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
racism
Dismantling the Voting Rights Act Sets American Democracy Back Decades
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.
May 01, 2026
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.
Keep ReadingShow Less
DOJ Denaturalization Referrals Spark Fear of 'Expansive' Effort to Strip Citizenship From Americans
Trump and his Republican allies have routinely targeted their political opponents and entire ethnic and religious groups with threats of deportation and denaturalization.
Apr 23, 2026
The US Department of Justice has referred hundreds of citizens for denaturalization, beginning what some fear will be a massive effort to strip Americans of their citizenship.
Months ago, it was reported that the Trump administration would seek to enlist the DOJ in its effort to revoke the citizenship of hundreds of people each month.
On Thursday, The New York Times reported that the effort to carry out what DOJ spokesperson Matthew Tragesser called "the highest volume of denaturalization referrals in history” had begun.
The paper reported that the DOJ had identified 384 foreign-born Americans whose citizenship it wants to take away and had assigned the cases to prosecutors in dozens of US attorneys' offices across the country.
President Donald Trump is trying to dramatically expand a process that Sameera Hafiz, policy director at the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, told the Houston Chronicle is typically reserved for "very rare extreme circumstances."
Federal law allows the government to ask courts to strip citizenship from those it can prove obtained it fraudulently. In some rare cases, people found to have committed egregious offenses like war crimes or the financing of terrorism have also been stripped of citizenship.
Between 2017 and the end of 2025, the federal government attempted to denaturalize just 120 citizens, less than a third of the number the Trump administration referred for denaturalization in just this first batch.
According to the Times, it is not clear why the 384 individuals referred to federal courts have been singled out. Tragesser said the administration was "laser focused on rooting out criminal aliens defrauding the naturalization process."
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, said that these cases "are not exactly easy for the government to win," because "they have to go to a bench trial in front of a federal judge and prove material fraud."
But the DOJ has indicated that the range of people targeted for denaturalization could be much broader than just those found guilty of fraud.
The Trump administration's plans to pursue mass denaturalization first came to light last June when Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate issued an internal memo calling on the DOJ's Civil Division to "prioritize and maximally pursue denaturalization proceedings in all cases permitted by law and supported by the evidence."
In addition to the fraudsters and human rights violators who have typically been subject to denaturalization, Shumate urged the department to go after those “who pose a potential danger to national security” and "any other cases... that the division determines to be sufficiently important to pursue," which suggested that much broader categories of people may be targeted.
"The way the memo suggests they're going to apply it is very broad and expansive, and it's shockingly dramatic because that's not the intention behind denaturalization," Hafiz said.
The Trump administration has frequently targeted protesters and activists, including those with legal status in the US, for deportation for expressing political opinions opposite those of the government.
Last year, hundreds of foreign-born students who participated in protests against US support for Israel had their visas stripped by the US State Department. Some—like Columbia student activist Mahmoud Khalil—were deemed a danger to "national security" based solely on their articulation of beliefs out of step with the Trump administration's foreign policy.
Trump and several members of the Republican Party have also called for the denaturalization of foreign-born political opponents, including the Somali-American Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and the Ugandan-American New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani.
Earlier this week, Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) introduced legislation titled the "MAMDANI Act," which would deport and denaturalize any immigrant who "advocates for socialism, communism, Marxism, or Islamic fundamentalism.”
Rep. Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.), who has also pushed for the deportation of Mamdani, who is Muslim, recently said that non-Christians should not be allowed in America.
"We're not a melting pot," he said. "If you're building temples or mosques and undermining Christianity, you're not assimilating."
Trump, meanwhile, has expressed a desire to go after certain ethnic groups, particularly Somali-Americans, whom he has said have "low IQs" and described as "garbage". Most people of Somali descent living in the US are citizens, but Trump has said "I don't want them in the country" and said they should "go back where they came from."
Many Somali-American citizens were detained, often brutally, during US Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) massive operation in Minneapolis earlier this year.
Around the same time, the US Department of Homeland Security endorsed the idea of pursuing "100 million deportations," which would entail the removal of tens of millions of American citizens from the country, including many who were born in the United States. Ex-Border Patrol Commander Gregory Bovino, who oversaw Trump's mass deportation crusade for months, recently said he had a "master plan" to make this sweeping purge a reality.
Hafiz said the Trump administration's conduct has raised the possibility that the denaturalization push will be carried out in a "very broad and expansive way."
"That's very concerning," she said. "And we've seen in so many of the tactics that the Trump administration is using, what a slippery slope it is, how they say, 'This policy is to target one set of individuals,' and how that set of individuals just becomes broader as it's applied."
