throwing out words diminishes it's meaning if you can't back it up...that's all.
update - Trump strike on alleged Venezuelan drug boat likely murder and a war crime
- Thread starter mandrill
- Start date
The Supreme Court has already said, in theory, it won't allow the president to fire Federal Reserve officials — but President Donald Trump is betting they won't actually follow through on that, reported Politico on Tuesday evening.
Trump announced the attempted firing on Monday of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, citing a currently unproven allegation by his housing finance chief, Bill Pulte, that she engaged in mortgage fraud. Cook denies any wrongdoing and has refused to vacate her position, filing a lawsuit that guarantees the matter will go to the courts.
"Key to the legal tea-leaf reading is a two-page, unsigned decision the Supreme Court issued in May allowing the president to fire two members of labor-related federal boards. In that decision, the court’s conservative majority emphasized the Federal Reserve should be viewed differently from other purportedly independent agencies housed within the executive branch," noted the report. In that decision, the justices wrote, “The Federal Reserve is a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States.”
However, Trump thinks he's found a way around that.
"Trump is betting the court won’t second-guess his decision on Monday to fire board member Lisa Cook 'for cause.' That might be a good bet, legal experts said Tuesday. Judges — including Supreme Court justices — may be reluctant to overturn a president’s subjective conclusion about what counts as an acceptable 'cause,' or legal basis, for a firing," said the report. "In this case, the purported basis is an unproven allegation that Cook lied on a mortgage application — even though Trump’s true motive likely is his frustration that the Fed has not lowered interest rates."
Harvard Law professor Jack Goldsmith had a succinct view of the matter on X: "There have been two institutional constraints on Trump 2.0: The courts and markets. The firing of Lisa Cook 'for cause' may be pretextual but is not obviously illegal."
Not every right-wing observer is on board with Trump's move against Fed independence; longtime GOP commentator Erick Erickson warned that Trump and his supporters are "playing with fire" not just by undermining the central bank's decision-making abilities, but by declaring one of its board members guilty of misconduct without any sort of due process.
Trump just called the Supreme Court's bluff with high-profile ouster: experts
Trump announced the attempted firing on Monday of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, citing a currently unproven allegation by his housing finance chief, Bill Pulte, that she engaged in mortgage fraud. Cook denies any wrongdoing and has refused to vacate her position, filing a lawsuit that guarantees the matter will go to the courts.
"Key to the legal tea-leaf reading is a two-page, unsigned decision the Supreme Court issued in May allowing the president to fire two members of labor-related federal boards. In that decision, the court’s conservative majority emphasized the Federal Reserve should be viewed differently from other purportedly independent agencies housed within the executive branch," noted the report. In that decision, the justices wrote, “The Federal Reserve is a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States.”
However, Trump thinks he's found a way around that.
"Trump is betting the court won’t second-guess his decision on Monday to fire board member Lisa Cook 'for cause.' That might be a good bet, legal experts said Tuesday. Judges — including Supreme Court justices — may be reluctant to overturn a president’s subjective conclusion about what counts as an acceptable 'cause,' or legal basis, for a firing," said the report. "In this case, the purported basis is an unproven allegation that Cook lied on a mortgage application — even though Trump’s true motive likely is his frustration that the Fed has not lowered interest rates."
Harvard Law professor Jack Goldsmith had a succinct view of the matter on X: "There have been two institutional constraints on Trump 2.0: The courts and markets. The firing of Lisa Cook 'for cause' may be pretextual but is not obviously illegal."
Not every right-wing observer is on board with Trump's move against Fed independence; longtime GOP commentator Erick Erickson warned that Trump and his supporters are "playing with fire" not just by undermining the central bank's decision-making abilities, but by declaring one of its board members guilty of misconduct without any sort of due process.
Trump just called the Supreme Court's bluff with high-profile ouster: experts
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump’s administration is taking management of Union Station away from Amtrak, the latest example of the federal government exerting its power over the nation’s capital.
Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy announced the takeover alongside Amtrak President Roger Harris at Union Station on Wednesday for the launch of the NextGen Acela, the rail service’s new high-speed train.
Union Station, the secretary said, has “fallen into disrepair” when it should be a “point of pride” for the city. He said taking over management of Washington’s main transportation hub, which is walking distance from the U.S. Capitol, would help beautify the landmark in an economical way and was in line with Trump’s vision.
“He wants Union Station to be beautiful again. He wants transit to be safe again. And he wants our nation’s capital to be great again. And today is part of that,” Duffy said.
The Trump administration’s move to take over Union Station follows other attempts to put the District of Columbia further under the president’s control. In recent weeks, he has increased federal law enforcement and immigration agents in the nation’s capital while also taking over the city’s police department and activating members of the National Guard, saying he’s fighting violent crime. Local police department statistics, though, show violent crime in Washington has declined in recent years.
apnews.com
Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy announced the takeover alongside Amtrak President Roger Harris at Union Station on Wednesday for the launch of the NextGen Acela, the rail service’s new high-speed train.
Union Station, the secretary said, has “fallen into disrepair” when it should be a “point of pride” for the city. He said taking over management of Washington’s main transportation hub, which is walking distance from the U.S. Capitol, would help beautify the landmark in an economical way and was in line with Trump’s vision.
“He wants Union Station to be beautiful again. He wants transit to be safe again. And he wants our nation’s capital to be great again. And today is part of that,” Duffy said.
