SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
elena kagan
'Tragic Day for the Freedom to Vote': Supreme Court Guts Remnants of Voting Rights Act
“Make no mistake: This ruling isn’t about the law, it’s about power, and giving Republicans more US House seats they couldn’t otherwise win at the ballot box," said one critic.
Apr 29, 2026
The US Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that Louisiana must redraw its 2024 congressional map—which created a second majority-Black district to mitigate persistent barriers to equal representation—in a decision that further guts the already tattered Voting Rights Act.
The justices ruled 6-3 along ideological lines in Louisiana v. Callais that the state's map is "an unconstitutional racial gerrymander," effectively voiding the last remaining provision of Section 2 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act (VRA), which allows voters of color to challenge racially discriminatory electoral maps in court.
The case centers on the redrawing of Louisiana's six congressional districts to better reflect the population of a state in which one-third of the people are Black, as Section 2 states that minority voters should have the same chance as others to elect candidates of their choice.
Civil and voting rights advocates challenged Louisiana's Republican-drawn and racially rigged congressional map. In 2022, a federal judge agreed that the map likely violated Section 2, and the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that ruling, ordering Louisiana to draw a new map by January 2024.
Louisiana complied. But a group of non-Black voters challenged the new map, claiming it was a racially rigged creation that violated the 14th Amendment. The Trump administration supported the challengers, arguing that Black voters had no right to a second majority-minority district.
The Supreme Court's right-wing justices—three of whom were nominated by Trump—agreed in Wednesday's decision.
“Allowing race to play any part in government decision-making represents a departure from the constitutional rule that applies in almost every other context,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the right-wing majority. “Compliance with Section 2 thus could not justify the state’s use of race-based redistricting here."
Dissenting, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that the ruling represents the "latest chapter in the majority’s now-completed demolition of the Voting Rights Act.”
Kagan said the majority "straight-facedly holds that the Voting Rights Act must be brought low to make the world safe for partisan gerrymanders."
Signed into law in 1965 by then-President Lyndon B. Johnson amid a groundswell of civil rights activism, the VRA was meant to ensure that state and local governments could not “deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.”
However, the law has been eroded in recent decades by Republican-controlled state legislatures across the country, including through racially rigged and other gerrymandered congressional maps, restrictions on voter registration, reduction in early voting options, and voter identification laws. These measures disproportionately disenfranchise minority voters, and some GOP officials have admitted that they are intended to give Republican candidates an electoral edge.
In 2013, the Supreme Court dealt a major blow to the VRA in Shelby County v. Holder, which eviscerated a key section of the law that required jurisdictions with a history of racist disenfranchisement to obtain federal approval prior to altering voting rules. In 2021, the nation’s high court voted 5-4 in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee to uphold Arizona’s voting restrictions—even as Chief Justice John Roberts acknowledged that they disproportionately affect minorities.
Voting rights defenders decried Wednesday's ruling.
The court’s ruling in Louisiana v. Callais follows cases that have narrowed federal voter protections, like Shelby County v. Holder and Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee.Together, these cases have made it harder for voters of color to challenge discriminatory voting laws and practices.
— ACLU (@aclu.org) April 29, 2026 at 8:20 AM
"This devastating attack from the court majority destroys protections for voters of color across the country," the ACLU said on Bluesky.
"The impacts of the court’s ruling in this case will be felt across the country," the group added. "Redistricting remains ongoing in many states, and the severe weakening of Section 2 may affect future challenges to congressional, legislative, and local maps that dilute the voting strength of communities of color."
NAACP president and CEO Derrick Johnson called the decision "a devastating blow to what remains of the Voting Rights Act, and a license for corrupt politicians who want to rig the system by silencing entire communities."
Kristen Clarke, NAACP's general counsel, said:
This is one of the most consequential and devastating rulings issued by the Supreme Court in the 21st Century. The Supreme Court has put the death knell into our nation's most important federal civil rights law, one that provided Black Americans access to a democracy that they had long been excluded from. The ruling defies precedent, ignores statutory text, and will reverse decades of progress we have made as a nation. This will embolden lawmakers in former slave-holding states to target and eradicate districts that have provided Black Americans a fair opportunity to elect candidates of choice, and they will do so with the blessing of this court. It ignores the tremendous sacrifice made by Americans who bled and died for passage of the Voting Rights Act.
Demand Justice president Josh Orton said in a statement, “Today the Supreme Court gutted the remaining protections of the Voting Rights Act and handed [President] Donald Trump even more unchecked political power as he wields the presidency like a power-mad authoritarian."
