Supreme Court doesn't rule on Louisiana's second majority Black congressional district
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday put off ruling on a second Black majority congressional district in Louisiana, instead ordering new arguments in the fall.
The case is being closely watched because at arguments in March several of the court's conservative justices suggested they could vote to throw out the map and make it harder, if not impossible, to bring redistricting lawsuits under the Voting Rights Act.
The case involves the interplay between race and politics in drawing political boundaries in front of a conservative-led court that has been skeptical of considerations of race in public life.
Justice Clarence Thomas noted in a brief dissent from Friday's order that he would have decided the case now and imposed limits on 'race-based redistricting.'
The order keeps alive a fight over political power stemming from the 2020 census halfway to the next one. Two maps were blocked by lower courts, and the Supreme Court intervened twice. Last year, the justices ordered the new map to be used in the 2024 elections, while the legal case proceeded.
The call for new arguments probably means that the district currently represented by Democratic Rep. Cleo Fields probably will remain intact for the 2026 elections because the high court has separately been reluctant to upend districts as elections draw near.
The state has changed its election process to replace its so-called jungle primary with partisan primary elections in the spring, followed by a November showdown between the party nominees.
The change means candidates can start gathering signatures in September to get on the primary ballot for 2026.
The state's Republican-dominated legislature drew a new congressional map in 2022 to account for population shifts reflected in the 2020 census. But the changes effectively maintained the status quo of five Republican-leaning majority white districts and one Democratic-leaning majority Black district in a state in which Black people make up a third of the population.
Civil rights advocates won a lower-court ruling that the districts likely discriminated against Black voters.
The Supreme Court put the ruling on hold while it took a similar case from Alabama. The justices allowed both states to use congressional maps in the 2022 elections even though both had been ruled likely discriminatory by federal judges.
The high court eventually affirmed the ruling from Alabama, which led to a new map and a second district that could elect a Black lawmaker. The justices returned the Louisiana case to federal court, with the expectation that new maps would be in place for the 2024 elections.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals gave lawmakers in Louisiana a deadline of early 2024 to draw a new map or face the possibility of a court-imposed map.
The state complied and drew a new map, with two Black majority districts.
But white Louisiana voters claimed in their separate lawsuit challenging the new districts that race was the predominant factor driving the new map. A three-judge court agreed.
Louisiana appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
26 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
What's next for birthright citizenship after the Supreme Court's ruling
Here's what to know about birthright citizenship, the Supreme Court's ruling and what happens next. What does birthright citizenship mean? Birthright citizenship makes anyone born in the United States an American citizen, including children born to mothers in the country illegally. The practice goes back to soon after the Civil War, when Congress ratified the Constitution's 14th Amendment, in part to ensure that Black people, including former slaves, had citizenship. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States,' the amendment states. Advertisement Thirty years later, Wong Kim Ark, a man born in the U.S. to Chinese parents, was refused re-entry into the U.S. after traveling overseas. His suit led to the Supreme Court explicitly ruling that the amendment gives citizenship to anyone born in the U.S., no matter their parents' legal status. It has been seen since then as an intrinsic part of U.S. law, with only a handful of exceptions, such as for children born in the U.S. to foreign diplomats. Trump has long said he wants to do away with birthright citizenship Trump's executive order, signed in January, seeks to deny citizenship to children who are born to people who are living in the U.S. illegally or temporarily. It's part of the hardline immigration agenda of the president, who has called birthright citizenship a 'magnet for illegal immigration.' Advertisement Trump and his supporters focus on one phrase in the amendment — 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' – saying it means the U.S. can deny citizenship to babies born to women in the country illegally. A series of federal judges have said that's not true, and issued nationwide injunctions stopping his order from taking effect. 'I've been on the bench for over four decades. I can't remember another case where the question presented was as clear as this one is. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order,' U.S. District Judge John Coughenour said at a hearing earlier this year in his Seattle courtroom. In Greenbelt, Maryland, a Washington suburb, U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman wrote that 'the Supreme Court has resoundingly rejected and no court in the country has ever endorsed' Trump's interpretation of birthright citizenship. Is Trump's order constitutional? The justices didn't say The high court's ruling was a major victory for the Trump administration in that it limited an individual judge's authority in granting nationwide injunctions. The administration hailed the ruling as a monumental check on the powers of individual district court judges, whom Trump supporters have argued want to usurp the president's authority with rulings blocking his priorities around immigration and other matters. But the Supreme Court did not address the merits of Trump's bid to enforce his birthright citizenship executive order. 'The Trump administration made a strategic decision, which I think quite clearly paid off, that they were going to challenge not the judges' decisions on the merits, but on the scope of relief,' said Jessica Levinson, a Loyola Law School professor. Advertisement Attorney General Pam Bondi told reporters at the White House that the administration is 'very confident' that the high court will ultimately side with the administration on the merits of the case. Questions and uncertainty swirl around next steps The justices kicked the cases challenging the birthright citizenship policy back down to the lower courts, where judges will have to decide how to tailor their orders to comply with the new ruling. The executive order remains blocked for at least 30 days, giving lower courts and the parties time to sort out the next steps. The Supreme Court's ruling leaves open the possibility that groups challenging the policy could still get nationwide relief through class-action lawsuits and seek certification as a nationwide class. Within hours after the ruling, two class-action suits had been filed in Maryland and New Hampshire seeking to block Trump's order. But obtaining nationwide relief through a class action is difficult as courts have put up hurdles to doing so over the years, said Suzette Malveaux, a Washington and Lee University law school professor. 'It's not the case that a class action is a sort of easy, breezy way of getting around this problem of not having nationwide relief,' said Malveaux, who had urged the high court not to eliminate the nationwide injunctions. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who penned the court's dissenting opinion, urged the lower courts to 'act swiftly on such requests for relief and to adjudicate the cases as quickly as they can so as to enable this Court's prompt review' in cases 'challenging policies as blatantly unlawful and harmful as the Citizenship Order.' Opponents of Trump's order warned there would be a patchwork of polices across the states, leading to chaos and confusion without nationwide relief. Advertisement 'Birthright citizenship has been settled constitutional law for more than a century,' said Krish O'Mara Vignarajah, president and CEO of Global Refuge, a nonprofit that supports refugees and migrants. 'By denying lower courts the ability to enforce that right uniformly, the Court has invited chaos, inequality, and fear.' Associated Press reporters Mark Sherman and Lindsay Whitehurst in Washington and Mike Catalini in Trenton, New Jersey, contributed.
Newsweek
41 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump Scores War Powers Win: 'National Security Moves Fast'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. The Republican-controlled U.S. Senate on Friday rejected a Democratic effort to limit President Donald Trump's authority to launch further military action against Iran—just hours after Trump said he was weighing additional airstrikes. The chamber voted 53–47 against the war powers resolution, which would have required the president to seek congressional approval for any new hostilities against Iran. Every senator cast a vote, but the tally remained open late into the evening. In a notable split, Democrat John Fetterman broke with his party to vote "no," while Republican Rand Paul crossed the aisle to vote "yes." Why It Matters The vote came days after Trump ordered airstrikes on three major Iranian nuclear sites over the weekend, escalating tensions amid Iran's conflict with Israel. Iran retaliated by firing missiles at a U.S. military base in Qatar on Monday. Although Tehran and Tel Aviv agreed to a ceasefire on Monday, the Israel Defense Forces have since accused Iran of breaching that agreement and have threatened strikes on Tehran in response—an accusation Iran's military denies. The Senate's decision marks a clear victory for the White House and shows how much latitude both Republicans and some Democrats are willing to give Trump to take unilateral military action against Iran. President Donald Trump speaks to the media, Friday, June 27, 2025, in the briefing room of the White House in Washington. President Donald Trump speaks to the media, Friday, June 27, 2025, in the briefing room of the White House in Washington. Jacquelyn Martin/AP What To Know The measure, sponsored by Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, would have invoked the War Powers Act—the 1973 law designed to limit a president's authority to enter armed conflicts without congressional consent. It would have required the White House to notify lawmakers and secure approval from both the House and Senate before U.S. forces could take any additional military action against Iran. Many Democrats, and even some Republicans, argued that the White House should have sought congressional approval before authorizing last weekend's strike. They point out that the Constitution gives Congress—not the president—the power to declare war, and say the War Powers Act exists to stop presidents from sidestepping that responsibility. Under the Constitution, war powers are divided but not always clearly defined. Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power "to declare war," "raise and support armies," "provide and maintain a navy," and "make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces." This means Congress has the explicit authority to decide when the U.S. goes to war. But the last time Congress formally declared war was World War II. Since then, military actions—from Korea and Vietnam to Iraq, Libya, and Syria—have typically been carried out under broad authorizations, U.N. resolutions, or purely at the president's discretion. At the same time, Article II, Section 2 names the president as "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States." This gives the president broad authority to direct the military once it is in action. In 1973, after the Vietnam War, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution to rein in presidential war-making. It requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying troops and limits such deployments to 60 days—with a 30-day withdrawal period—unless Congress explicitly approves or declares war. Still, presidents of both parties have often argued that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional, or they've simply ignored its requirements. During his first term, Trump twice vetoed measures passed under the War Powers Act, including one aimed specifically at restricting his ability to strike Iran. Congress wrestled with similar questions in 2011, when President Barack Obama ordered airstrikes on Libya without explicit approval, drawing criticism that he had exceeded his authority. This time, the Trump administration has enjoyed strong backing from Republican leaders on Capitol Hill. House Speaker Mike Johnson has gone so far as to argue that the War Powers Act itself is unconstitutional. Meanwhile, Republican leaders have accused Democrats of using the issue for political gain and say the president needs flexibility to respond to threats quickly. "Democrats, of course, rushed to turn this successful strike into a political fight," said Senator John Barrasso, the chamber's No. 2 Republican, insisting that "national security moves fast" and that requiring consultation with Congress could "prevent the president from protecting us in the future." But some Republicans disagree. Senator Rand Paul cited the framers' original intent to keep war-making powers in the hands of Congress. "Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers that the executive is the branch most prone to war. Therefore, the Constitution, with studied care, vested that power in the legislature," Paul said, explaining his rare break with his party. For its part, the Trump administration argues the president already has all the authority he needs. In a letter to Congress this week, Trump cited his constitutional powers as commander in chief and his responsibility for foreign policy, framing the Iran strike as an act of "collective self-defense of our ally, Israel." What People Are Saying Republican Senator John Barrasso said on the Senate floor: "Democrats, of course, rushed to turn this successful strike into a political fight. National security moves fast. That's why our Constitution says: 'Give the commander in chief real authority.'" Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen said: "What would we have said if Iran or any other country had flown bombers over our country and struck our facilities? We would rightly call it what it was: an act of war." Democratic Senator Tim Kaine said: "War is too big an issue to leave to the moods and the whims and the daily vibes of any one person." What Happens Next Efforts to rein in Trump's military powers are also underway in the House, where similar measures have been introduced, but they face uncertain prospects in a Republican-led chamber unlikely to defy the White House.
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
California closes $12B deficit by cutting back immigrants' access to health care
California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed on Friday a budget that pares back a number of progressive priorities, including a landmark health care expansion for low-income adult illegal immigrants, to close a $12 billion deficit. It's the third year in a row the nation's most populous state has been forced to slash funding or stop some of the programs championed by Democratic leaders. Lawmakers passed the budget earlier in the day following an agreement of a $321 billion spending plan between Newsom and Democratic leaders. 7 California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a budget that pares back a number of progressive priorities, including a health care expansion for low-income adult illegal immigrants. AP But the whole budget will be void if lawmakers don't send him legislation to make it easier to build housing by Monday. The budget avoids some of the most devastating cuts to essential safety net programs, state leaders said. They mostly relied on using state savings, borrowing from special funds and delaying payments to plug the budget hole. 'It's balanced, it maintains substantial reserves, and it's focused on supporting Californians,' Newsom said in a statement about the budget. California also faces potential federal cuts to health care programs and broad economic uncertainty that could force even deeper cuts. Newsom in May estimated that federal policies — including on tariffs and immigration enforcement — could reduce state tax revenue by $16 billion. 7 California Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks to reporters in San Francisco, Calif. in June 12, 2025. JOHN G MABANGLO/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock 7 Migrant farm laborers have their temperatures in King City, Calif. on April 28, 2020. Getty Images 'We've had to make some tough decisions,' Senate President Pro Tempore Mike McGuire said Friday. 'I know we're not going to please everyone, but we're doing this without any new taxes on everyday Californians.' Republican lawmakers said they were left out of budget negotiations. They also criticized Democrats for not doing enough to address future deficits, which could range between $17 billion to $24 billion annually. 7 Protesters hold up signs supporting healthcare for illegal immigrants during California's Immigrants Day of Action on May 20, 2019 in Sacramento, Calif. AP 'We're increasing borrowing, we're taking away from the rainy day fund, and we're not reducing our spending,' said Republican state Sen. Tony Strickland prior to the vote. 'And this budget also does nothing about affordability in California.' Here's a look at spending in key areas: Health care Under the budget deal, California will stop enrolling new adult patients without legal status in its state-funded health care program for low-income people starting 2026. The state will also implement a $30 monthly premium July 2027 for immigrants remaining on the program, including some with legal status. The premiums would apply to adults under 60 years old. The changes to the program, known as Medi-Cal, are a scaled-back version of Newsom's proposal in May. Still, it's a major blow to an ambitious program started last year to help the state inch closer to a goal of universal health care. Democratic state Sen. Maria Elena Durazo broke with her party and voted 'no' on the health care changes, calling them a betrayal of immigrant communities. The deal also removes $78 million in funding for mental health phone lines, including a program that served 100,000 people annually. It will eliminate funding that helps pay for dental services for low-income people in 2026 and delay implementation of legislation requiring health insurance to cover fertility services by six months to 2026. But lawmakers also successfully pushed back on several proposed cuts from Newsom that they called 'draconian.' The deal secures funding for a program providing in-home domestic and personal care services for some low-income residents and Californians with disabilities. It also avoids cuts to Planned Parenthood. 7 A family whose parens are illegal immigrants sign up for government assisted health care at the San Mateo Medical Center in San Mateo Calif. on Feb. 22, 2023. AP Environment Lawmakers agreed to let the state tap $1 billion from its cap-and-trade program to fund state firefighting efforts. The cap-and-trade program is a market-based system aimed at reducing carbon emissions. Companies have to buy credits to pollute, and that money goes into a fund lawmakers are supposed to tap for climate-related spending. Newsom wanted to reauthorize the program through 2045, with a guarantee that $1 billion would annually go to the state's long-delayed high-speed rail project. 7 The California State Capitol in Sacramento, Calif. on Aug. 5, 2024. AP The budget doesn't make that commitment, as lawmakers wanted to hash out spending plans outside of the budget process. The rail project currently receives 25% of the cap-and-trade proceeds, which is roughly $1 billion annually depending on the year. Legislative leaders also approved funding to help transition part-time firefighters into full-time positions. Many state firefighters only work nine months each year, which lawmakers said harms the state's ability to prevent and fight wildfires. The deal includes $10 million to increase the daily wage for incarcerated firefighters, who earn $5.80 to $10.24 a day currently. Public safety The budget agreement will provide $80 million to help implement a tough-on-crime initiative voters overwhelmingly approved last year. The measure makes shoplifting a felony for repeat offenders, increases penalties for some drug charges and gives judges the authority to order people with multiple drug charges into treatment. Most of the fund, $50 million, will help counties build more behavioral health beds. Probation officers will get $15 million for pre-trial services and courts will receive $20 million to support increased caseloads. Advocates of the measure — including sheriffs, district attorneys and probation officers — said that's not enough money. Some have estimated it would take around $400 million for the first year of the program. 7 A protester holds an American and Mexican flag outside the Federal Building in Los Angeles during a rally on June 6, 2025. AP Other priorities Newsom and lawmakers agreed to raise the state's film tax credit from $330 million to $750 million annually to boost Hollywood. The program, a priority for Newsom, will start this year and expire in 2030. The budget provides $10 million to help support immigration legal services, including deportation defense. But cities and counties won't see new funding to help them address homelessness next year, which local leaders said could lead to the loss of thousands of shelter beds. The budget also doesn't act on Newsom's proposal to streamline a project to create a massive underground tunnel to reroute a big part of the state's water supply.