The Trump administration’s move to take over Union Station follows other attempts to put the District of Columbia further under the president’s control. In recent weeks, he has increased federal law enforcement and immigration agents in the nation’s capital while also taking over the city’s police department and activating members of the National Guard, saying he’s fighting violent crime. Local police department statistics, though, show violent crime in Washington has declined in recent years.
Trump extends control over Washington by taking management of Union Station away from Amtrak
President Donald Trump’s administration is taking control of Washington's Union Station from Amtrak, marking another federal intervention in the nation's capital.
apnews.com
An infamous immigration detention center in Florida is set to close "within a few days," according to a new report.
The Associated Press reported on Wednesday that Florida officials will shut down the "Alligator Alcatraz" facility after a judge ordered them to cease operations. The order was in response to a lawsuit filed by environmental groups and a Native American tribe who accused Florida officials of bypassing environmental review regulations to build the detention center.
“We are probably going to be down to 0 individuals within a few days,” wrote Kevin Guthrie, executive director of the Florida Department of Emergency Management, to a local rabbi in an email reported by the Associated Press.
"Alligator Alcatraz," a more than 4,000-bed detention facility in the Florida Everglades, is a joint venture between the federal government and Florida's emergency management office. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican, said in July that the Trump administration asked them to create the facility, and it took the state just eight days to complete the facility once construction began, according to media reports.
The facility costs about $450 million to operate for a single year, according to reports.
In her order, Judge Kathleen M. Williams of the Southern District of Florida argued that Florida officials sought to "put the cart before the horse" by building the facility and then filling in the regulatory requirements later.
Read the entire report by clicking here.
‘Alligator Alcatraz’ set to close after judge orders shutdown
The Associated Press reported on Wednesday that Florida officials will shut down the "Alligator Alcatraz" facility after a judge ordered them to cease operations. The order was in response to a lawsuit filed by environmental groups and a Native American tribe who accused Florida officials of bypassing environmental review regulations to build the detention center.
“We are probably going to be down to 0 individuals within a few days,” wrote Kevin Guthrie, executive director of the Florida Department of Emergency Management, to a local rabbi in an email reported by the Associated Press.
"Alligator Alcatraz," a more than 4,000-bed detention facility in the Florida Everglades, is a joint venture between the federal government and Florida's emergency management office. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican, said in July that the Trump administration asked them to create the facility, and it took the state just eight days to complete the facility once construction began, according to media reports.
The facility costs about $450 million to operate for a single year, according to reports.
In her order, Judge Kathleen M. Williams of the Southern District of Florida argued that Florida officials sought to "put the cart before the horse" by building the facility and then filling in the regulatory requirements later.
Read the entire report by clicking here.
‘Alligator Alcatraz’ set to close after judge orders shutdown
Donald Trump and his administration suffered two major legal setbacks as federal judges in California and Rhode Island ruled against key policies pursued by the White House.
By: MEGA© Knewz (CA)
In California, U.S. District Court Judge Jennifer Thurston ordered the release of Salam Maklad, a Syrian national from the Druze religious minority, who had been detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers earlier this summer. In Rhode Island, Senior District Judge William Smith blocked the administration from imposing new restrictions on domestic violence funding programs connected to the president’s recent executive order targeting what he described as “gender ideology.” Details of both rulings were shared by Politico’s legal affairs reporter, Kyle Cheney, on X.
By: MEGA© Knewz (CA)
With Republicans in control of the White House and both chambers of Congress, the judiciary has become a critical check on Trump’s agenda. Courts have previously halted efforts to penalize law firms representing cases against Trump, blocked attempts to revoke protections for Haitian migrants and struck down sanctions aimed at employees of the International Criminal Court. The California case centered on Maklad, who entered the United States in 2002 without valid documentation and applied for asylum. Court records show she later married a man who was granted asylum, which her legal team argued made her eligible for legal immigration status. ICE recently detained her after she attended what she believed was a routine “check-in” meeting and subsequently placed her in expedited removal proceedings and threatened her with deportation. Thurston emphasized Maklad’s clean record and lack of flight risk, writing that “the balance of the equities and public interest weigh in favor of Ms. Maklad.”
By: MEGA© Knewz (CA)
The judge ordered her release and barred authorities from rearresting her without “compliance with constitutional protections, which include, at a minimum, pre-deprivation notice — describing the change of circumstances necessitating her arrest — and detention, and a timely bond hearing.” Thurston further ruled that “Respondents are PERMANENTLY ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED from rearresting or re-detaining Ms. Maklad absent compliance with constitutional protections. … At any such hearing, the Government SHALL bear the burden of establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, that Ms. Maklad poses a danger to the community or a risk of flight, and Ms. Maklad SHALL be allowed to have her counsel present.”
On the same day, Judge Smith ruled against the administration in a case tied to President Trump’s Executive Order 14168, titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.” The directive, issued earlier this year, declared that sex is an “immutable biological classification as male or female” and instructed federal agencies to “prioritize investigations and litigation to enforce the rights and freedoms” tied to this definition.
By: MEGA© Knewz (CA)
Following the order, the Office on Violence Against Women revised its grant policy in May 2025 to prohibit funding for “inculcating or promoting gender ideology.” A coalition of 17 nonprofit groups challenged the restrictions, arguing they undermined their work with survivors of domestic violence. Judge Smith sided with the organizations, ruling that the new requirements “could result in the disruption” of critical services for victims of sexual and domestic violence. Together, the rulings marked another day of judicial pushback against the Trump administration’s efforts to reshape immigration enforcement and federal gender policy.
Trump admin faces double legal blow in just hours
By: MEGA© Knewz (CA)
In California, U.S. District Court Judge Jennifer Thurston ordered the release of Salam Maklad, a Syrian national from the Druze religious minority, who had been detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers earlier this summer. In Rhode Island, Senior District Judge William Smith blocked the administration from imposing new restrictions on domestic violence funding programs connected to the president’s recent executive order targeting what he described as “gender ideology.” Details of both rulings were shared by Politico’s legal affairs reporter, Kyle Cheney, on X.
By: MEGA© Knewz (CA)
With Republicans in control of the White House and both chambers of Congress, the judiciary has become a critical check on Trump’s agenda. Courts have previously halted efforts to penalize law firms representing cases against Trump, blocked attempts to revoke protections for Haitian migrants and struck down sanctions aimed at employees of the International Criminal Court. The California case centered on Maklad, who entered the United States in 2002 without valid documentation and applied for asylum. Court records show she later married a man who was granted asylum, which her legal team argued made her eligible for legal immigration status. ICE recently detained her after she attended what she believed was a routine “check-in” meeting and subsequently placed her in expedited removal proceedings and threatened her with deportation. Thurston emphasized Maklad’s clean record and lack of flight risk, writing that “the balance of the equities and public interest weigh in favor of Ms. Maklad.”
By: MEGA© Knewz (CA)
The judge ordered her release and barred authorities from rearresting her without “compliance with constitutional protections, which include, at a minimum, pre-deprivation notice — describing the change of circumstances necessitating her arrest — and detention, and a timely bond hearing.” Thurston further ruled that “Respondents are PERMANENTLY ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED from rearresting or re-detaining Ms. Maklad absent compliance with constitutional protections. … At any such hearing, the Government SHALL bear the burden of establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, that Ms. Maklad poses a danger to the community or a risk of flight, and Ms. Maklad SHALL be allowed to have her counsel present.”
On the same day, Judge Smith ruled against the administration in a case tied to President Trump’s Executive Order 14168, titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.” The directive, issued earlier this year, declared that sex is an “immutable biological classification as male or female” and instructed federal agencies to “prioritize investigations and litigation to enforce the rights and freedoms” tied to this definition.
By: MEGA© Knewz (CA)
Following the order, the Office on Violence Against Women revised its grant policy in May 2025 to prohibit funding for “inculcating or promoting gender ideology.” A coalition of 17 nonprofit groups challenged the restrictions, arguing they undermined their work with survivors of domestic violence. Judge Smith sided with the organizations, ruling that the new requirements “could result in the disruption” of critical services for victims of sexual and domestic violence. Together, the rulings marked another day of judicial pushback against the Trump administration’s efforts to reshape immigration enforcement and federal gender policy.
Trump admin faces double legal blow in just hours
Susan Monarez, who only recently assumed the role of director at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), has been removed from her position, the Washington Post reported Wednesday.
Officials confirmed the abrupt ousting to the outlet.
Monarez, a veteran federal scientist, had been nominated by President Donald Trump after his initial choice, former GOP Rep. Dave Weldon (R-Fla.), was withdrawn amid criticism over his views on vaccines and autism.
READ MORE: 'Insane': Trump officials seethe over Noem's hand-picked aide crippling agency operations
Monarez received her confirmation in July.
Several CDC staff members, who also spoke anonymously about internal affairs, indicated that a planned agency-wide call scheduled for Monday was canceled on Friday — adding to the sense of turmoil.
This leadership shake-up comes as the agency grapples with the fallout from a violent incident earlier this month: a gunman attacked the CDC’s Atlanta headquarters on August 8, prompting a lockdown that ended in tragedy with the death of a police officer.
Law enforcement officials, neighbors, and the suspect’s father reported that he held the coronavirus vaccine responsible for his health issues.
READ MORE: 'Shame, shame!' Angry boos signal Susan Collins should be 'very worried' about reelection
Meanwhile, the report of Monarez's removal led to strong reactions on social media, including from medical researchers.
l analyst Jonathan Reiner wrote on the social platform X: "Wow. This is possibly related to the aftermath of the shooting at the CDC and subsequent silence of the president. But its net effect now is to put full operational control of vaccine policy back in RFK’s hands. This is a big net negative for the country."
Abraar Karan, an infectious disease doctor and researcher at Stanford University, wrote: "Wow- another change in CDC leadership. We need transparency on why."
Political reporter Aaron Blake wrote: "IRS Commissioner Billy Long: Senate-confirmed, then ousted 53 days into the job.
CDC head Susan Monarez: Senate-confirmed, then reportedly ousted 28 days into the job."
'Big net negative': Trump fires top official just weeks after she was confirmed
Officials confirmed the abrupt ousting to the outlet.
Monarez, a veteran federal scientist, had been nominated by President Donald Trump after his initial choice, former GOP Rep. Dave Weldon (R-Fla.), was withdrawn amid criticism over his views on vaccines and autism.
READ MORE: 'Insane': Trump officials seethe over Noem's hand-picked aide crippling agency operations
Monarez received her confirmation in July.
Several CDC staff members, who also spoke anonymously about internal affairs, indicated that a planned agency-wide call scheduled for Monday was canceled on Friday — adding to the sense of turmoil.
This leadership shake-up comes as the agency grapples with the fallout from a violent incident earlier this month: a gunman attacked the CDC’s Atlanta headquarters on August 8, prompting a lockdown that ended in tragedy with the death of a police officer.
Law enforcement officials, neighbors, and the suspect’s father reported that he held the coronavirus vaccine responsible for his health issues.
READ MORE: 'Shame, shame!' Angry boos signal Susan Collins should be 'very worried' about reelection
Meanwhile, the report of Monarez's removal led to strong reactions on social media, including from medical researchers.
l analyst Jonathan Reiner wrote on the social platform X: "Wow. This is possibly related to the aftermath of the shooting at the CDC and subsequent silence of the president. But its net effect now is to put full operational control of vaccine policy back in RFK’s hands. This is a big net negative for the country."
Abraar Karan, an infectious disease doctor and researcher at Stanford University, wrote: "Wow- another change in CDC leadership. We need transparency on why."
Political reporter Aaron Blake wrote: "IRS Commissioner Billy Long: Senate-confirmed, then ousted 53 days into the job.
CDC head Susan Monarez: Senate-confirmed, then reportedly ousted 28 days into the job."
'Big net negative': Trump fires top official just weeks after she was confirmed
A federal judge appointed by President Donald Trump has delivered a major legal blow to his own administration, ruling that it unlawfully withheld millions of dollars in congressionally approved funds from the National Endowment for Democracy.
The lawsuit
The NED had to let go of many employees. (Giorgio Trovato/Unsplash)© Knewz (CA)
The NED filed suit against the Trump administration, arguing that the funding freeze violated the Administrative Procedure Act. According to the plaintiffs, the suspension created a “devastating” cash flow disaster that forced the organization to lay off 75 percent of its staff and suspend critical global pro-democracy programs.
The ruling
Trump-appointed judge sided with the plaintiffs. (Wesley Tingey/Unsplash)© Knewz (CA)
In response, the NED asked for emergency relief through a temporary restraining order and later a preliminary injunction to stop the administration from withholding the rest of its 2025 fiscal year funding. U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich, a Trump appointee from 2017, granted the request. “The defendants have likely unlawfully frozen the Endowment’s funding,” Friedrich wrote in a 15-page decision.
Friedrich’s ruling emphasized that Congress has authority to approve funding for the NED. At the same time, the organization’s board is responsible for compliance with the NED Act. The executive branch, she wrote, is charged with executing that funding — but instead, the Trump administration withheld it for “impermissible policy reasons.” She concluded, “The defendants have fallen woefully short of providing an ‘annual grant’ that ‘enable’ the Endowment to fulfill its statutory purposes.”
Friedrich said the administration withheld NED’s required funding. (MEGA)© Knewz (CA)
Friedrich outlined how the funding freeze disrupted NED’s operations and undermined its mission. “It was unable to fund 226 approved grants, 124 grants recommended for approval by the Board, and 53 core institute projects,” she wrote. “These are activities that the Endowment, in consultation with Congress, has determined are ‘important and time-sensitive’ … to fulfilling the Endowment’s mission.” Friedrich concluded that the administration failed to provide the required annual grant to support NED’s obligations.
Trump-appointed judge delivers legal blow to president
The lawsuit
The NED had to let go of many employees. (Giorgio Trovato/Unsplash)© Knewz (CA)
The NED filed suit against the Trump administration, arguing that the funding freeze violated the Administrative Procedure Act. According to the plaintiffs, the suspension created a “devastating” cash flow disaster that forced the organization to lay off 75 percent of its staff and suspend critical global pro-democracy programs.
The ruling
Trump-appointed judge sided with the plaintiffs. (Wesley Tingey/Unsplash)© Knewz (CA)
In response, the NED asked for emergency relief through a temporary restraining order and later a preliminary injunction to stop the administration from withholding the rest of its 2025 fiscal year funding. U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich, a Trump appointee from 2017, granted the request. “The defendants have likely unlawfully frozen the Endowment’s funding,” Friedrich wrote in a 15-page decision.
Friedrich’s ruling emphasized that Congress has authority to approve funding for the NED. At the same time, the organization’s board is responsible for compliance with the NED Act. The executive branch, she wrote, is charged with executing that funding — but instead, the Trump administration withheld it for “impermissible policy reasons.” She concluded, “The defendants have fallen woefully short of providing an ‘annual grant’ that ‘enable’ the Endowment to fulfill its statutory purposes.”
Friedrich said the administration withheld NED’s required funding. (MEGA)© Knewz (CA)
Friedrich outlined how the funding freeze disrupted NED’s operations and undermined its mission. “It was unable to fund 226 approved grants, 124 grants recommended for approval by the Board, and 53 core institute projects,” she wrote. “These are activities that the Endowment, in consultation with Congress, has determined are ‘important and time-sensitive’ … to fulfilling the Endowment’s mission.” Friedrich concluded that the administration failed to provide the required annual grant to support NED’s obligations.
Trump-appointed judge delivers legal blow to president
They just signalled they would let him fire who he wanted, but that they would prefer he didn't do the Federal Reserve.
Now he is ignoring them and I fully expect they will fold by saying "he said it was for cause so it is fine".
WASHINGTON (AP) — Louisiana on Wednesday abandoned its defense of a political map that elected two Black members of Congress and instead called on the Supreme Court to reject any consideration of race in redistricting in a case that could bring major changes to the Voting Rights Act.
Appealing to a conservative-dominated court that has been skeptical of the use of race, Louisiana is advancing a position that could allow it and other Republican-led states in the South to draw new maps that eliminate virtually all majority Black districts, which have been Democratic strongholds, voting rights experts said.
“If Louisiana’s argument prevailed at the Supreme Court, it would almost certainly lead to a whiter and less representative Congress, as well as significantly less minority representation across the country in legislatures, city councils, and across other district-based bodies,” UCLA law professor Richard Hasen said in an email.
Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry speaks alongside federal, state and parish officials during a press conference at the Tangipahoa Parish Council chambers in Amite, La., Monday, Aug. 25, 2025, addressing public, wildlife and environmental safety concerns following an explosion at Smitty's Supply. (David Grunfeld/The Times-Picayune/The New Orleans Advocate via AP)© The Associated Press
The state's high court filing was in response to the justices' call for new briefing and arguments in the Louisiana case, which they first heard earlier this year. Arguments will take place on Oct. 15.
“Race-based redistricting is fundamentally contrary to our Constitution,” Louisiana Attorney General Elizabeth Murrill wrote.
Voting rights groups defending the second Black majority district urged the court to reject the state's constitutional challenge.
A second round of arguments is a rare occurrence at the Supreme Court, and sometimes presages a major change by the high court. The Citizens United decision in 2010 that led to dramatic increases in independent spending in U.S. elections came after it was argued a second time.
When the court first heard the Louisiana case 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.
Just two years ago, the court, by a 5-4 vote, affirmed a ruling that found a likely violation of the Voting Rights Act in a similar case over Alabama’s congressional map. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined their three more liberal colleagues in the outcome.
That decision led to new districts in both states that sent two more Black Democrats to Congress.
Now, though, the court has asked the parties to answer a potentially big question: “Whether the state’s intentional creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violates the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments to the U. S. Constitution.”
Those amendments, adopted in the aftermath of the Civil War, were intended to bring about political equality for Black Americans and gave Congress the authority to take all necessary steps. Nearly a century later, Congress passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965, called the crown jewel of the civil rights era, to finally put an end to persistent efforts to prevent Black people from voting in the former states of the Confederacy.
While the high court has pared back the law in the past dozen years, it has sustained the provision that allows challenges to political districts that can be shown to deprive minority voters of the chance to elect representatives of their choice.
In the arguments in March, Louisiana defended the congressional map as an effort to comply with court rulings and preserve districts held by powerful Republicans, including House Speaker Mike Johnson.
The court fight over Louisiana’s congressional districts has lasted three years. Two maps were blocked by lower courts, and the Supreme Court has intervened twice. Most recently, the court ordered the new map to be used in the 2024 election.
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.
Civil rights advocates won a lower court ruling that the districts likely discriminated against Black voters.
The state eventually drew a new map. But white Louisiana voters claimed in their separate lawsuit that race was the predominant factor driving it. A three-judge court agreed, leading to the current high court case.
Mark Sherman, The Associated Press
Louisiana urges Supreme Court to bar use of race in redistricting, in attack on Voting Rights Act
Appealing to a conservative-dominated court that has been skeptical of the use of race, Louisiana is advancing a position that could allow it and other Republican-led states in the South to draw new maps that eliminate virtually all majority Black districts, which have been Democratic strongholds, voting rights experts said.
“If Louisiana’s argument prevailed at the Supreme Court, it would almost certainly lead to a whiter and less representative Congress, as well as significantly less minority representation across the country in legislatures, city councils, and across other district-based bodies,” UCLA law professor Richard Hasen said in an email.
Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry speaks alongside federal, state and parish officials during a press conference at the Tangipahoa Parish Council chambers in Amite, La., Monday, Aug. 25, 2025, addressing public, wildlife and environmental safety concerns following an explosion at Smitty's Supply. (David Grunfeld/The Times-Picayune/The New Orleans Advocate via AP)© The Associated Press
The state's high court filing was in response to the justices' call for new briefing and arguments in the Louisiana case, which they first heard earlier this year. Arguments will take place on Oct. 15.
“Race-based redistricting is fundamentally contrary to our Constitution,” Louisiana Attorney General Elizabeth Murrill wrote.
Voting rights groups defending the second Black majority district urged the court to reject the state's constitutional challenge.
A second round of arguments is a rare occurrence at the Supreme Court, and sometimes presages a major change by the high court. The Citizens United decision in 2010 that led to dramatic increases in independent spending in U.S. elections came after it was argued a second time.
When the court first heard the Louisiana case 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.
Just two years ago, the court, by a 5-4 vote, affirmed a ruling that found a likely violation of the Voting Rights Act in a similar case over Alabama’s congressional map. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined their three more liberal colleagues in the outcome.
That decision led to new districts in both states that sent two more Black Democrats to Congress.
Now, though, the court has asked the parties to answer a potentially big question: “Whether the state’s intentional creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violates the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments to the U. S. Constitution.”
Those amendments, adopted in the aftermath of the Civil War, were intended to bring about political equality for Black Americans and gave Congress the authority to take all necessary steps. Nearly a century later, Congress passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965, called the crown jewel of the civil rights era, to finally put an end to persistent efforts to prevent Black people from voting in the former states of the Confederacy.
While the high court has pared back the law in the past dozen years, it has sustained the provision that allows challenges to political districts that can be shown to deprive minority voters of the chance to elect representatives of their choice.
In the arguments in March, Louisiana defended the congressional map as an effort to comply with court rulings and preserve districts held by powerful Republicans, including House Speaker Mike Johnson.
The court fight over Louisiana’s congressional districts has lasted three years. Two maps were blocked by lower courts, and the Supreme Court has intervened twice. Most recently, the court ordered the new map to be used in the 2024 election.
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.
Civil rights advocates won a lower court ruling that the districts likely discriminated against Black voters.
The state eventually drew a new map. But white Louisiana voters claimed in their separate lawsuit that race was the predominant factor driving it. A three-judge court agreed, leading to the current high court case.
Mark Sherman, The Associated Press
Louisiana urges Supreme Court to bar use of race in redistricting, in attack on Voting Rights Act
What's the point? Cultists will defend the Dear Leader no matter how damning the evidence is. And there is a plethora, starting back to a federal lawsuit against Trump and his dad for refusing to rent apartments to black people. Or how Trump didn't like the fact there were black employees counting money at his casino, saying basically only Jews should be doing that. You could talk about the Central Park Five, and how Trump took out a full page ad against them calling for the death penalty (shockingly, they were all black or hispanic boys). But, I'm sure you'll look at this with an open mind...lol
same as TDS who can't see any good with border security, no tax on tips and seniors benefits, can't see the benefit of deploying national guard to combat crime. can't see the benefits of bringing back Big Auto plants in the US... just whine and cry...the meltdowns are glorious....waking up to the smell of a meltdown...can't beat that feeling...
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — A panel of Tennessee judges has ruled against two state restrictions on carrying guns, including in public recreational areas such as playgrounds and parks.
The case has been another test of the limits of a 2022 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that has allowed gun rights advocates to take aim at more Second Amendment restrictions nationwide.
The Tennessee laws that were deemed unconstitutional include one that generally outlaws carrying a gun in a park or similar area, except for someone with a permit to carry a handgun; and a second for the somewhat ambiguous offense of the “intent to go armed,” which includes broad exceptions and legal defenses. Both are misdemeanors.
But the impact of the ruling late last week has not been completely clear, as officials decipher how broadly the laws apply and whether the judicial panel can stop enforcement.
The Tennessee Firearms Association, which advocated for the changes, said it appears that striking down the “intent to go armed” law will let people carry rifles or shotguns publicly. The ruling doesn't get that specific.
Republican Gov. Bill Lee said the state is assessing the ruling's impacts and next steps, including whether to appeal.
“Our team is looking at what the implications are,” Lee told reporters Tuesday. "It's not very clear yet to us."
The ruling could also spur legislative bills during the next session in January.
Ruling favors gun rights advocates
In February 2023, the Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation and individuals filed the lawsuit, saying the two laws violate the Second Amendment and state constitutional gun rights protections.
The judges declared the laws “unconstitutional, void, and of no effect.”
The parks law extends to playgrounds, civic centers or recreational property owned, used or run by state or local governments. Handguns are generally allowed in those kind of locations for permit holders only, but not when schools or higher education institutions are using the facilities. Law enforcement, security and military exceptions exist, as do carve-outs for "sanctioned ceremonial purposes."
The judges said the restricted areas differ from protected “sensitive” locations.
Unlike legislative assemblies, polling places or courthouses, the park-related locations are “not so vital to the continued functioning of our republic such that an armed individual could direct or alter the exercise of essential government powers through violent intimidation,” the judges wrote.
They also said the locations aren't like schools, where “parents must surrender their children to the custody (of) government officials at the command of the government.”
As for the “intent to go armed” restriction, the judicial panel said the law “criminalizes the entire right-to-bear-arms portion of the Second Amendment.”
The law includes a broadly worded misdemeanor for carrying a firearm or a club with the intent to go armed. In its own legal filing, the state has said Tennessee has a “general policy allowing the free carry of firearms” and the “intent to go armed” offense exists only when conditions are not met, such as being old enough or having a gun in a car or boat.
State law also lists legal defenses that can be raised, such as having the gun at home, hunting or protecting livestock from predatory animals.
The plaintiffs said the law improperly burdens people to bring up affirmative defenses after they've already been charged.
Supreme Court impacts
The Tennessee decision discusses gun regulations from the 1700s and 1800s, now commonplace for courts under the 2022 Supreme Court precedent. Courts must now review history to show a gun limitation is consistent with the country’s “historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
The fallout has varied.
For instance, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against a federal age limit of 21 for buying handguns, saying 18- to 20-year-olds shouldn't be prohibited. But 4th Circuit judges upheld the age limit. The split has prompted calls for the Supreme Court to weigh in.
Notably, under its new standard, the Supreme Court has upheld a federal gun control law intended to protect domestic violence victims.
Bans in parks and other areas have been challenged and experienced some success elsewhere.
Judges with the 2nd Circuit ruled last year that New York can enforce laws banning guns in "sensitive" places, including parks. A 9th Circuit panel ruled similarly in favor of California and Hawaii restrictions in parks, bars and other places, but also decided bans couldn't apply to locations like banks. Parts of a New Jersey law suffered a district court loss, but 3rd Circuit judges let it take effect for places such as parks and casinos pending appeal.
In 2023, Tennessee settled a different lawsuit and allowed 18- to 20-year-olds to carry handguns, including under a 2021 law that made handgun carry permits optional.
Jonathan Mattise, The Associated Press
Judges rule Tennessee's gun limits in parks and playgrounds are unconstitutional
The case has been another test of the limits of a 2022 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that has allowed gun rights advocates to take aim at more Second Amendment restrictions nationwide.
The Tennessee laws that were deemed unconstitutional include one that generally outlaws carrying a gun in a park or similar area, except for someone with a permit to carry a handgun; and a second for the somewhat ambiguous offense of the “intent to go armed,” which includes broad exceptions and legal defenses. Both are misdemeanors.
But the impact of the ruling late last week has not been completely clear, as officials decipher how broadly the laws apply and whether the judicial panel can stop enforcement.
The Tennessee Firearms Association, which advocated for the changes, said it appears that striking down the “intent to go armed” law will let people carry rifles or shotguns publicly. The ruling doesn't get that specific.
Republican Gov. Bill Lee said the state is assessing the ruling's impacts and next steps, including whether to appeal.
“Our team is looking at what the implications are,” Lee told reporters Tuesday. "It's not very clear yet to us."
The ruling could also spur legislative bills during the next session in January.
Ruling favors gun rights advocates
In February 2023, the Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation and individuals filed the lawsuit, saying the two laws violate the Second Amendment and state constitutional gun rights protections.
The judges declared the laws “unconstitutional, void, and of no effect.”
The parks law extends to playgrounds, civic centers or recreational property owned, used or run by state or local governments. Handguns are generally allowed in those kind of locations for permit holders only, but not when schools or higher education institutions are using the facilities. Law enforcement, security and military exceptions exist, as do carve-outs for "sanctioned ceremonial purposes."
The judges said the restricted areas differ from protected “sensitive” locations.
Unlike legislative assemblies, polling places or courthouses, the park-related locations are “not so vital to the continued functioning of our republic such that an armed individual could direct or alter the exercise of essential government powers through violent intimidation,” the judges wrote.
They also said the locations aren't like schools, where “parents must surrender their children to the custody (of) government officials at the command of the government.”
As for the “intent to go armed” restriction, the judicial panel said the law “criminalizes the entire right-to-bear-arms portion of the Second Amendment.”
The law includes a broadly worded misdemeanor for carrying a firearm or a club with the intent to go armed. In its own legal filing, the state has said Tennessee has a “general policy allowing the free carry of firearms” and the “intent to go armed” offense exists only when conditions are not met, such as being old enough or having a gun in a car or boat.
State law also lists legal defenses that can be raised, such as having the gun at home, hunting or protecting livestock from predatory animals.
The plaintiffs said the law improperly burdens people to bring up affirmative defenses after they've already been charged.
Supreme Court impacts
The Tennessee decision discusses gun regulations from the 1700s and 1800s, now commonplace for courts under the 2022 Supreme Court precedent. Courts must now review history to show a gun limitation is consistent with the country’s “historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
The fallout has varied.
For instance, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against a federal age limit of 21 for buying handguns, saying 18- to 20-year-olds shouldn't be prohibited. But 4th Circuit judges upheld the age limit. The split has prompted calls for the Supreme Court to weigh in.
Notably, under its new standard, the Supreme Court has upheld a federal gun control law intended to protect domestic violence victims.
Bans in parks and other areas have been challenged and experienced some success elsewhere.
Judges with the 2nd Circuit ruled last year that New York can enforce laws banning guns in "sensitive" places, including parks. A 9th Circuit panel ruled similarly in favor of California and Hawaii restrictions in parks, bars and other places, but also decided bans couldn't apply to locations like banks. Parts of a New Jersey law suffered a district court loss, but 3rd Circuit judges let it take effect for places such as parks and casinos pending appeal.
In 2023, Tennessee settled a different lawsuit and allowed 18- to 20-year-olds to carry handguns, including under a 2021 law that made handgun carry permits optional.
Jonathan Mattise, The Associated Press
Judges rule Tennessee's gun limits in parks and playgrounds are unconstitutional
Donald Trump must add one more defeat to the long list of lawsuits he has filed in recent months, as a federal judge has just dismissed his $50 million lawsuit against famed Watergate journalist Bob Woodward.
Getty Images
Donald Trump argued that these recordings violated his copyright, claiming that he had granted these interviews to Woodward solely for the book Rage, a bestseller released in 2020.
According to The Daily Beast, a federal judge appointed by George W. Bush sided with Bob Woodward, pointing out that Woodward had never agreed to restrictions on the use of the interviews with Trump, which had been conducted transparently and officially recorded.
Getty Images
The judge dismissed the lawsuit, finding that Trump had failed to demonstrate any intent to co-write between himself and Woodward, or that he held any copyright to the audiobook.
Trump loses $50M suit against iconic Watergate journalist
In 2023, Donald Trump filed a lawsuit against Bob Woodward and the Simon & Schuster publishing house, which in 2022 had published a series of interviews with him in audiobook form entitled The Trump Tapes.
Getty Images
Donald Trump argued that these recordings violated his copyright, claiming that he had granted these interviews to Woodward solely for the book Rage, a bestseller released in 2020.
According to The Daily Beast, a federal judge appointed by George W. Bush sided with Bob Woodward, pointing out that Woodward had never agreed to restrictions on the use of the interviews with Trump, which had been conducted transparently and officially recorded.
Getty Images
The judge dismissed the lawsuit, finding that Trump had failed to demonstrate any intent to co-write between himself and Woodward, or that he held any copyright to the audiobook.
Trump loses $50M suit against iconic Watergate journalist
Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel are expected to testify before Congress on the Trump administration’s handling of the so-called Epstein Files, according to a report.
Patel is scheduled to give testimony on September 17, while Bondi is scheduled for October 9, Politico reported. They were invited to testify as part of the House Judiciary Committee’s general oversight work, according to the outlet.
The Trump administration has been grappling with the fallout of the Epstein Files for more than a month. On July 6, the Justice Department issued a memo stating that it had determined the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein died by suicide behind bars in 2019, while awaiting his sex trafficking trial. The memo also concluded that Epstein kept no “client list” of rich and powerful people involved in his alleged sex trafficking, and stated no further investigation was warranted.
This department is also sending some of the Epstein files
The Independent
Trump reacts to the release of Epstein files
The memo sparked widespread outrage, providing an unsatisfying conclusion to years-long conspiracy theories and unanswered questions about Epstein’s sudden death, and his relationships with rich and powerful figures.
While the congressional hearings will also include questions about Trump’s “comprehensive crime bill,” they are expected to mostly focus on the handling and fallout of the high-profile case, according to Politico. The Independent has asked DOJ for comment.
Prominent voices from both sides of the aisle have called for increased transparency on the Epstein Files.
Last week, the DOJ released a tranche of documents to the House Oversight Committee after the panel subpoenaed the files. Democrats on the committee later said only 3 percent of the documents contain information that was not previously publicly available.
DOJ shared 33,000 pages, 97 percent of which are already public, said California Rep. Robert Garcia, the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee.
The Republican-led committee issued a subpoena on August 5 demanding all communications and documents related to the criminal cases of Epstein, and Epstein accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell. The 63-year-old disgraced British socialite is serving 20 years in federal prison after she was convicted in 2021 for her role in a scheme to sexually exploit and abuse minors with Epstein.
She was interviewed by Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche and other top DOJ officials last month. The Justice Department last week released hundreds of pages of transcripts and hours of audio recordings from their meetings with her.
As part of the administration’s efforts to quell uproar, Bondi had asked federal judges overseeing the criminal cases of Epstein and Maxwell to unseal the transcripts which experts warned would provide little new information. The judges overseeing the cases refused the attorney general’s requests.
One federal judge stated that the content of grand jury transcripts “pales in comparison to the Epstein investigative information and materials” already in the hands of the DOJ.
Bondi, especially, has been the subject of a barrage of criticism surrounding the case. Earlier this year, the attorney general said she had a “truckload” of files to review from the FBI, and suggested that the “client list”was sitting on her desk.
One week after the July 6 memo was released, President Donald Trump came to Bondi’s defense. “The attorney general has handled that very well. She’s really done a very good job, and I think that when you look at that, you’ll understand it,” he said in July.
The Independent has always had a global perspective. Built on a firm foundation of superb international reporting and analysis, The Inde
Pam Bondi and Kash Patel to testify to Congress on handling of Epstein case and the fallout
Patel is scheduled to give testimony on September 17, while Bondi is scheduled for October 9, Politico reported. They were invited to testify as part of the House Judiciary Committee’s general oversight work, according to the outlet.
The Trump administration has been grappling with the fallout of the Epstein Files for more than a month. On July 6, the Justice Department issued a memo stating that it had determined the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein died by suicide behind bars in 2019, while awaiting his sex trafficking trial. The memo also concluded that Epstein kept no “client list” of rich and powerful people involved in his alleged sex trafficking, and stated no further investigation was warranted.
This department is also sending some of the Epstein files
Trump reacts to the release of Epstein files
The memo sparked widespread outrage, providing an unsatisfying conclusion to years-long conspiracy theories and unanswered questions about Epstein’s sudden death, and his relationships with rich and powerful figures.
While the congressional hearings will also include questions about Trump’s “comprehensive crime bill,” they are expected to mostly focus on the handling and fallout of the high-profile case, according to Politico. The Independent has asked DOJ for comment.
Prominent voices from both sides of the aisle have called for increased transparency on the Epstein Files.
Last week, the DOJ released a tranche of documents to the House Oversight Committee after the panel subpoenaed the files. Democrats on the committee later said only 3 percent of the documents contain information that was not previously publicly available.
DOJ shared 33,000 pages, 97 percent of which are already public, said California Rep. Robert Garcia, the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee.
The Republican-led committee issued a subpoena on August 5 demanding all communications and documents related to the criminal cases of Epstein, and Epstein accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell. The 63-year-old disgraced British socialite is serving 20 years in federal prison after she was convicted in 2021 for her role in a scheme to sexually exploit and abuse minors with Epstein.
She was interviewed by Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche and other top DOJ officials last month. The Justice Department last week released hundreds of pages of transcripts and hours of audio recordings from their meetings with her.
As part of the administration’s efforts to quell uproar, Bondi had asked federal judges overseeing the criminal cases of Epstein and Maxwell to unseal the transcripts which experts warned would provide little new information. The judges overseeing the cases refused the attorney general’s requests.
One federal judge stated that the content of grand jury transcripts “pales in comparison to the Epstein investigative information and materials” already in the hands of the DOJ.
Bondi, especially, has been the subject of a barrage of criticism surrounding the case. Earlier this year, the attorney general said she had a “truckload” of files to review from the FBI, and suggested that the “client list”was sitting on her desk.
One week after the July 6 memo was released, President Donald Trump came to Bondi’s defense. “The attorney general has handled that very well. She’s really done a very good job, and I think that when you look at that, you’ll understand it,” he said in July.
The Independent has always had a global perspective. Built on a firm foundation of superb international reporting and analysis, The Inde
Pam Bondi and Kash Patel to testify to Congress on handling of Epstein case and the fallout