“Make no mistake: This ruling isn’t about the law, it’s about power, and giving Republicans more US House seats they couldn’t otherwise win at the ballot box, all while trampling the voting rights of communities of color," Orton added. “Today’s decision is another example of why the Supreme Court has lost both its legitimacy and the trust of the American people. It must face fundamental reform if it is to once again serve our democracy.”
Nourbese Flint, president of the reproductive justice group All* Above All, lamented that "the Supreme Court yet again denies communities of color a voice in their own destiny."
"This is part of a coordinated assault on self-determination, and we have to name it as such," Flint added. "The same court that gutted the Voting Rights Act came for Roe. If we are serious about defending reproductive justice that means we have to defend democracy and reform this extremist court.”
Stand Up America managing director of policy and political affairs Brett Edkins called Wednesday "a tragic day for the freedom to vote and representative democracy."
"The Supreme Court just eviscerated the last remnants of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and opened the door to even more extreme gerrymandering that will try to drown out the voices of Black and brown voters, particularly in the South," Edkins said.
NEW: The Supreme Court just gutted the Voting Rights Act, enabling the GOP to erase countless districts drawn to protect voters of color at the congressional, state, & local levels.We detailed each Dem VRA congressional seat that the GOP could target by 2028: www.the-downballot.com/p/with-the-v...
[image or embed]
— Stephen Wolf (@stephenwolf.bsky.social) April 29, 2026 at 8:00 AM
"The court’s decision will escalate the arms race of partisan gerrymanders across the country and could lead to Republican-controlled states redrawing election maps to add an additional 19 GOP House seats," Edkins continued. "This partisan court has handed a major election-year gift to Donald Trump and congressional Republicans who are trying to cling to power despite their growing unpopularity with voters."
“It’s time for Congress to act as a check on this rogue court through major reforms," he added, "including term limits, an enforceable code of ethics, and adding more justices who will defend our fundamental freedoms once Trump leaves office.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Grave Danger': Warnings as Supreme Court Looks Ready to Hand Trump Even More Unchecked Power
The court's right-wing majority signaled a willingness to overturn the 90-year-old precedent Humphrey’s Executor—a move that would "enable Donald Trump’s corrupt march toward oligarchy," said one critic.
Dec 08, 2025
The warnings on Monday from the US Supreme Court’s liberal justices were stark as the Trump administration argued in favor of allowing the president to easily fire top officials at federal agencies—a move that would reverse nearly a century of precedent that originated with a unanimous ruling known as Humphrey's Executor in 1935.
"You're asking us to destroy the structure of government," Justice Sonia Sotomayor told Solicitor General D. John Sauer, who argued on behalf of the Trump administration that Humphrey's Executor limits presidential authority in an unconstitutional way even following rulings by the conservative majority that have weakened the decision.
Justice Elena Kagan added that setting aside the precedent and allowing President Donald Trump to fire Federal Trade Commission (FTC) board members and other federal agency leaders would “put massive, uncontrolled, unchecked power in the hands of the president.”
"Once you're down this road, it's a little bit hard to see how you stop," Kagan said.
But the court's right-wing majority signaled little concern about the unchecked authority it could give the president should it rule in Trump's favor in the coming months in Trump v. Slaughter, which centers on the White House's firing of FTC Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, a strong defender of consumer rights in March.
Slaughter has said she was dismissed for being "inconsistent with [the] administration's priorities" as the Department of Government Efficiency was gutting federal agencies and rooting out programs and employees that were also viewed as being in the way of Trump's right-wing agenda.
But under Humphrey's Executor, which was decided after former President Franklin D. Roosevelt tried to remove an FTC member, a president can fire a board member only for "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office," in accordance with a law passed by Congress in 1914.
The ruling established that the president can remove executive officials without cause, but not at independent agencies that are "neither political nor executive, but predominantly quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative," such as the FTC.
Sauer wrote in a court document that the ruling "was always egregiously wrong," furthering the argument made by right-wing proponents of the "unitary executive" theory—a view that holds that the president should hold absolute power over federal agencies, including by firing leaders they view as opposed to their agenda.
A lawyer for Slaughter, Amit Agarwal of Protect Democracy, told the justices on Monday that "dozens of institutions that have been around for a long time, that have withstood the test of time, that embody a distillation of human wisdom and experience, all of those would go south” if the court allowed the president to hold complete control over agencies.
Undoing Humphrey's Executor would “profoundly destabilize institutions that are now inextricably intertwined with the fabric of American governance," Slaughter's lawyers have argued.
Chief Justice John Roberts signaled an unwillingness to preserve the 90-year-old precedent, calling the ruling a "dried husk" at one point. Right-wing courts and justices have worked to weaken the precedent for more than a decade, with Roberts writing in a 2010 opinion that the president's power should be understood to include “the authority to remove those who assist him in carrying out his duties."
