Latest news with #non-AfricanAmerican
The Hill
27-06-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Supreme Court to rehear major Louisiana redistricting case
The Supreme Court will hear a new round of arguments over Louisiana's addition of a second majority-Black congressional district, a case that raises consequential questions about the future of the Voting Rights Act. The court was expected to release the decision on Friday along with its other final opinions of the term. 'These cases are restored to the calendar for reargument. In due course, the Court will issue an order scheduling argument and specifying any additional questions to be addressed in supplemental briefing,' the court's unsigned order reads. The majority did not explain their reasoning or the focus of the new arguments. Louisiana's map will remain in effect until the ultimate decision. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, saying he would've decided the case now. Thomas raised concerns the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Voting Rights Act breaches the Constitution. 'That decision should be straightforward. Nevertheless, the Court demurs,' Thomas wrote. The decision is unusual and adds to a longstanding saga over whether the state should have a second majority-Black district. The high court indicated it would revisit the state's congressional map after a group of 'non-African American voters' challenged the map, arguing it constituted an unconstitutional racial gerrymander given the state's lengths to comply with the Voting Rights Act too far. Friday's outcome leaves unresolved the long-running redistricting battle, which now has turned to states' 'breathing room' to comply with the Voting Rights Act before their efforts violate the 14th Amendment's equal protection guarantee. The battle began after the 2020 census, when the Republican-controlled legislature overrode then-Gov. John Bel Edwards's (D) veto of a congressional map that included only one majority-Black district. Black voters and civil rights organizations sued under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, claiming the design diluted the power of Black voters. A three-judge panel agreed. The Supreme Court temporarily revived the map for the 2022 midterms, only to later toss Louisiana's appeal upon deciding another redistricting case in Alabama. Republican leaders in Louisiana grew concerned that a court would soon step in to draw the boundaries if they didn't act. So begrudgingly, they stopped litigating and passed a new map that added a second majority-Black district. Like the first, the new map came under a legal challenge. This time, a group of self-described 'non-African American' voters claimed the legislature unconstitutionally sorted Black voters into the new district in violation of the 14th Amendment's equal protection guarantee. The case returned to the Supreme Court after a three-judge panel agreed with the voters and invalidated the new design. The high court allowed it to go into effect for last year's elections as they considered the case. Louisiana argues it was within its 'breathing room' to fix the earlier Voting Rights Act violation. The state also contended race didn't predominate because the new district's snakelike shape was an effort to protect high-profile incumbents, including Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La) and Rep. Julia Letlow (R-La.), who sits on the powerful House Appropriations Committee. But above all else, Louisiana in its appeal pleaded to the justices for guidance on how it can draw a legally sound map. Updated: 11:41 a.m. ET
Yahoo
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
7 Supreme Court Cases That Black Americans Should Track This Summer
From voting rights to health care to workplace equality, the U.S. Supreme Court will weigh in on a number of issues this summer that could have major implications for Black Americans. 'In America, for Black people, we've had a long season where our rights were generally respected,' said Andrea Young, executive director of the ACLU, who has been closely following the Trump administration's legal moves. 'We have Black elected officials … Black leaders in corporate America, we have extreme poverty, but we also have thriving middle class communities. We have many areas where we have lots of highly educated black people. All of those things rest on a legal framework that allows those rights to be protected.' Over the next several weeks, the high court is expected to issue rulings that could disrupt that framework. Here are the cases Capital B is keeping an eye on. Cases: Trump v. CASA, Trump v. New Jersey, and Trump v. Washington What we know: The Trump administration filed an emergency appeal in response to lower-court rulings in multiple states that blocked a Jan. 19 executive order eliminating birthright citizenship. Universal injunctions by these judges have prevented the order from going into effect nationwide. Why it matters: The cases before the court do not address whether Trump's executive order overturning birthright citizenship is constitutional. Instead, the issue centers on whether federal judges should have the authority to issue decisions on executive orders that affect the entire nation, or whether those powers should be limited to the jurisdiction where the case was heard. Calling universal injunctions into question would put the burden of challenging executive orders on individuals, notably not the states, with no guarantee that relief would come for other groups affected. During oral arguments before the Supreme Court this spring, Trump's lawyers would not commit to following the orders of lower courts should the justices rule against them. Decision: Expected by late June or early July Case: Louisiana v. Callais What we know: Louisiana had its congressional map redrawn to include two majority Black districts. Federal courts ruled the previous map — which contained one majority Black district — violated the Voting Rights Act and discriminated against Black residents, who make up about a third of the state's population. Republican Gov. Jeff Landry proposed the current map in 2022 to amend what he called 'grossly unbalanced districts.' Opponents argue the Landry-endorsed maps violate the voting