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Trump Administration’s Anti-Blackness is Showing on the Global Stage
The United States’ actions are not just a betrayal of the rest of the world; they are the latest examples of the Trump administration's betrayal of its own people—and in particular, of the 45 million Americans who are of African descent.
Apr 22, 2026
On March 25, the International Day of Remembrance of the Victims of Slavery and the Transatlantic Slave Trade, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a historic resolution marking an extraordinary step forward for global racial justice. Spearheaded by Ghana and co-sponsored by more than 65 countries largely from Africa, the Caribbean, and Latin America, a declaration designating slavery as the gravest crime against humanity passed the General Assembly. Through this, the majority of the world aligned on one key message: The enslavement of millions of Africans and their descendants for over 400 years is the gravest crime against humanity, we are still dealing with the consequences, and there must be reparatory justice to address the lingering impacts.
In a shameful moment for Americans and the world, the Trump administration voted against this resolution on behalf of the United States—only 1 of 3 countries to do so. This decision comes just months after the US withdrew from the UN Permanent Forum on People of African Descent, falsely claiming it was “racist.” These two actions show that the Trump administration’s anti-Blackness is not limited to its domestic policy—it’s on full display on the global stage, too.
The history bears repeating: The slave trade ignited 400 years of racialized chattel slavery, representing the longest running system of organized human exploitation in history. This period marked the first time in human history when race defined the global political, economic, and social hierarchy. The United States was a driver in creating and perpetuating this unprecedented form of slavery. Across the globe, countries mimicked the United States’ policies to deprive an entire race of its humanity. The centuries-long system impacted millions upon millions of people of African descent, and even after this inhumane system of trafficking, selling, and enslaving human beings was abolished, its legacy continues to be felt today.
The resolution spearheaded by Ghana represents the worldwide atonement for chattel slavery that continues to have immeasurable consequences on the world. Because it is not legally binding, the only rationale for a country like the US to vote against it is that its leaders believe in erasing our world's greatest atrocity. It signals to the international community that the United States refuses to recognize the ugly parts of our past and how it impacts current realities.
The Trump administration’s actions to undermine forums at the UN designed to promote the rights and equality of people of African descent will be a stain on our nation’s history.
In his opposition to the resolution, the US representative characterized it as a scheme for developing (read: African) countries to gain leverage for the future allocation of resources. Additionally, he accused the resolution of being an attempt to establish a hierarchy of crimes against humanity (note: This was the same justification that the UK, Canada, and EU countries cited as explanation for their abstentions). Yet, this narrow-minded mischaracterization fails to recognize that the transatlantic slave trade and racialized slavery comprised all crimes against humanity: trafficking, forced labor, sexual assault, disease, famine, and the dehumanization of an entire race.
And yet, this is not the only instance of the Trump administration displaying its anti-Blackness on the world stage. When the administration made the decision in January 2026 to withdraw from the UN Permanent Forum on People of African Descent (PFPAD) because it was “contrary to the interests of the United States,” it was saying the quiet part out loud: This administration does not care about or represent the interests of Black Americans.
The UN PFPAD was created in 2021 as a space for people of African descent to discuss ways to improve the quality of life and livelihoods of people of African descent and share recommendations with member states. Its mandate includes promoting “the full political, economic, and social inclusion of people of African descent in societies in which they live as equal citizens without discrimination of any kind” and “ensuring equal enjoyment of all human rights.” The forum’s annual meeting represents the largest UN gathering of Black civil society from around the world. Its fifth session just concluded in Geneva, Switzerland, where the US government’s absence was noticed, but overshadowed by the energy and momentum behind Ghana’s historic resolution.
Civil society from around the world noted the fact that the world’s “superpower” was 1 of 3 countries to vote against the resolution, but the sheer number and diversity of Black American civil society leaders present at the forum made it clear that this shameful vote does not reflect our unwavering commitment to and solidarity in the global struggle for reparatory justice.
The United States’ actions are not just a betrayal of the rest of the world; they are the latest examples of the Trump administration's betrayal of its own people—and in particular, of the 45 million Americans who are of African descent. This is why the video message from Congressional Black Caucus Chair Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-NY) in the PFPAD closing ceremony was so important: When the federal government fails to represent our interests or even be present in rooms where our issues are being discussed, Black civil society and congressional leaders have always stepped up to fill the void.
The Trump administration’s actions to undermine forums at the UN designed to promote the rights and equality of people of African descent will be a stain on our nation’s history. The administration is telling us loud and clear that it does not view ensuring Black people’s equal human rights as a priority. So, while this administration falsely claims that “President Trump has done more for Black Americans than any other president,” we must remember the words of our great James Baldwin, “I cannot believe what you say because I see what you do.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular