

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
This retreat shows that these projects and their false climate solutions are not just unpopular, they’re also a major financial risk to companies, investors, and communities.
Plans for one of the world’s largest blue hydrogen and ammonia projects have collapsed, wasting billions of dollars in a risky bet that frontline communities resisted for years. Despite "clean" marketing, the project would have relied on dirty fracked gas.
The gas and chemicals company Air Products canceled its proposed $4.5 billion Louisiana Clean Energy Complex, wasting $2.9 billion—more than half of the overall cost—after concluding the project no longer met its financial expectations. Once promoted as the company’s largest US investment—and the world’s largest carbon sequestration project—the cancellation is more than a corporate setback. It is a signal of the end of the so-called "low carbon" hydrogen hype despite years of industry promotion, generous public subsidies, and claims that these technologies can be used to tackle climate change.
This retreat shows that these projects and their false climate solutions are not just unpopular, they’re also a major financial risk to companies, investors, and communities. For Louisiana communities that opposed the project from the beginning, however, the announcement means something else: proof that projects portrayed as inevitable can be stopped.
When Air Products first announced the project in 2021, the company described it as a transformational investment. Their plans included the production of 1,700 metric tons of hydrogen per day from fracked gas with up to 95% of emissions mitigated through carbon capture and storage (CCS). They planned to pump the hydrogen—called "blue" hydrogen due to the addition of CCS—through a pipeline along the Gulf Coast for refineries and petrochemical plants, or turn it into ammonia, which is a toxic, fossil fuel-derived chemical—used primarily as a fertilizer.

That vision quickly began to unravel. By 2024, Air Products was already seeking partners to offload parts of the project, including the ammonia and carbon capture components. In 2025, it entered advanced negotiations with Norwegian fertilizer giant Yara. By mid-2026, both companies announced the project had been abandoned, citing financial concerns and an inability to find customers for a speculative market.
The cancellation reflects a broader reality: Despite billions in public funds and years of political backing, many blue hydrogen projects continue to struggle with rising costs, uncertain markets, and technical challenges.

Air Products is not alone. At least 45 hydrogen and ammonia production facilities have been proposed in recent years across the US—mostly clustered in Texas and Louisiana—with only one making it to the construction phase, and many more on hold. Although more than 80% of ammonia produced in the US is used to manufacture fertilizer, much of the proposed buildout depends on speculative markets—including using ammonia as a shipping fuel, hydrogen carrier, and energy source—none of which are possible at scale today.
To make these projects appear climate friendly, companies increasingly market them as "clean," "blue," or "low-carbon" by pairing fossil fuel-based hydrogen and ammonia production with CCS. Yet, CCS has repeatedly failed to deliver emissions reductions while putting communities at elevated risk for pollution and related disasters. Despite that record, federal carbon capture subsidies were expanded in 2022 and again in 2025, potentially leading to the transfer of $1 trillion in public funds to private corporations over the coming decades.
The collapse of one of the industry’s flagship projects should prompt investors and policymakers alike to ask whether this business model is built on wishful thinking rather than sound evidence and economics.
Air Products’ proposed Louisiana Complex would have consisted of a hydrogen and ammonia plant in Ascension, Louisiana, with 38 miles of pipeline sprawling across five parishes, connecting to one of at least 10 separate injection wells underneath Lake Maurepas. The project would have formed part of a larger effort to transform Louisiana into a national hub for CCS.
More than just a proposed storage site, Lake Maurepas is an important estuarine ecosystem beloved by locals for recreational activities like boating, fishing, and wildlife observation. One of the nation’s largest forested wetlands borders the lake, supporting wildlife, commercial fishing, and local businesses. For generations, communities have depended on these waters—not simply for income, but as part of their identity. From the moment residents learned about the Air Products project, they organized against it.
Today, more than 30 CCS projects are under review across the state by the Louisiana Department of Conservation and Energy. Many would be built alongside communities already burdened by decades of petrochemical pollution in the 85-mile stretch along the Mississippi River between New Orleans and Baton Rouge, known locally as Cancer Alley.
These communities have long borne the health costs of fossil fuel development. Siting this experimental and knowingly dangerous CCS technology alongside frontline communities already overburdened by industrial pollution would force them to shoulder another layer of industrial risk, while companies stand to gain hundreds of billions of dollars in public money over the next 20 years through a federal tax credit.
The failure of Air Products’ vision is not a surprise to anyone watching the proposed CCS buildout; the ballooning costs and failure to deliver on ambitious promises follow a familiar pattern.