rights of 'non-African American voters' under the 14th and 15th Amendments and want to return to the previous map. Why it matters: If the court rules that a congressional map redrawn to address racial gerrymandering violates the 14th and 15th Amendment rights of 'non-African American voters,' it could inspire conservatives in other states to redraw their own maps to preserve the voting power of white residents at the expense of members of other groups. In Louisiana, this ruling could also weaken the chance of proportional representation for Black residents in both the state legislature and Congress, where Republicans hold a razor-thin majority. Decision: Expected by late June or early July Case: United States v. Skrmetti What we know: The Tennessee Supreme Court ruled to ban gender-affirming care for minors, including puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and gender reassignment surgery, in 2023. A group of transgender minors and their families sued to prevent the laws — known as SB1 — from going into effect, arguing it was a violation of their 14th Amendment rights. Why it matters: Studies show that transgender and nonbinary youth already experience worse mental health outcomes and higher rates of suicide than their cisgender peers; Black transgender and nonbinary youth, even more so. Researchers say that restricting their access to gender-affirming care could further worsen outcomes and quality of life. Decision: Expected by late June or early July Case: A.A.R.P. and W.M.M. v. Trump What we know: The Trump administration invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport Venezuelan immigrants in April. The act is a rarely invoked measure that gives the president the authority to detain or deport citizens of other nations during wartime without a hearing or traditional due process by labeling them as members of an 'enemy nation.' The three prior uses of the act occurred during international conflicts and led to the internment of Japanese people, including Japanese-American citizens, during World War II. Why it matters: Legal scholars say that granting the executive branch the ability to invoke wartime authority during times of peace is concerning because it jeopardizes the system of checks and balances. Scholars argue that if such powers were conferred on the president, immigrants from any country could potentially be labeled members of an enemy nation and subject to deportation or being detained. Black immigrants from the Caribbean, Africa, and across the diaspora would not be guaranteed due process should the order proceed. Decision: Court Justices temporarily blocked the Trump administration's ability to carry out deportations on May 16. The case has been sent back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit to determine if the immigrants' due process rights were violated. Case: Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services What we know: Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, was denied a promotion at the Ohio Department of Youth Services and eventually demoted. She believes that she lost the role to a less experienced gay woman — her boss is also gay. Ames' lawsuit was thrown out by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, citing a lack of evidence that a pattern of discrimination existed between a minority group (in this case, LGBTQ+ staff) and of the majority group. Why it matters: Ames sued using the Civil Rights Act of 1964, specifically the extended coverage for sexual orientation and gender identity (Bostock v. Clayton County, 2020). Typically, members of minority groups can cite historical discrimination as circumstantial evidence in workplace discrimination cases, unlike members of the majority group. The court will decide if this kind of circumstantial evidence can work the other way. Decision: Expected by late June or early July Case: Mahmoud v. Taylor What we know: School board officials in Montgomery County, Maryland, had previously allowed parents to opt-out of books and lessons related to gender or sexual identity as part of its curriculum. They abruptly changed their policy in March 2023 and removed the ability to opt-out. Parents and some religious groups sued, claiming the removal of the opt-out provision violated their religious freedoms. The issue is solely related to removing their ability to opt-out, not banning the materials. The Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit agreed with parents but denied their preliminary injunction to reinstate the ability to opt-out while the case is decided. Why it matters: If the court allows parents to opt-out of school-board approved curriculum on the basis of religious objections, it opens the door to parents opting out of any educational content with which they disagree. Supporters of the opt-out say, if the court sides with the schools, parents could lose their autonomy over which topics their children are taught. Decision: Expected by late June or early July Case: Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, Inc. What we know: The Affordable Care Act provides three agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services the power to recommend preventative care services for cost sharing, including pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), a medication that reduces the risk of contracting HIV, is recommended by the Task Force. Four individuals and two Christian-based businesses in Texas argued that the structure of these agencies violates the Appointments Clause of the Constitution because its members are not directly selected by the president or confirmed by the Senate. Why it matters: These agencies' ability to recommend no-cost preventive care is critical to ensuring affordable access to treatment. In particular, PrEP has significantly reduced HIV infections since the passage of the ACA mandate, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Public health researchers say that limiting access to low-cost PrEP medications would represent a step back in efforts to reduce the spread of HIV and result in more preventable infections for Black people. Decision: Expected by late June or early July The post 7 Supreme Court Cases That Black Americans Should Track This Summer appeared first on Capital B News.
Yahoo
24-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Louisiana is ‘tired' of fighting over its congressional maps. The Supreme Court will review its districts anyway.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments Monday in a years-old, messy legal battle over Louisiana's congressional districts that could have nationwide implications for how states consider race as they draw new lines. And given the GOP's narrow majority, the high court's decision could be a factor that helps decide control of the House of Representatives after the 2026 election. The state's briefing at the Supreme Court drips with exasperation: Louisiana was, at first, required by a federal court in 2022 to create a second majority Black district out of the state's six total districts. A group of self-described 'non-African American voters' then sued in 2024, alleging the state violated the Constitution by relying too much on race to meet the first court's demands. 'Louisiana is tired,' state officials told the Supreme Court in December. 'Midway through this decade, neither Louisiana nor its citizens know what congressional map they can call home.' The case, Louisiana v. Callais, tees up a series of important questions that deal with race and redistricting. The landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965 requires that states do not dilute the power of minority voters, a response to decades of post-Civil War efforts – particularly in the South – to limit the political power of African Americans. And yet the equal protection clause demands that a state cannot draw a map based on race, even if those efforts are intended to ensure compliance with federal law. Because of that inherent tension, the Supreme Court has tended to give some 'breathing room' to states in drawing their maps. The central question of the case is exactly how much room state lawmakers should have. Louisiana officials have suggested that the Supreme Court might want to use the case to take federal courts out of the business of deciding racial gerrymanders altogether, just as it withdrew from fights over political gerrymanders in a 2019 decision. But a group of Black plaintiffs that challenged the state's original map are, understandably, opposed to that idea because it would severely limit their ability to challenge future discriminatory maps. 'We would not be at all pleased with that outcome,' said Sarah Brannon, deputy director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Voting Rights Project, which is representing the minority plaintiffs who initially sued. 'It would set a very bad precedent going forward and make it very difficult for civil rights groups, minority voters to bring claims in the future.' The Supreme Court has, in recent years, slowly chipped away at the power of the Voting Rights Act. But in a stunning decision in 2023, the court appeared to bolster a key provision of the VRA by ordering Alabama to redraw its map to allow for an additional Black majority district. Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative, penned the opinion for a 5-4 majority, siding with the court's three liberals. Another conservative, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, agreed with the key parts of the holding. The new district at issue in the case slashes diagonally from Shreveport in the northwest of the state to Baton Rouge in the southeast for some 250 miles to create a district where Black residents make up some 54% of voters – up from about 24% under the old lines. The non-African American voters slammed the district as a 'sinuous and jagged second majority Black district' that they told the Supreme Court is 'based on racial stereotypes, racially 'balkanizing' a 250-mile swath of Louisiana.' 'Why, in the 2020s, would Louisiana racially balkanize new areas of a State where Black population is flatlining, integration is succeeding, and the record lacks evidence of voting harms to Black voters?' the plaintiffs asked. Although Black residents make up roughly a third of Louisiana's population, the state had just one Black lawmaker in its six-member US House delegation prior to the initial court ruling that led to a second Black-majority district. Rep. Cleo Fields, a Democrat, captured the seat in last year's election – adding a second Democrat to the state's delegation. In raw political terms, the Supreme Court's decision could leave Fields in power – or it could force a redrawing of the maps before the 2026 election. The Biden administration submitted a brief to the Supreme Court that technically supported neither party but that urged the justices to reverse a special three-judge district court that would throw out the current map. Days after taking office, the Trump administration submitted a letter declaring that it had 'reconsidered the government's position' and that the earlier brief 'no longer represents the position of the United States.' CNN's Tierney Sneed and Fredreka Schouten contributed to this report.
NBC News
24-03-2025
- Politics
- NBC News
Supreme Court hears Louisiana racial gerrymandering claim
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday hears an unusual case in which civil rights groups are in a tentative alliance with Republican officials in defending a Louisiana congressional map that includes two majority Black districts for the first time in decades. The justices took up an appeal brought by the state over its efforts to draw a map while being sued from the left and right about whether it appropriately considered race in doing so. The case has a complicated history, resulting from an original map drawn by the Legislature after the 2020 census that included just one Black majority district out of the state's six districts. About a third of the state's population is Black. Civil rights groups, including the Legal Defense Fund, sued and ultimately won, arguing that the Voting Rights Act required two majority Black districts. That led to a new lawsuit filed by a group of self-identified "non-African American" voters led by Phillip Callais and 11 other plaintiffs who said the latest map, which is currently in effect, violated the Constitution's 14th Amendment, which requires that the law applies equally to everyone. A federal court struck the new map down, but the state successfully asked the Supreme Court to block the ruling last year, meaning the map was used in November's election. Rep. Cleo Fields, D-La., ultimately won the newly drawn district. Now, the Supreme Court will decide whether the 2024 map can remain in place, weighing several legal questions, including whether the plaintiffs who sued even had standing to do so. The court could also go further and delve into the fraught question of to what extent the Voting Rights Act, which requires the consideration of race when drawing districts, is in tension with the 14th Amendment, which conservatives say bars any consideration of race in government decisions. Although state officials are defending the new map, they also said in court filings that the court should consider barring such lawsuits altogether as "non-justiciable," meaning they are so inherently political that the issue should be left to the political branches. Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguiñaga wrote that currently the state is being sued no matter what it does, causing it to spend millions of dollars on legal expenses. "No one truly wins that fight — the state loses, its voters lose, the judiciary loses, and democracy itself loses," he wrote. The challengers said in court papers that the new map constitutes an "odious racial gerrymander." None of the state's reasons constitute a "compelling justification for violating the 14th Amendment," they added. Meanwhile, the civil rights groups that originally sued urged the court to uphold the new map, pointing out that in drawing it, the state relied in part on partisan political considerations aimed at protecting incumbent Republicans, including House Speaker Mike Johnson, of Louisiana. The Supreme Court has a 6-3 conservative majority that is often receptive to conservative claims that the Constitution is "colorblind," meaning no consideration of race can ever be lawful even if it is aimed at remedying past discrimination. But in an unexpected move, the court in 2023 reaffirmed the Voting Rights Act in another congressional redistricting case arising from Alabama.
