The Supreme Court on Tuesday handed Alabama Republicans a significant victory in the state&#8217;s ongoing battle over congressional redistricting, allowing Alabama to use a map that eliminates one of its two majority-minority congressional districts ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.
In a 6-3 emergency order, the Court granted Alabama&#8217;s request to implement the map adopted by the Republican-controlled legislature in 2023, reversing a lower court ruling that had blocked its use. The decision clears the way for Alabama to conduct this year&#8217;s elections under a map more favorable to Republicans and puts Rep. Shomari Figures&#8217; (D-AL) seat in jeopardy for Democrats.
The ruling marks the latest development in a years-long legal fight over Alabama&#8217;s congressional boundaries and comes just months after the Supreme Court issued a separate decision involving Louisiana that narrowed the scope of challenges brought under the Voting Rights Act.
The unsigned majority opinion suggested Alabama is likely to prevail in the broader litigation and criticized the lower court for intervening so close to the election calendar.
&#8220;Here, the District Court interposed itself into Alabama&#8217;s ongoing efforts to conduct its imminent 2026 congressional elections under maps that its elected representatives selected,&#8221; the <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-allows-alabama-congress-map-eliminate-black-district-rcna346920" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Court wrote</a>.
The decision drew a sharp dissent from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who was joined by fellow liberal Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
&nbsp;
WATCH FROM TODAY&#8217;S EPISODE OF MORNING WIRE:
  <iframe style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; max-width: 100%; width: 100%; border: 0; height: auto;" title="DW Player" src="https://public.dailywire.com/preroll-player/embed.html?playback-id=as8zYjv9xUmsEHgtWpQf1evGCmebrH02C&amp;ad-tag-url=https%3A%2F%2Fpubads.g.doubleclick.net%2Fgampad%2Fads%3Fiu%3D%2F61914415%2Fdw.video.article%26description_url%3Ddailywire.com%26url%3D%26tfcd%3D0%26npa%3D0%26sz%3D640x480%26min_ad_duration%3D5000%26max_ad_duration%3D60000%26gdfp_req%3D1%26unviewed_position_start%3D1%26vpos%3Dpreroll%26output%3Dvast%26plcmt%3D1%26env%3Dvp%26vpa%3Dclick%26vpmute%3D0%26impl%3Ds%26correlator%3D%5Bcachebuster%5D" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
&nbsp;
Sotomayor argued that the Court was permitting elections to proceed under a map that lower courts had determined intentionally discriminated against black voters. She accused the majority of creating election-year chaos and rewarding Alabama for repeatedly resisting court orders.
The <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/05/alabama-urges-supreme-court-to-allow-for-use-of-congressional-map-struck-by-lower-court-as-racia/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">dispute</a> traces back to Alabama&#8217;s original post-2020 Census congressional map, which contained only one majority-black district despite black residents making up roughly a quarter of the state&#8217;s population.
In 2023, the Supreme Court upheld a lower court decision finding that the map likely violated the Voting Rights Act and required Alabama to create an additional district in which black voters could elect their preferred candidate. That court-drawn district helped elect Figures, a Democrat, in 2024.
Following the Supreme Court&#8217;s <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/supreme-court-rules-on-key-district-case-with-ripple-effects-nationwide" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Louisiana ruling</a> in April, Alabama Republicans argued that states should receive greater deference when drawing districts based on political rather than racial considerations. State officials subsequently moved to revive the legislature&#8217;s preferred map, triggering the latest round of litigation.
The ruling carries implications beyond Alabama.
With Republicans holding only a narrow majority in the House of Representatives, both parties have increasingly turned to mid-decade redistricting as they prepare for the 2026 midterms. The Alabama decision gives Republicans an opportunity to reclaim a seat currently held by Democrats and may encourage similar redistricting efforts in other Southern states.
The case also represents another chapter in the Supreme Court&#8217;s ongoing effort to redefine the relationship between race and redistricting. For decades, courts have grappled with competing demands from one side of the aisle that states avoid diluting minority voting power, while the other demanded avoiding unconstitutional race-based districting.
Tuesday&#8217;s ruling signals that the Court&#8217;s conservative majority remains willing to give states greater latitude when pursuing political objectives through redistricting, even when those decisions affect minority representation.
Alabama&#8217;s congressional primaries are scheduled for August 11.

Supreme Court Releases Opinions

Supreme Court Hands Alabama Republicans Major Redistricting Victory

Alabama

Courts

Politics

Redistricting

SCOTUS

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday slammed the brakes on a high-stakes, cross-country legal war, <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-florida-lawsuit-drivers-licenses-undocumented-immigrants-rcna265323">throwing out</a> a lawsuit by Florida that aimed to punish blue states for putting allegedly unqualified illegal immigrants behind the wheel of deadly 80,000-pound rigs.
Florida’s Republican Attorney General James Uthmeier took the fight straight to the nation’s highest court, trying to sue California and Washington state after a horrific August 2025 crash on the Florida Turnpike left three people dead.
The driver in that fatal wreck, Harjinder Singh, was an illegal Indian immigrant who had sneaked across the Mexican border. According to federal tests administered after the disaster, Singh could barely speak English and recognized just one out of four basic highway signs before he made a catastrophic, illegal U-turn into a minivan.
Despite the tragedy, the high court’s majority refused to even look at the case, invoking a rarely used power to reject the Sunshine State’s complaint without explanation.
But conservative titan Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Samuel Alito, ripped his colleagues in a <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/162orig_8n6a.pdf">blistering dissent</a>, arguing that the court cannot simply duck its constitutional duties while rogue states spark a national border crisis on wheels.
“An illegal alien who cannot read English road signs cannot drive an 80,000-pound tractor-trailer,” Thomas wrote in his fiery opinion, taking direct aim at the liberal West Coast states.
Florida’s lawsuit claimed California and Washington showed &#8220;open defiance&#8221; of federal laws by greenlighting commercial driver’s licenses (CDLs) for migrants without legal status, leaving them untrained and unable to read American road signs. Thomas pointed out that “although Singh failed his test at least ten times in Washington and at least one time in California, both Washington and California provided Singh with CDLs.”
The high court’s brush-off means Florida is completely locked out of justice, Thomas warned, fuming that the Supreme Court is the only venue allowed to arbitrate battles between states.
“This Court declines to even hear Florida’s claims, even though it has nowhere else to bring them,” Thomas wrote. “I doubt this Court has discretion to refuse to hear cases within its exclusive original jurisdiction.”
Thomas argued that the crisis of blue states unleashing dangerous drivers across state lines is so severe it practically amounts to an act of war.
“A dispute over one nation sending dangerous people into another &#8216;would be the source of considerable international tension,&#8217;” Thomas wrote. “If Florida were an independent nation, it &#8216;might resolve [this] dispute by diplomacy, by submitting it to international arbitration, or by self-help measures.&#8217; By entering the Union, States agree to instead have such disputes resolved by this Court.”
Officials claimed the lawsuit was nothing more than a conservative &#8220;political stunt&#8221; rolled out on Sean Hannity’s Fox News show. Washington state lawyers warned that opening the door to Florida’s suit would lead to an endless flood of interstate bickering over everything from gun laws to vaccines.
The ruling comes as the Trump administration turns up the heat on &#8220;unqualified foreign drivers,&#8221; with Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy auditing foreign workers and threatening to yank federal funds from states that flout English-language standards.
But for Thomas, the majority&#8217;s refusal to act represents a total failure of the justice system based on &#8220;policy judgments that are in conflict with the policy choices that Congress made.&#8221;
“We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given,” Thomas wrote, quoting historic precedent. “Because I would allow Florida to file its complaint, I respectfully dissent.”

