,” he said. “Disputing none of these precedents but seeking ways around them, the Attorney General has offered a variety of arguments. Some are old, some are new, but none succeeds.”

firstchoiceaimee1-scaled-2

Supreme Court Hands Major Win To Christian Pregnancy Center

Abortion

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF)

New Jersey

The Supreme Court delivered a major 6-3 ruling Wednesday, striking down Louisiana’s congressional map in Louisiana v. Callais after the state added a second majority-black district.
The Court said that move wasn’t required under the Voting Rights Act, so using race to draw it made the map unconstitutional. The decision doesn’t eliminate Section 2 but could impact redistricting fights nationwide.
The Court is signaling that states can’t lean on race unless the law clearly demands it. That’s likely to make it harder to push similar redraws in other states and could shift how future maps are drawn heading into upcoming elections.
In the majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito explained that &#8220;Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 [&#8230;] was designed to enforce the Constitution— not collide with it.&#8221;
However, he rebuked how lower courts used the &#8220;Court’s precedents in a way that forces States to engage in the very race-based discrimination that the Constitution forbids.&#8221;
In her dissent, liberal Justice Elena Kagan wrote that “the consequences are likely to be far-reaching and grave” and referred to Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act as a “dead letter” after the ruling.
“After today, those districts exist only on sufferance, and probably not for long. If other States follow Louisiana’s lead, the minority citizens residing there will no longer have an equal opportunity to elect candidates of their choice. And minority representation in government institutions will sharply decline,” she wrote.
The decision triggered a wide range of reactions across the political spectrum, including intense backlash from the left.
&#8220;Too many people have fought too hard for the right to vote, especially black Georgians. Now the Supreme Court has given Donald Trump &amp; his sycophants license to further destroy democracy and green light racial discrimination.  People should pick their representatives, not the other way around. This is despicable,&#8221; former Georgia Lt. Gov. Geoff Duncan, who switched his party affiliation from Republican to Democrat in 2025, posted to X.
However, Republicans considered the ruling to be a major win.
“Today’s decision is a victory for the Constitution and the principle that every American citizen is equal under the law… This ruling restores fairness, strengthens confidence in our elections, and ensures every voter is treated equally,&#8221; National Republican Campaign Committee Chair Richard Hudson stated, according to <a href="https://x.com/maxpcohen/status/2049506573366473007?s=20" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Punchbowl News</a>.
Gov. Tate Reeves (R-MS) said prior to the ruling that he would call a special session of the Mississippi Legislature to redraw maps in the state three weeks after the court&#8217;s decision in the case. Mississippi&#8217;s Second Congressional District is a deep blue majority-minority district.
&#8220;It is a decision that could (and in my view should) forever change the way we draw electoral maps,&#8221; he posted to X last week. &#8220;It is my belief and federal law requires that the Mississippi Legislature be given the first opportunity to draw these maps. And the fact is, they haven’t had a fair opportunity to do that because of the pending Callais decision.&#8221;
&#8220;It is my sincere hope that, in deciding Callais, the U.S. Supreme Court will reaffirm the animating principle that all Americans are created equal and that when the government classifies its citizens on the basis of race, even as a perceived remedy to right a wrong, it engages in the offensive and demeaning assumption that Americans of a particular race, because of their race, think alike and share the same interests and preferences – a concept that is odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality,&#8221; Reeves continued.

Blue Hour, United States Supreme Court Building, Washington DC, America

Supreme Court Rules On Key District Case With Ripple Effects Nationwide

2026 election

Menu