The Kemper “clean coal” project in Mississippi was once celebrated as the future of carbon capture, claiming it would capture 65% of emissions from the power plant. Originally budgeted at $3 billion, the costs of the project more than doubled to $7.5 billion over the seven years of its construction (2010-2017), before the carbon capture system was abandoned altogether. Despite the massive investment, the Kemper facility never operated as promised and was partially demolished in 2021. Local residents are still paying for the corporate loss from this experiment through their electricity bills.
The failure of the Kemper project should have been a warning for future investments and should have prompted the more fundamental question: Who bears the cost of these projects?
While Louisiana leads the nation in oil refining, natural gas production, and chemical production, the state consistently ranks among the poorest and least educated states in the US. CCS projects will no doubt add to the unequal environmental burden that the state population is forced to bear for the benefit of corporations. While many of the hardships can be quantified, the joy and love for the land by its residents is immeasurable. There’s no metric that captures the experience of paddling a canoe across Lake Maurepas, seeing alligators bask in the sun, listening to birdsongs echo across the wetlands, or watching the flotant—marsh grasses that float on top of the water—bob with the waves.

For the communities that have called this place home for generations, protecting the lake has never been about stopping a single project—it has been about safeguarding a way of life. The cancellation of the project is a victory not only for the hundreds of community members who organized against it—showing what is possible when people stand together to fight against false solutions—but also for the future generations who will continue to enjoy this remarkable ecosystem.
The cancellation is also a major win for communities that spent years warning about the project’s risks. Concerned residents across the complex’s planned footprint partnered with environmental groups to speak out at public hearings, organize neighbors, and challenge permits, refusing to accept that the project was inevitable.
Their persistence mattered. For years, the fossil fuel industry insisted that carbon capture represented the future—that projects like this were necessary and unavoidable. But as James Hiatt, founder of For a Better Bayou based in Lake Charles, Louisiana, put it:
Air Products pulling out proves that nothing here is inevitable. Industry wants us to believe these projects are a done deal, that our voices don’t matter. They do. Elected and regulators didn’t hand us this win; community pressure did. Consistent, persistent organizing works.
Air Products’ withdrawal is not simply a failed investment by one company. It is a warning to policymakers considering whether public money should continue subsidizing projects that repeatedly fail to deliver.
Communities increasingly reject being asked to bear new risks in exchange for promises that never materialize. And this failure is likely not the last ammonia and CCS project to be canceled. Even now, many projects are on hold or delayed, further signaling to companies, investors, and communities that they are a bad bet.
The cancellation also sends a broader message: Expensive, speculative technologies designed to prolong fossil fuel production aren’t fooling anyone and companies pushing these risky projects will be footing the bill.
"It’s not a big deal," Landry said after casually announcing that legally cast ballots were "discarded" after he suspended elections.
Louisiana's Republican Gov. Jeff Landry is facing criticism over his blasé admission that tens of thousands of Louisianans would have their legally cast ballots thrown out after he suspended the state's primary elections.
Landry signed an executive order suspending the state's May 16 and June 27 primaries immediately after the US Supreme Court’s landmark decision in late April, which held that the state’s maps guaranteeing districts representing the state's Black residents constituted “an unconstitutional racial gerrymander."
The ruling in Louisiana v. Callais effectively destroyed Section 2 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act and set the stage for the GOP to draw new districts that could totally wipe out the electoral power of Louisiana's Black population, which makes up about one-third of the state, and do the same across the country.
Declaring a "state of emergency," the governor announced that elections were suspended just as early voting was set to begin, leading many to conclude that the right-wing high court's ruling was timed to allow Republicans to maximize their power as they enter this year's midterms.
In an interview with "60 Minutes" on Sunday night, Landry was asked by anchor Cecilia Vega about the unprecedented decision to suspend the election and what would happen to the roughly 45,000 mail ballots cast before the order went into effect.
Landry contended that he had no choice but to suspend the elections because "we don't have a map that our voters can vote on" as a result of the court's ruling.
Vega noted that during times of much greater strife, including "during the Civil War, during two world wars, elections still went on."
"We'll have an election, and we're actually going to have an election on Election Day," Landry responded, in an apparent shot at those who cast their votes early.
"But voting was already happening," Vega said. "More than 45,000 ballots have been returned. What happens to those?"
Landry said, "Those ballots are discarded, and those voters will vote again in November." (Notably, Landry's order does not delay primary elections until November, but until July 15 or whenever the legislature enacts new maps.)
Vega responded with incredulity at the governor's casual acknowledgment that the state would simply throw out tens of thousands of legally cast votes.
“You say that like it’s not a big deal,” she said.
“Well, it’s not a big deal,” Landry responded. “It’s not my fault. If anyone has a grievance, take it to the United States Supreme Court.”
The voting rights-focused news outlet Democracy Docket responded to Landry on social media: "It is a big deal to the 45,000 voters whose ballots you trashed. It’s also your fault."
They echoed the words of Rep. Cleo Fields (D-La.), whose majority Black 6th congressional district in Baton Rouge is expected to be chopped up by the GOP, and who has joined a lawsuit with other candidates hoping to stop Landry's suspension of elections.
“The Supreme Court ruled that the map that you created, that this legislature created, and this governor signed, was illegal,” Fields said to Landry on Monday. "The Supreme Court did not say, ‘Throw away those ballots.’"
The decision to suspend Louisiana’s primary comes amid a multi-pronged assault on voting rights coming from the administration of President Donald Trump, who has himself repeatedly floated the idea of canceling elections and praised Landry for “moving so quickly” to block his constituents from voting.
But many were particularly shocked at Landry's apparent ho-hum attitude toward mass disenfranchisement.
Civil rights attorney and public defender Scott Hechinger marveled at the “governor of Louisiana throwing out 45,000 votes with a smug smirk and a chuckle.”
The Monday evening decision "is tantamount to an approval of Louisiana’s rush to pause the ongoing election in order to pass a new map."
Warning that the US Supreme Court's right-wing majority was appearing to give its approval of Louisiana's decision to suspend federal primary elections in the state following the court's ruling on the state's congressional map last week, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson on Monday evening was the lone dissenter as the court agreed to immediately finalize the ruling instead of waiting the customary 32 days.
By expediting the ruling, suggested Jackson, the court was taking an obviously political stance in support of efforts to ensure Louisiana Republicans can quickly redraw the state's congressional map to yield more electoral wins for the GOP.
"The court’s decision to buck our usual practice," wrote Jackson, "is tantamount to an approval of Louisiana’s rush to pause the ongoing election in order to pass a new map."
Ordinarily, the court would wait 32 days to transmit an opinion to the lower courts, giving the losing party time to request that the justices reconsider the case.
In a brief, unsigned opinion Monday evening, the court said that the Black voters who had defended the state's 2024 congressional map at the center of Louisiana v. Callais had "not expressed any intent to ask this court to reconsider its judgment.”
In Louisiana v. Callais last week, the court ruled along ideological lines that the 2024 map—which was drawn to better represent the population of Louisiana, where one-third of residents are Black—was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The ruling effectively struck down the last remaining provision of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which held that voters of color can challenge racially discriminatory electoral maps.
The map that was struck down ensured there were two majority-minority districts in the state. Louisiana's Republican-controlled legislature is expected to try to eliminate at least one of those districts, with a new map yielding five Republicans and one Democrat in the US House.
In transmitting last week's ruling to the lower courts without delay, the court granted a request from the group of white voters who had challenged the state's map.
"Because it is for the District Court to either draw an interim remedial map or approve a legislative remedy, jurisdiction should be returned to the District Court as soon as possible so that it can oversee an orderly process," wrote the plaintiffs.
The Supreme Court granted the plaintiffs' request days after Republican Gov. Jeff Landry took executive action to suspend the state's US House primaries in an effort to ensure they take place after the new map is drawn.
That action, wrote Jackson on Monday, had "a strong political undercurrent" that the court's latest move appeared to openly endorse.
"Louisiana’s hurried response to the Callais decision unfolds in the midst of an ongoing statewide election, against the backdrop of a pitched redistricting battle among state governments that appear to be acting as proxies for their favored political parties," wrote Jackson, noting that the court has only expedited a decision twice in the last 25 years. "As always, the court has a choice... To avoid the appearance of partiality here, we could, as per usual, opt to stay on the sidelines and take no position by applying our default procedures."
"But, today, the court chooses the opposite. Not content to have decided the law, it now takes steps to influence its implementation," she wrote.
John Bisognano, president of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, said that the court was going against its practice of following the "Purcell doctrine," which came out of a 2006 Supreme Court order and holds that "courts should not change voting or election rules too close to an election in order to avoid confusion for voters and election officials alike."
The Supreme Court, said Bisognano, "decided to inject itself into an ongoing election and at this point no one can say otherwise."
"Coastal Louisiana has evidently already crossed the point of no return," says new research.
A study published Monday warns that New Orleans must immediately begin planning and gradually implementing its permanent evacuation to avert a dangerously rushed exodus later, because it has passed a "point of no return" as climate-driven sea-level rise slowly swallows the storied city.
"With global temperatures poised to exceed the 1.5°C Paris Agreement threshold—a level that triggered substantial ice sheet collapse during the Last Interglacial—low-elevation coastal zones face sea-level commitments far beyond current planning horizons," says the study, which was published by the journal Nature Sustainability.
"With this geological frame of reference, we examine the impact of sea-level rise on what may be the most physically vulnerable coastal zone in the world using prehistoric and contemporary patterns of human mobility," the publication continues. "We highlight the positive aspects of the recently commenced out-migration in this region and argue that the fate of communities landwards of this coastal zone will be decided in the next few decades."
"While climate mitigation should remain the first step to prevent the worst outcomes, coastal Louisiana has evidently already crossed the point of no return,” the paper adds.
That's because rising waters are slowly eroding Louisiana's coast, including New Orleans, which “may well be surrounded by the Gulf of Mexico before the end of this century," according to the study's authors.
“Louisiana is a canary in the coal mine. It is one of the rare places where we’re already clearly seeing climate-motivated depopulation combined with other social and economic factors,” said Yale School of the Environment professor and study co-author Brianna Castro.
The authors argued that by acknowledging the inevitability of New Orleans' underwater future, government and residents can avert a fraught rushed retreat by planning and executing a managed multigenerational relocation and set an example for other threatened coastal communities.
According to one widely cited study published a decade ago, around 13 million Americans living in coastal areas could be forced to relocate to higher ground by the end of the century due climate-driven sea-level rise, with the Gulf Coast and Florida expected lose the most livable land. Globally, hundreds of millions of people are expected to be displaced by 2100 due to rising seas.
After Hurricane Katrina—which inundated the city and killed nearly 1,000 people in the New Orleans metro area—billions of dollars were spent fortifying the city's levee system, which failed catastrophically during the 2005 storm. However, experts warn that in the long term, levees won't be able to stop the rising waters any longer.
That's why the study's authors said officials must begin the city's orderly depopulation as soon as possible.
"What kind of retreat do you want?" asked Castro. "Do you want to incentivize it and then people go naturally for jobs, housing, and lifestyle amenities—or do you want people to wait and then have to leave abruptly in crisis?”
The "politically driven" ruling, warned one campaigner, "overrides medical expertise and years of research, and threatens to upend how abortion care is delivered nationwide."
Rights advocates swiftly sounded the alarm on Friday after the infamously far-right US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit temporarily blocked a federal rule allowing mifepristone to be dispensed by mail, dramatically curtailing access to the medication—commonly used for abortion and early miscarriage care—nationwide, particularly in states with policies hostile to reproductive freedom.
Just months after the US Supreme Court's right-wing supermajority reversed Roe v. Wade, the Food and Drug Administration permanently lifted mifepristone's in-person dispensing requirement in early 2023, under then-President Joe Biden. Louisiana—which has among the nation's most restrictive abortion policies—challenged the FDA's move.
A federal judge in Louisiana paused that lawsuit last month while President Donald Trump's administration conducts an FDA review that seems "designed to manufacture an excuse for further restricting medication abortion across the country," as Julia Kaye, senior staff attorney for the ACLU's Reproductive Freedom Project, warned at the time.
After a panel from the appellate court overturned that decision and revived the in-person dispensing rule on Friday, Kaye declared that "anti-abortion politicians have just made it much harder for people everywhere in the country to get a medication that abortion and miscarriage patients have been safely using for more than 25 years."
"Louisiana's legal attack on mifepristone shamelessly packaged lies and propaganda as an excuse to restrict abortion—and the 5th Circuit rubber-stamped it," she continued. "This decision defies clear science and settled law and advances an anti-abortion agenda that is deeply unpopular with the American people. For countless people, especially those who live in rural areas, face intimate partner violence, or live with disabilities, losing a telemedicine option will mean losing access to this vital medication altogether."
Brittany Fonteno, president and CEO of the National Abortion Federation (NAF), similarly stressed that "this ruling is a sweeping and dangerous rollback that disregards the well-established safety and efficacy of the use of mifepristone via telehealth, and will create immediate, medically unnecessary barriers to care for patients across the country."
"Make no mistake: This ruling is not grounded in science or patient safety," she said. "It is a politically driven decision that overrides medical expertise and years of research, and threatens to upend how abortion care is delivered nationwide. Through this litigation, Louisiana seeks to impose its cruel abortion ban across the nation—including in states with legal protections for abortion—and today the court has taken an extreme step toward that end."
While pledging that "NAF and our allies will continue to advocate to restore full access to medication abortion," Fonteno reminded patients that mifepristone "remains available in doctors' offices, clinics, and hospitals."
Terrific thread. I’ll just add:1. I think there’s a good chance the Supreme Court will stay this decision, allowing providers to keep mailing mifepristone for the time being.2. The Trump administration didn’t want this! Its plan was to wait until after the midterms to crack down on mifepristone.
[image or embed]
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjsdc.bsky.social) May 1, 2026 at 6:52 PM
After Roe's reversal, the anti-choice movement and its allies in elected offices ramped up efforts to impose state-level restrictions on reproductive healthcare. A significant majority of abortions in the United States involve a two-drug regimen of mifepristone and misoprostol, and a quarter of those patients receive care via telemedicine.
"Telehealth has been the last bridge to care for many seeking abortion, which is precisely why Louisiana officials want it banned," said Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which joined over 100 other reproductive health, justice, and rights groups, including the ACLU and NAF, that filed an amicus brief in this case.
"This isn't about science—it's about making abortion as difficult, expensive, and unreachable as possible," Northup added. "Telehealth has transformed healthcare. Selectively stripping that away from abortion patients is a political blockade."
The drug companies Danco Laboratories, which makes the brand-name version of mifepristone, Mifeprex, and GenBioPro, which makes the generic, have intervened in Louisiana v. FDA. GenBioPro is represented by the law firm Arnold & Porter and Democracy Forward, whose president and CEO, Skye Perryman, declared Friday that "this is the anti-abortion extremists' playbook in action once again: Weaponize the courts to serve their political interests, ignore decades of scientific evidence proving mifepristone’s safety, and put women directly in harm's way."
"Even as this assault defies the will of the overwhelming majority of the American public, these ideologically extreme politicians and organizations are determined to impose a narrow, autocratic agenda—no matter the cost," she continued, emphasizing that "our fight is not over."
This is a ruling purporting to halt telehealth prescriptions of mifepristone NATIONWIDE. Louisiana asked the Fifth Circuit for a decision by Monday, May 11. That they dropped it on a Friday afternoon feels intentional to keep it in effect for longer. Expect emergency appeal to SCOTUS shadow docket
[image or embed]
— Susan Rinkunas (@susanrinkunas.com) May 1, 2026 at 5:35 PM
The effects of the 5th Circuit's decision are expected to be immediate absent a quick intervention from the Supreme Court, and Nourbese Flint, president of All* Above All, warned that "as always, the people most impacted will be Black and brown communities and those already navigating systemic barriers to care."
Serra Sippel, executive director of the Brigid Alliance, a national abortion support group that helps coordinate and fund travel, said that "we expect to see an immediate increase in patients forced to travel hundreds or even thousands of miles for care. That includes many who are later in pregnancy—when care is more complex and more expensive."
"Over the past several years, we've seen a dramatic rise in abortion travel and a growing reliance on practical support networks like ours, particularly in states where patients already travel long distances for care," Sippel noted. "We will continue to monitor the impact of this ruling and are committed to ensuring abortion patients who need to travel can safely get to the care they need, regardless of where they live."
"On the heels of a Supreme Court decision that eviscerated protections for voters of color, elected officials jumped at the chance to disenfranchise people—we won't allow it," said the ACLU.
Voters and civil rights groups on Friday launched a pair of legal challenges against Republican Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry's suspension of his state's US House primary election following a federal Supreme Court ruling ordering a redraw of a congressional map that was meant to help redress centuries of Black disenfranchisement.
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 along ideological lines in Louisiana v. Callais that the state's congressional map is “an unconstitutional racial gerrymander,” an ironic finding given that the map was the result of a federal judge's order to create a second majority-Black US House district in an effort to correct underrepresentation of African Americans, who make up nearly a third of Louisiana's population.
The decision effectively erased 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 following day, Landry cited the decision in an order suspending the state's US House primaries until a new map is drawn. While President Donald Trump praised Landry, one voting rights campaigner accused Republicans—who fear losing their razor-thin congressional majority in November's midterm elections—of "colluding in broad daylight to try to rig the election and silence Black voters.”
On Friday, the League of Women Voters of Louisiana, Louisiana State Conference of the NAACP, Power Coalition for Equity and Justice, and three individual voters—who are all represented by the Legal Defense Fund, ACLU, and ACLU of Louisiana—filed an emergency motion to block Landry and Secretary of State Nancy Landry’s suspension of the primary after voting has already begun.