Welcome to California Sign

Supreme Court Rejects Lawsuit Against Blue States Over Illegal Immigrant Truck Drivers

Supreme Court Rejects Florida’s Lawsuit Against Blue States Over Illegal Immigrant Truck Drivers

California

Clarence Thomas

Driving

Florida

illegal immigrant

Virginia Democrats just found out the Supreme Court is not in the mood for election-year do-overs.
In a decision that could ripple far beyond the Commonwealth, the United States Supreme Court slammed the brakes on a Democrat-backed effort to redraw Virginia’s congressional map ahead of the 2026 midterms, and it did it without a single justice publicly objecting. No fiery dissents. No dramatic explanation. Just a quiet little order that dropped like a hammer.
The fight centered around a voter-approved map Democrats hoped would help flip four Republican-held House seats and possibly tilt control of Congress. Virginia voters narrowly approved the new map in April after Democrats pushed through a complicated workaround to sidestep the state’s bipartisan redistricting system.
Republicans immediately cried foul, arguing the process violated Virginia’s constitution because lawmakers jammed the proposal forward after early voting had already started in a required election cycle.
Virginia’s Supreme Court agreed in a razor-thin 4-3 ruling, tossing the map out entirely and saying the process was too compromised to stand.
Democrats raced to the nation’s highest court begging the justices to step in and save the plan before the midterms heat up.
But the Supreme Court basically responded with a cold shrug.
Why does this matter? Because this is not just about Virginia. It is part of a nationwide political cage match over congressional maps as both parties scramble to redraw districts before November.
Texas Republicans already moved to strengthen their map. California Democrats fired back with their own redraw.
Now Virginia has become another major battlefield in the redistricting war that could decide who controls Washington.
Republicans currently hold slim majorities in both the House and Senate, and both parties know a few district lines can change the balance of power overnight.
Even more wild? Nearly $100 million was dumped into the Virginia referendum fight alone.
To most Virginians, it probably looked like just another random ballot question buried halfway down the page.
To both parties, though, it was political gold.
But in modern politics, maps are power.
And Friday’s ruling was a reminder that sometimes the most important election battles happen long before anyone actually votes.

GettyImages-1448513952

Supreme Court Has Final Word On Dem Hail Mary Over Virginia Map

Virginia

Former Vice President and Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris finally dropped the mask earlier this week, revealing a blueprint for a far-Left coup disguised as &#8220;reform.&#8221;
<a href="https://www.nysun.com/article/with-no-bad-idea-brainstorm-kamala-harris-rains-on-america-in-the-name-of-reform">Speaking</a> to the Win with Black Women podcast, Harris didn’t just suggest policy tweaks; she called for a &#8220;no-bad-idea brainstorm&#8221; that effectively serves as a wrecking ball aimed at the pillars of the American Republic.
“This is a moment where there are no bad ideas,” she pontificated. “‘No bad idea brainstorm’ is what I&#8217;d like to call it. And in that ‘no bad ideas brainstorm,’ we talk about what we need to do and think about doing around the electoral college.’”
That move would effectively disenfranchise millions of Americans in &#8220;flyover country&#8221; to the benefit of deep-blue coastal elites.
Then she launched into her laundry list:
<blockquote>
We talk about the idea of Supreme Court reform, which includes expanding the Supreme Court. We invite a conversation about multi-member districts. We talk about, that if we win the Senate — which we should and we will  — then the Senate Judiciary Committee should have rules that they put in place, so when these people come before as nominees to the Supreme Court and lie, that they are held to account and consequence, not just that somebody goes on cable news and says they lied, but that there are rules in place to actually penalize people for lying to a Senate Judiciary Committee. That we agree that it is right to have ethics rules for Supreme Court justices. And let&#8217;s put those in place.
</blockquote>
Of course, the court already adopted its own formal Code of Conduct in late 2023, organized into five &#8220;canons&#8221; that mirror the rules for lower federal judges but are tailored specifically for the Supreme Court. But Harris appears blissfully unaware of that.
To cement this dominance for Democrats after abolishing the Electoral College, she’s pushing for D.C. and Puerto Rico statehood — not out of a sense of civic duty, but to potentially manufacture four permanent Democratic Senate seats.
“Let&#8217;s talk about statehood for Puerto Rico and D. C.,” she continued. “These are the things I think that we&#8217;ve got to do.”
She kept going: “We&#8217;ve got to neutralize these red states from cheating. Including blue states expanding their maps. &#8230; Look, we got to fight fire with fire. These folks are playing to win. We got to play to win, too.”
Harris’s rhetoric about &#8220;neutralizing red states from cheating&#8221; is the height of leftist projection. While she bemoans GOP tactics, she ignores the fact that some Democrat states are so aggressively gerrymandered that Republican districts are practically extinct.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Kamala Harris is now calling for Democrats to hold a “No Bad Idea Brainstorm” where they discuss:
&#8211; Abolishing the Electoral College &#8211; Packing the Supreme Court &#8211; Making Puerto Rico and D.C. states
“We’ve got to neutralize these red states from cheating!” <a href="https://t.co/23MPJxn7fN">pic.twitter.com/23MPJxn7fN</a>
&mdash; Pat Adams (@PatAdams96) <a href="https://twitter.com/PatAdams96/status/2054923866758099369?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 14, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Vice President Kamala Harris hold a campaign rally in North Las Vegas