CNN
24-03-2025
- Politics
- CNN
Louisiana is ‘tired' of fighting over its congressional maps. The Supreme Court will review its districts anyway.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments Monday in a years-old, messy legal battle over Louisiana's congressional districts that could have nationwide implications for how states consider race as they draw new lines. And given the GOP's narrow majority, the high court's decision could be a factor that helps decide control of the House of Representatives after the 2026 election. The state's briefing at the Supreme Court drips with exasperation: Louisiana was, at first, required by a federal court in 2022 to create a second majority Black district out of the state's six total districts. A group of self-described 'non-African American voters' then sued in 2024, alleging the state violated the Constitution by relying too much on race to meet the first court's demands. 'Louisiana is tired,' state officials told the Supreme Court in December. 'Midway through this decade, neither Louisiana nor its citizens know what congressional map they can call home.' The case, Louisiana v. Callais, tees up a series of important questions that deal with race and redistricting. The landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965 requires that states do not dilute the power of minority voters, a response to decades of post-Civil War efforts – particularly in the South – to limit the political power of African Americans. And yet the equal protection clause demands that a state cannot draw a map based on race, even if those efforts are intended to ensure compliance with federal law. Because of that inherent tension, the Supreme Court has tended to give some 'breathing room' to states in drawing their maps. The central question of the case is exactly how much room state lawmakers should have. Louisiana officials have suggested that the Supreme Court might want to use the case to take federal courts out of the business of deciding racial gerrymanders altogether, just as it withdrew from fights over political gerrymanders in a 2019 decision. But a group of Black plaintiffs that challenged the state's original map are, understandably, opposed to that idea because it would severely limit their ability to challenge future discriminatory maps. 'We would not be at all pleased with that outcome,' said Sarah Brannon, deputy director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Voting Rights Project, which is representing the minority plaintiffs who initially sued. 'It would set a very bad precedent going forward and make it very difficult for civil rights groups, minority voters to bring claims in the future.' The Supreme Court has, in recent years, slowly chipped away at the power of the Voting Rights Act. But in a stunning decision in 2023, the court appeared to bolster a key provision of the VRA by ordering Alabama to redraw its map to allow for an additional Black majority district. Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative, penned the opinion for a 5-4 majority, siding with the court's three liberals. Another conservative, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, agreed with the key parts of the holding. The new district at issue in the case slashes diagonally from Shreveport in the northwest of the state to Baton Rouge in the southeast for some 250 miles to create a district where Black residents make up some 54% of voters – up from about 24% under the old lines. The non-African American voters slammed the district as a 'sinuous and jagged second majority Black district' that they told the Supreme Court is 'based on racial stereotypes, racially 'balkanizing' a 250-mile swath of Louisiana.' 'Why, in the 2020s, would Louisiana racially balkanize new areas of a State where Black population is flatlining, integration is succeeding, and the record lacks evidence of voting harms to Black voters?' the plaintiffs asked. Although Black residents make up roughly a third of Louisiana's population, the state had just one Black lawmaker in its six-member US House delegation prior to the initial court ruling that led to a second Black-majority district. Rep. Cleo Fields, a Democrat, captured the seat in last year's election – adding a second Democrat to the state's delegation. In raw political terms, the Supreme Court's decision could leave Fields in power – or it could force a redrawing of the maps before the 2026 election. The Biden administration submitted a brief to the Supreme Court that technically supported neither party but that urged the justices to reverse a special three-judge district court that would throw out the current map. Days after taking office, the Trump administration submitted a letter declaring that it had 'reconsidered the government's position' and that the earlier brief 'no longer represents the position of the United States.'