The petitioners argued that Landry's move "exceeds the governor’s authority under Louisiana’s laws and Constitution to invoke emergency power to stop the congressional primary elections based on a US Supreme Court ruling and not a natural disaster, public health, or similar emergency threatening the physical safety of Louisianians."
BREAKING: We're suing Louisiana officials for suspending the state's primary election after voting has already begun.On the heels of a Supreme Court decision that eviscerated protections for voters of color, elected officials jumped at the chance to disenfranchise people — we won't allow it.
— ACLU (@aclu.org) May 1, 2026 at 1:52 PM
“Emergency powers are not a blank check to rewrite election rules after voting has begun, nor do they authorize the governor to cancel votes that have already been cast to suit his political purposes," the petitioners and their attorneys said in a statement.
"The governor’s order is sparking chaos and is an illegal effort to erase the legally cast votes and disenfranchise thousands of people across the state," the statement continues. "This is a shameful attempt to weaponize the court’s recent decision at the expense of Black voters and manipulate an ongoing election."
"Gov. Landry and Secretary Landry must serve the people and obey the law," the petitioners and their lawyers added. "Any last-minute effort to alter election procedures or enact discriminatory maps must be stopped.”
Separately on Friday, Louisiana voters who already cast ballots in the primary filed a petition in state court seeking a restraining order to block Landry's move on the same grounds the other groups are arguing.
"Ballots were sent to military voters and overseas voters as required by federal law a month ago," the motion states. "Mail ballots were sent to other voters entitled to vote by mail under Louisiana law almost a week ago. As a result, many voters—including among the petitioners here—have already voted."
The petitioners—the National Council of Jewish Women (NCJW)-Greater New Orleans Section and three individual voters—contended that "the governor’s extraordinary and unlawful assertion of the power to cancel an election midstream is both unprecedented and unjustified."
"Quite to the contrary, the Supreme Court has historically found that when voting in an election is within months of beginning—and, here, it has already begun—the state must proceed under the invalidated map, and any infirmities must be corrected for future elections," they added.
🚨BREAKING: On behalf of the National Council of Jewish Women and Louisiana voters, my law firm has sued Governor Jeff Landry (R) and Secretary of State Nancy Landry (R), challenging the state’s decision to suspend the 2026 congressional primary elections. www.democracydocket.com/cases/louisi...
[image or embed]
— Marc Elias (@marcelias.bsky.social) May 1, 2026 at 1:21 PM
Friday's petitions follow the filing of a federal lawsuit arguing Landry's primary postponement poses "imminent" and "irreparable" harms to voters.
In addition to backing the NCJW motion, the National Redistricting Foundation on Friday also petitioned the Supreme Court to "deny Alabama’s desperate and hypocritical attempt to expedite a challenge to its congressional map" as the state's May 19 primary election approaches.
Republican officials in Alabama responded to the Louisiana v. Callais decision by asking the nation's highest court to fast-track its own racially rigged congressional map.
Trump—who has repeatedly floated canceling the midterms—said Thursday that he secured a commitment from Republican Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee to “work hard to correct” the his state's congressional map in the wake of the Louisiana v. Callais ruling.
While the Supreme Court is right to acknowledge that the situation today is different from past decades, it errs drastically in concluding that the proper path forward is to gut one of the key pieces of legislation that made that progress possible.
On April 29, the Supreme Court voted 6-3 along ideological lines to weaken Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits voting practices that discriminate based on race, color, or membership in a “language minority group.” Under this provision, states were allowed to consider race in drawing district maps for the purposes of protecting the voting power of people of color. That is, until now.
In Louisiana v. Callais, the Supreme Court struck down a Louisiana congressional map that created a second majority-Black district as “an unconstitutional gerrymander.” The map was created after the Fifth US Circuit Court of Appeals found that an earlier redistricting attempt with only one such district violated Section 2. The circuit court argued that the state unjustly divided Black communities in a way that “deprive[d] them of the opportunity to form effective voting blocs.” In response, Louisiana created a second majority-minority district, which Rep. Cleo Fields (D-La.) won in 2024.
This new map was later challenged by a group of self-described “non-African Americans” who contended that it violated the Constitution’s equal protection clause. The Supreme Court concurred. Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito remarked, the new map “would violate the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.”
Notably, the Supreme Court did not rule that Section 2 itself was unconstitutional. Rather, they determined that the framework used to determine whether a map violates the provision must be updated “so it aligns with the statutory text and reflects important developments” in the decades following the passage of the Voting Rights Act (VRA). These “great strides” include abolishing voting tests, erasing disparities in voter registration and turnout due to race, as well as greater shares of people of color elected to political office. For the Supreme Court, these developments warrant a higher bar for Section 2 violations.
The Supreme Court misunderstands the present. It pretends that we live in a nation largely free of the very kinds of racial prejudices and issues that gerrymandered maps like Louisiana’s allow Congress to overlook.
This is a reckless conclusion. While recent decades have seen sizable progress in addressing racial discrimination, the court ignores two key points: Fiirst, progress does not mean that the problem is gone. Anti-voter bills designed to undermine the political power of people of color continue to be introduced and passed across the country. This is especially true in red states. As the Brennan Center of Justice notes, “Racially diverse states controlled by Republicans are far more likely to introduce and pass restrictive provisions than very white states with Republican control; in other words, it’s states like Texas and Arizona, not Wyoming or Utah, that are passing the most restrictive legislation.” In fact, on April 27, the Supreme Court issued a shadow docket ruling that allows Texas to implement a gerrymandered map that a Trump-appointed judge had previously found to be “racially discriminatory.”
Second, and as this very ruling indicates, progress can always be undone. Prior to this ruling, the Supreme Court had already undermined core aspects of the VRA. This includes eliminating “preclearance” requirements which mandated that states with histories of racist voting practices must have new election laws or procedures reviewed by a federal court or the Department of Justice. Since then, multiple states previously covered by those requirements, including Alabama, Georgia, and Louisiana, have seen their congressional maps challenged in federal court over concerns of racial discrimination.
Becoming complacent, as the Supreme Court would have us, puts the hard-fought victories that people of color have achieved at risk. Their emphasis on racial progress overlooks that even seemingly colorblind policies can set us back decades. Consider for instance the nominally race neutral SAVE America Act. It requires proof of citizenship, such as a US passport or birth certificate, to vote. This is effectively a poll tax that will disproportionately harm poor people and people of color. According to a 2023 YouGov poll, only about a third of Black Americans have a current passport. Moreover, some Black people may face more novel challenges. The Center on Budget and Policies Priorities reports that elderly Black people who were born under Jim Crow may never have been issued a birth certificate at all. As Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) put it, the SAVE America Act is “Jim Crow 2.0. […] What they're trying to do here is the same thing that was done in the South for decades to prevent people of color from voting.” In short, the past is not simply history; if we are not vigilant, it can become our future.
The multigenerational, centuries-long issues of race will require more than 60 years to solve. While the Supreme Court is right to acknowledge that the situation today is different from past decades, it errs drastically in concluding that the proper path forward is to gut one of the key pieces of legislation that made that progress possible. More fundamentally, the Supreme Court misunderstands the present. It pretends that we live in a nation largely free of the very kinds of racial prejudices and issues that gerrymandered maps like Louisiana’s allow Congress to overlook. Importantly, by diluting the voting power of people of color and by extension their congressional representation, it undermines their efforts to combat racism, colorism, and xenophobia.
Nevertheless, under this court’s decision, future plaintiffs will have to show that “the State intentionally drew its districts to afford minority voters less opportunity because of their race.” Simply demonstrating that a congressional map dilutes a minority group’s voting power will not be sufficient. As Justice Elena Kagan writes in her dissenting opinion, requiring “vote-dilution plaintiffs” to prove a “race-based motive” will “make success in their suits nearly impossible.”
Intentionality is an incredibly difficult legal standard to meet. Proving intent is among the core reasons why hate crimes are so difficult to convict in court. As such, it is no surprise that Kagan believes this ruling effectively renders Section 2 “all but a dead letter.”
Justice Clarence Thomas, in his concurring majority opinion, wrote that the Supreme Court should never have interpreted Section 2 “to effectively give racial groups ‘an entitlement to roughly proportional representation.’” In his view, Section 2 “does not regulate districting at all.” Thomas’ opinion is not only inconsistent with the legislative and judicial history of the VRA, but it is inherently contrary to the ideals of a democracy. Proportional representation is not a mere “entitlement”—it is a constitutionally mandated guarantee that ensures that communities have their unique concerns addressed and their interests protected.
The Supreme Court’s decision, in conjunction with the Trump administration’s unrelenting assault on the Constitution, have set American democracy back decades. Yet, this is no time to despair. Now more than ever, we must organize, build broad multi-state coalitions, protest, and demand that our rights be recognized.
"The MAGA court made their decision to gut voting rights just in the nick of time for Louisiana Republicans to postpone the scheduled primaries to slice and dice voting maps."
Louisiana's Republican governor issued an order on Thursday suspending his state's US House primaries to allow lawmakers to draw up a new congressional map, citing the Supreme Court's decision earlier this week that gutted Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
Gov. Jeff Landry published his executive order just as early voting was set to begin in Louisiana's congressional primaries—and after some absentee ballots had already been cast. The order states that the US House primaries are "suspended for the duration of the May 16, 2026 and June 27, 2026 election cycles and until July 15, 2026 or until such time as determined by the Legislature," which is instructed to "pass legislation to enact new congressional maps."
The order was met with immediate alarm and outrage. Joel Payne, spokesperson for MoveOn Civic Action, said that "Republicans are colluding in broad daylight to try to rig the election and silence Black voters."
"The MAGA court made their decision to gut voting rights just in the nick of time for Louisiana Republicans to postpone the scheduled primaries to slice and dice voting maps to pick and choose voters of their liking," said Payne. "MoveOn members will fight like hell against MAGA’s extreme power play in Louisiana and push for stronger voting rights to ensure we the people have the final say in our elections.”
Heather Williams, president of the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee (DLCC), said the conservative-dominated Supreme Court has "opened the floodgates for racial gerrymandering in states across the South" with its decision in Louisiana v. Callais, which severely narrowed the 1965 Voting Rights Act's protections against racial discrimination.
"Even in ruby red states, Republicans see the writing on the wall that voters will hold them accountable for soaring costs this November, which is why they’re rigging the system to dodge accountability," said Williams. "The DLCC stands with Louisiana Democrats in their fight against Republicans’ egregious actions to suppress votes, and the mission to transform the landscape of state legislative power has never mattered more."
The Washington Post reported that Landry, an ally of President Donald Trump who took office in 2024, privately notified Republican US House candidates on Wednesday that he planned to suspend the Louisiana primaries.
"A new Louisiana map would position Republicans to gain one or two seats in the midterms," the Post noted.
In a Truth Social post on Thursday, Trump praised Landry for "moving so quickly" to suspend elections and order the redrawing of Louisiana's maps in the wake of the Supreme Court's latest assault on the Voting Rights Act. The Supreme Court's ruling struck down Louisiana's current map, which included two majority-Black districts.
"What is happening in Louisiana right now," warned Democracy Docket's Marc Elias, "is both a redistricting power grab and a dry run for authoritarian election subversion this fall."
If there is one thing the Republican Party should learn from President @realDonaldTrump— it’s to FIGHT!
That’s exactly what we are doing in Louisiana. Thank you for your support Mr. President! pic.twitter.com/W4rbcTuPp9
— Governor Jeff Landry (@LAGovJeffLandry) April 30, 2026
Trump, who has repeatedly floated the idea of canceling elections, also said Thursday that he spoke to Tennessee's Republican governor and secured a commitment to "work hard to correct" the state's maps following the Supreme Court's ruling.
US House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) voiced support for the large-scale redrawing of congressional maps in light of the Supreme Court's decision.
"I think they should do it before the midterms," Johnson said Thursday.
Landry's order in Louisiana is already facing legal action from state residents, who argued the governor's move would disenfranchise voters.
"These harms are not speculative," warns a lawsuit filed Thursday. "They are imminent: early in-person voting commences on Saturday, May 2, 2026. They are irreparable: once an election day passes, no monetary remedy can restore the franchise."
“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.
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.”
"This is a tragic situation, maybe the worst tragic situation we’ve ever had in Shreveport," said the mayor.
This is a developing story… Please check back for updates…
Eight children were killed on Sunday morning in Shreveport, Louisiana, in what authorities described as a domestic disturbance.
Police Chief Wayne Smith reported that the victims were between the ages of 1 and 14 years old. Officials are still gathering information about the spree killing, which they say took place across three different locations. A total of ten people were shot.
"This is an extensive scene, unlike anything most of us have ever seen," Smith said.
Gunshot victims were found at two homes and at the scene of a carjacking. The suspected gunman was shot dead in nearby Bossier City by police during a car chase.
Two adult women were also reportedly shot. One of them has life-threatening injuries after being shot in the head. One of the women is believed to have had a relationship with the suspect, whose name has not yet been released.
Police said some of the children who were killed were also "descendants" of the alleged shooter.
There have been at least 114 mass shootings in the United States in 2026, according to the Gun Violence Archive, a decline from previous years. At least 65 children between ages 0-11 have been killed and 124 injured in gun violence incidents this year.
"This is a tragic situation, maybe the worst tragic situation we’ve ever had in Shreveport," said Mayor Tom Arceneaux. "So, right now we’re going to process the information, and it's in very good hands."