Kamala Demands ‘No Bad Ideas Brainstorm,’ Takes Aim At Pillars Of American Republic

Electoral College

Kamala Harris

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday allowed mail orders of the abortion drug mifepristone to continue, handing a major defeat for the pro-life movement while litigation over the pill continues.   
<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25a1207_21p3.pdf">In an emergency order</a>, the court temporarily blocked a federal appeals court ruling that struck down a Biden-era policy that allowed the abortion drug mifepristone to be prescribed online and shipped by mail. 
The unsigned order provided no legal explanation. Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented. 
&#8220;The Court’s unreasoned order granting stays in this case is remarkable,&#8221; Justice Alito wrote. &#8220;What is at stake is the perpetration of a scheme to undermine our decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which restored the right of each State to decide how to regulate abortions within its borders.&#8221;
Justice Thomas went further, describing the mail distribution system for mifepristone as a &#8220;criminal enterprise.&#8221;
&#8220;Applicants are not entitled to a stay of an adverse court order based on lost profits from their criminal enterprise,&#8221; he concluded. &#8220;They cannot, in any legally relevant sense, be irreparably harmed by a court order that makes it more difficult for them to commit crimes.&#8221;
After the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the Biden administration expanded nationwide access to chemical abortion. Under rules finalized in 2023, women could obtain mifepristone through telehealth appointments 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>. 
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 FDA acknowledged it had not adequately studied the safety of remote dispensing and is still conducting a review, with no clear timeline for completion.
The three-judge 5th Circuit panel held that the regulation, which has continued under the Trump administration, was likely unlawful. 
“Every abortion facilitated by FDA’s action cancels Louisiana’s ban,” the federal appeals court wrote, emphasizing that such harm cannot be undone.
Manufacturers of the abortion drug quickly filed emergency appeals asking the Supreme Court to intervene.
Acting alone, Justice Samuel Alito <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/genbiopro-v-louisiana/">entered and then extended an administrative stay</a> of the Fifth Circuit ruling, which is a short-term, procedural order that freezes legal proceedings so the full court has time to weigh the issue.
On Thursday, a majority of the justices appeared to agree with the abortion manufacturers, overturning the block in a significant setback for pro-life advocates as litigation drags on.
&#8220;This decision keeps deadly abortion drugs available by mail and telehealth, where preborn children are killed at home and women can be abandoned, coerced, and left to suffer alone,&#8221; Lila Rose, a prominent pro-life activist, said on social media. &#8220;The FDA must act now.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
BREAKING: The Supreme Court has tragically and wrongly granted the abortion pill makers’ emergency appeal, allowing the mail order abortion pill regime to continue nationwide.
Justices Thomas and Alito dissented.
This decision keeps deadly abortion drugs available by mail and…
— Lila Rose (@LilaGraceRose) <a href="https://twitter.com/LilaGraceRose/status/2055040440508772852?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 14, 2026</a></blockquote>
President Donald Trump’s embattled FDA commissioner <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breakimg-embattled-fda-chief-marty-makary-resigns-amid-mounting-criticism?author=Jacob+Wheeler&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=11&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Embattled+FDA+Chief+Marty+Makary+Resigns+Amid+Mounting+Criticism">Marty Makary resigned on Tuesday </a>following intense criticism from pro-life advocates over his handling of mifepristone and the speed of the agency’s review of the abortion drug’s safety.
&nbsp;

Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Abortion Drug Mifepristone

⁨Supreme Court Issues Major Decision On Abortion Pill, Deals Blow To Pro-Life Fight

Abortion

News

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) is escalating his rhetoric as Democrats reel from a series of redistricting setbacks, accusing the Supreme Court of unleashing the “ghosts of the Confederacy” after recent rulings weakened Democrats’ efforts to preserve race-based congressional maps.
Speaking on Wednesday, Jeffries painted the high court’s decision as an existential threat to black political power, claiming, “The ghosts of the Confederacy has [sic] afflicted the United States Supreme Court majority and is [sic] invading and haunting the nation right now.”
The dramatic language comes as Democrats face a political reality they did not expect: years of legal and political maneuvers designed to secure favorable maps are beginning to unravel, threatening the party’s hopes of reclaiming the House before 2028.
Jeffries’ remarks followed the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/dems-erupt-after-scotus-rules-on-race-based-districts?author=Zach+Jewell&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=undefined&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Dems+Erupt+After+SCOTUS+Rules+On+Race-Based+Districts">Supreme Court’s decision</a> reinterpreting the Voting Rights Act of 1965, allowing states to redraw districts without preserving certain majority-minority seats that had become a cornerstone of Democratic electoral strategy in the South. The ruling, combined with the Virginia Supreme Court&#8217;s <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/virginia-supreme-court-strikes-down-redistricting-in-brutal-blow-to-democrats">decision</a> to strike down a Democrat-backed map referendum, dealt a major blow to the party’s redistricting plans.
Rather than moderating his tone, Jeffries appeared to signal a broader Democratic retaliation campaign. In the same remarks, he vowed a “decisive and overwhelming response” before the 2028 election, saying Democrats would ensure voters, not Republicans, decide control of Congress and the White House.
<iframe loading="lazy" title="YouTube video player" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/wUDLSm71ArI?si=mmzq8BsAzv9Bgm11" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
That message lines up with reporting from <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2026/05/14/house-democrats-redistricting-hardball-00920090">POLITICO</a>, which noted House Democrats are abandoning years of “good government” rhetoric about independent commissions and nonpartisan map-drawing in favor of openly discussing aggressive partisan redistricting in blue states. Democratic lawmakers are now considering new map fights in states including New York, Maryland, Colorado, and Washington.
Jeffries has framed the court’s decisions as a return to “Jim Crow,” but Republicans argue the rulings simply ended an unconstitutional system that prioritized race in congressional district design. The court’s reinterpretation of the VRA undercuts decades of legal precedent that effectively mandated racial sorting in elections under the guise of civil-rights enforcement.
The increasingly apocalyptic language from Jeffries suggests Democrats understand the stakes. With Republicans positioned to gain several House seats through redistricting changes in states like Texas, Florida, and Tennessee, the party’s path back to the majority has narrowed significantly.
If Democrats were confident that favorable political winds alone would carry them to victory, Jeffries likely would not be invoking Confederate ghosts and promising to “crush” political opponents’ “souls.” Instead, his comments reflect a party increasingly alarmed that the redistricting war may be slipping out of its hands — and willing to abandon its prior anti-gerrymandering rhetoric to fight back.

House Minority Leader Jeffries Holds Capitol Hill Press Conference

Hakeem Jeffries Starts Seeing ‘Ghosts’ As Democrats Panic Over Redistricting

Democrats

Hakeem Jeffries

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

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

Menu