A decade later, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision in Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that the CFPB's structure itself was unconstitutional because the president does not have the authority to fire the director of the independent agency without just cause.
On Monday, Josh Orton, director of judiciary reform group Demand Justice, said there was "grave danger in what the Supreme Court appears willing to do today: hand giant corporations and Donald Trump’s billionaire class unchecked power over our economic system, gutting one of the few institutions left that’s charged with ensuring fairness, stability, and competition in our economy.
“For generations, independent federal agencies, including the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Reserve, have proven essential to the long-term stability of our country and markets—all to the benefit of workers, consumers, and businesses alike," said Orton.
A lower court ruled earlier this year that Slaughter had been illegally fired, but the Supreme Court in September allowed the dismissal to stand with an emergency order, until the case could be heard.
The Supreme Court has also permitted Trump to move forward, at least temporarily, with the firings of officials at the National Labor Relations Board, the Merit Systems Protection Board, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
The justices on Monday signaled that even if they allow the president's firing of Slaughter and the other officials, they may not approve the dismissal of Federal Reserve Gov. Lisa Cook, who the court has permitted to stay in her role despite Trump's attempt to fire her. The court is scheduled to hear a separate case in January regarding Cook's firing.
But Kate Judge, a professor at Columbia Law School, said an overruling of Humphrey's Executor would ultimately have an impact on the Federal Reserve even if the justices carve out an exception.
"[The] Fed's practical independence and the legitimacy needed to sustain it grew alongside the independence of other agencies," said Judge. "It will be hard to maintain faith in one technocratic body while saying the rest are legitimate only because they are directly answerable to the president."
With or without an exception, Orton argued that "a Supreme Court that overturns Humphrey’s Executor and 90 years of precedent to enable Donald Trump’s corrupt march toward oligarchy is simply not a sustainable or legitimate institution.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Supreme Court Lets Trump Withhold $4 Billion in Foreign Aid Approved by Congress
"This result further erodes separation of powers principles that are fundamental to our constitutional order," said one critic.
Sep 26, 2025
The US Supreme Court on Friday gave President Donald Trump the green light to withhold billions of dollars of congressionally approved foreign aid, a major win for the White House and executive authority and, according to critics, a body blow to the bedrock constitutional principle of congressional power of the purse.
At issue in Department of State v. AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition is $4 billion in foreign aid allocated by Congress that the Trump administration determined was wasteful, including funding for international public health such as HIV prevention programs, which have been credited with saving millions of lives.
The high court's right-wing majority found that "the asserted harms to the executive’s conduct of foreign affairs appear to outweigh the potential harm" to aid recipients, while cautioning that "this order should not be read as a final determination on the merits."
BREAKING: Supreme Court lets Trump unilaterally freeze billions in congressionally appropriated foreign aid money apparent 6-3 vote with liberals in dissent @courthousenews.bsky.social
[image or embed]
— Kelsey Reichmann (@kelseyreichmann.bsky.social) September 26, 2025 at 1:43 PM
The Trump administration sought not only validation of its claimed ability to claw back spending previously approved by Congress—which under the Constitution generally holds power of the purse—but also of "pocket recission," a highly contentious budgetary maneuver to cancel previously approved federal expenditures by exploiting legal ambiguity in the Impoundment Control Act (ICA).
Democrats and many legal experts contend that pocket recissions are illegal, and Democratic lawmakers warned even before Trump's White House return that he would try to use the tactic in order to refuse to disburse funds allocated by Congress for social programs.
Justice Elena Kagan—who dissented along with fellow liberals Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson—asserted that the majority approved "essentially a presidential usurpation of Congress' power of the purse."
"The stakes are high: At issue is the allocation of power between the executive and Congress over the expenditure of public monies," Kagan said.
“That is just the price of living under a Constitution that gives Congress the power to make spending decisions through the enactment of appropriations laws,” she wrote. “If those laws require obligation of the money, and if Congress has not by rescission or other action relieved the executive of that duty, then the executive must comply.”
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court dealt a temporary blow to Trump's evisceration of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) in a ruling that left intact a lower court's decision ordering the resumption of approximately $2 billion in foreign aid frozen by the administration.
Friday's ruling could complicate bipartisan negotiations to avert a Republican government shutdown as the September 30 deadline looms. Democratic negotiators now worry that Trump, buoyed by the high court decision, could again refuse to spend funds designated by Congress.
“Today’s ruling allows the administration to unilaterally refuse to spend $4 billion in foreign assistance funds that it is required by law to spend," said Nicolas Sansone, an attorney at the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen and counsel for the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition. "This result further erodes separation of powers principles that are fundamental to our constitutional order. It will also have a grave humanitarian impact.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular