limits

Reporting from Washington — California is confronting the limits of its power to save federal environmental protections as Congress and the Trump administration take aim at a landmark law the state has relied on for decades to clean the air of noxious smog.

A push by Republicans to roll back parts of the Clean Air Act would affect California more than any other state, rattling its lawmakers and regulators. And their legal authority to pick up the fight against California’s smog on their own is constrained.

The House last month passed a bill fiercely opposed by doctors and public health groups, including the American Lung Assn. and the American Academy of Pediatrics, that would delay for years new anti-pollution standards aimed at ultimately preventing 160,000 childhood asthma attacks and as many as 220 premature deaths in California each year.

The Trump administration had already tried using regulatory authority to put the standards on hold for a year, but walked back that action Wednesday after California and 14 other states filed suit against the delay.

The bill advancing in Congress would go much further, permanently upending the way restrictions are imposed on the ozone and small particulate matter that make up smog. No longer would regulators base decisions solely on scientific findings about what level of smog is safe to breathe. The potential cost to business would for the first time loom large in setting limits, and ultimately guide such things as when people with breathing problems are warned to stay indoors.

“It would be disastrous to do this,” said Jared Blumenfeld, former regional director of the federal Environmental Protection Agency for California and other Western states.

“The Clean Air Act has been one of the most successful and revered public health measures taken anywhere on the planet. Everyone from China to India to European nations came to my office and said, ‘How do we achieve these kinds of gains?’ This all originated in Los Angeles at a time the air was so bad it led to the creation of the EPA.”

Many state lawmakers agree, and they are vowing to keep California in compliance with the Clean Air Act as it exists now — regardless of what happens in Washington. But that turns out to be a promise not easily kept.

“This is not an easy switch whereby Congress gets rid of the standard, and California just puts it back in place,” Blumenfeld said.

Some of the most damaging pollution released inside California’s borders can only be controlled by federal regulators. Among California’s biggest concerns is what is spewed from the exhaust pipes of trucks traveling through the state that are not subject to its strict emissions rules. Such fumes account for 60% of such heavy truck pollution.

The EPA has been under pressure to toughen federal rules for trucks to enable California to meet its obligations under the act. The state and EPA have also been working on research into new technologies to clean truck emissions.

Even if the industry-friendly Trump administration slows down those efforts, the act empowers states and activists to impose pressure on the EPA in court.

But that would change under the measure passed by the House, HR 806, which would weaken the air quality standards now motivating federal action.

“We need EPA to continue to move ahead aggressively,” said Kurt Karperos, deputy executive officer at the California Air Resources Board. “It has a responsibility under the Clean Air Act to take action.… We are concerned this would be used as a justification to slow down.”

The pushback against the Clean Air Act in Congress is rooted in complaints, often driven by industry, that the EPA under the Obama administration set standards for air quality that are impossible to reach without harming economies in places that are already struggling, like California’s Central Valley, home to some of the worst air in the nation.

Among the most effective allies for Republicans pushing to weaken standards is the head of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, which regulates 25,000 square miles. It is home to 4 million Californians, who struggle with smoggy air and soaring asthma rates.

Seyed Sadredin, the district’s executive director, said there is only so much his agency is empowered to do, and now it faces severe federal sanctions for emissions from cars and trucks it has no authority to regulate.

Sadredin recently told Congress that local businesses will soon be prevented from expanding and big highway projects forfeited under Clean Air Act sanctions the valley faces — even after the region has done everything in its power to control pollution with some of the toughest restrictions in the nation.

“It all sounds nice and noble when you look down to the valley from the outside,” he said of the tough federal standards. “If you are with the elite crowd, you might say, ‘Let’s punish the valley for something they have no control over.’ We are talking real-life impact in a place suffering from double-digit unemployment, poverty, malnutrition. This has a real impact on our people. It is not just an academic argument.”

The San Joaquin board limited its support of the House measure to the part that would exempt air districts from sanctions in certain circumstances. A public outcry moved it to back away from its push to force the EPA to consider economic impacts in determining what air is safe to breathe.

But the economic impact language is still part of the House bill that the San Joaquin board helped get passed, creating no small measure of tension between Sadredin and other air quality experts who say his dire warnings served to benefit agriculture and drilling interests averse to stricter rules.

The valley is not going to lose big highway projects and businesses if it can’t control truck and car pollution it has no authority to regulate, according to state air regulators. But it will be pushed in the areas where it does have control, they say, including cutting pollution from oil and gas wells, and residential and agricultural burning.

“It is absolutely not in the cards,” Karperos said of the punishment Sadredin warns will befall the valley in coming years under current clean air rules. A good faith plan by the valley to further reduce emissions in the places it can would protect it from such sanctions, he said. But that plan will require more action by a region resistant to it.

“There are feasible strategies,” Karperos said. “The threat of sanctions is a red herring.”

Times staff writer Tony Barboza contributed to this report.

evan.halper@latimes.com

Follow me: @evanhalper

ALSO

High-speed rail backers lose another round in court

Oil companies outspent environmentalists during California’s climate change negotiations

Trump’s Cabinet seeks spiritual guidance from minister with a dim view of female politicians

AMAZON shoppers are racing to snap up a viral cabin bag that is perfect for dodging dreaded airline luggage fees.

Originally priced at £29.99, the popular bag has been slashed to just £25.49 for the black version.

Vankev Underseat Cabin Bag, £25.49 (was £29.99)

With the bank holiday weekend just days away, lots of savvy shoppers will be jetting off on mini-breaks – and keen to keep extra costs to a minimum.

Budget carriers like Ryanair and EasyJet are notoriously stringent with their baggage rules, meaning flyers can usually only bring a single small personal item onboard for free.

Amazon sells plenty of bargain luggage – no doubt aimed at panicky last-minute spenders – but this particular underseat backpack has racked up thousands of rave reviews.

Measuring exactly 40x20x25cm, in line with Ryanair hand luggage rules, the 20-litre bag is perfectly sized to slide under the seat, meaning you won’t have to spend any extra fees.

It’s got two main compartments, including a suitcase-style opening for clothes, plus a separate padded sleeve that fits a 14-inch laptop.

The backpack boasts a TSA-friendly design, which means it unfolds flat between 90 and 180 degrees so you do not have to clumsily unpack your electronics at airport security.

It also features a handy luggage strap to slide over your main suitcase handle, and a hidden anti-theft pocket that’s perfect for passports and other valuables.

We in the Sun Shopping team haven’t tested this backpack ourselves.

But over 5,000 Amazon shoppers have left five-star reviews on the website, stunned by its quality at that cheap-as-chips price.

“I used this bag for an 8-day trip across Europe,” one happy traveller wrote.

“It was perfect for under the seat on both Ryanair and EasyJet. (No extra fees!) The compartments were all great.”

Another impressed flyer noted: “I have to say, it really impressed me. I easily managed to fit my essentials, including a 14-inch laptop, which had its own padded compartment – a nice touch for protection.

“The straps on this bag make it comfortable to carry around, whether you’re hiking through the airport or simply stashing it under the seat.”

It feels sturdy and well-made, which gives me confidence it’ll hold up during my travels.”

A third shopper added: “Much bigger than you expect, love this, couldn’t go wrong.

“I was amazed at how much I could fit in the bag and how it has a holster to put on my carry-on handle.

“Wow, love it. Worth every penny!”

Sale prices vary across each colour of the bag, and Amazon has marked the discount as a limited-time deal, so jet-setters will need to move fast.

ALL IN

Holiday spot slashes prices to entice Brits – from 7 nights all inclusive for £289pp

SAVE IN STYLE

The ‘perfect Ryanair underseat bag’ that ACTUALLY looks good is 40% off today

The Sun’s Travel writer Jenna Stevens spotted a similar deal on a Ryanair underseat cabin bag – and one that’s actually pretty stylish too.

President Trump on Thursday announced that grocery stories and air conditioning companies will be allowed to keep using high-polluting refrigerants for longer than they would have under a law he signed during his first administration.

“This was a tremendous burden, a tremendous cost,” said Trump, surrounded in the Oval Office by executives from supermarket chains including Kroger, Fairway, Neimann Foods and Piggly Wiggly. “It was making the equipment unaffordable, and the actual benefit was nothing.”

The move loosens rules meant to restrict hydroflourocarbons, a class of climate-damaging chemicals used in cooling equipment. HFCs are known as “super pollutants” because their impact on climate change can be tens of thousands of times greater than carbon dioxide during their shorter lifespans.

In the move Thursday, the Environmental Protection Agency extends the deadline for companies to comply with a 2023 rule transitioning refrigerators and air conditioners off HFCs and onto new cooling technologies. Reducing these chemicals and moving to cleaner refrigerants has long been a bipartisan issue.

Trump is also proposing exemptions from a rule requiring leak repairs on large-scale refrigeration systems.

The administration framed the changes as part of its effort to bring down high grocery costs. EPA administrator Lee Zeldin said the actions will save $2.4 billion for Americans and safeguard 350,000 jobs.

“Americans who wanted to be able to fix their equipment were instead being required to buy far more costly new equipment and that just doesn’t make any sense,” said Zeldin.

David Doniger, senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the move will not only harm the climate, but U.S. competitiveness in global refrigerant markets as well.

“The EPA is catering to a small group of straggling companies by derailing the shift away from these climate super-pollutants,” he said. “The industry at large supports the HFC phasedown and has already invested in making new refrigerants and equipment, currently installed in thousands of stores.”

Danielle Wright, executive director of the North American Sustainable Refrigeration Council, an environmental nonprofit, said any perceived near-term savings from the rollbacks will be outweighed by the future costs.

“Business owners are far more worried about the escalating cost of keeping aging, high‑global-warming-potential equipment running than they are about the cost of installing new, compliant systems,” she said.

Trump dismissed the climate concerns, saying his changes “are not going to have any impact on the environment.”

He said he wants to get rid of the technology transition rule entirely in the future.

California and a coalition of other Democratic-led states are suing the Trump administration over new limits on federal borrowing by aspiring nurses, physician’s assistants, therapists, social workers, mental health practitioners and other healthcare workers, arguing the changes will further reduce a struggling but vital workforce.

“This case is about protecting access to education, protecting our healthcare workforce, and protecting patients who rely on these providers every single day,” California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said during a virtual news conference Tuesday. “The Trump administration is going out of its way to make it harder and more expensive for students to pursue the advanced degrees necessary to serve their communities and pursue meaningful careers that allow them to support themselves and their families.”

Bonta said the new limits on loans sought by nursing and other healthcare students — which the U.S. Department of Education initiated in response to Republicans passing broader student loan caps as part of last year’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act — was an illegal overreach by the agency that was “deeply shortsighted” and went beyond the scope of the legislation.

“Congress can act,” he said. “But what the Department of Education can’t do is — contrary to law and in an arbitrary and capricious way and in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act — redefine what a professional student is.”

In response to the litigation, Trump administration officials defended the new rules, saying they will help student borrowers in the long run by driving down schooling costs at universities nationwide and preventing them from taking on too much debt.

“After decades of unchecked student loan borrowing that gave schools no reason to control costs, these commonsense loan caps — created by Congress — are already incentivizing colleges and universities to lower tuition,” Under Secretary of Education Nicholas Kent said in a statement to The Times.

Kent said Bonta and his fellow Democratic litigants “are more concerned about institutions’ bottom-line [than] American students and families’ ability to access affordable postsecondary education.” As one example of institutions responding to loan caps by lowering costs, Kent pointed to UC Irvine reducing the costs of its master’s in business programs by up to 38% to keep them below a federal loan cap for such programs.

The One Big Beautiful Bill, passed by Congress in July 2025, placed new limits on student loans, which could previously be sought for the full cost of such degrees. Starting this July, applicants categorized as “graduate students” will be capped at borrowing $20,500 per year and $100,000 in total, while applicants categorized as “professional students” will be allowed to borrow up to $50,000 annually and $200,000 in total.

On May 1, the U.S. Department of Education issued a new rule defining the “professional student” category as including those pursuing degrees to become doctors, pharmacists, dentists, veterinarians, lawyers, various medical specialists, pastors and other religious academics, and excluding those pursuing nursing and other advanced healthcare degrees.

In announcing the change, Kent said it would “simplify our complex student loan repayment system and better align higher education with workforce needs,” “drive a sea change in higher education by holding universities accountable for outcomes and putting significant downward pressure on the cost of tuition,” and “benefit borrowers who will no longer be pushed into insurmountable debt to finance degrees that do not pay off.”

Others fiercely disagreed, including healthcare industry leaders who also had objected to the rule change during a public comment period. Some said the changes would simply increase student reliance on less favorable, private-sector loans.

The American Assn. of Colleges of Nursing, in a statement, said it and its members were “angered by the Department of Education’s failure to support the nursing profession as the demand for patient care services rises.”

Nearly 150 members of Congress — including more than a dozen Republicans — wrote a letter the day after the rule was promulgated expressing “disappointment” over the exclusion of post-baccalaureate nursing degrees.

“At a time when our nation is facing a health care shortage, especially in primary care, now is not the time to cut off the student pipeline to these programs,” the lawmakers argued.

Rachel Zaentz, a spokesperson for the University of California, which is not party to the lawsuit but operates a vast network of public health programs, said in a statement Tuesday that UC “strongly opposed” the administration’s new caps on federal loans for nurses and other health professionals, which she said “will be felt most strongly by lower-income graduate students.”

“UC will continue to do all we can to ensure that cost is not a barrier for anyone who wants to pursue higher education, and we will continue to advocate with our federal partners for the programs and policies that make this possible,” Zaentz said.

Bonta rejected the administration’s argument that the new caps would help students pursuing a dream of a medical career avoid taking on too much debt — calling it “tone deaf.” He said those students are already “struggling with all costs right now” thanks to the Trump administration’s tariffs, war in Iran and lax approach to regulating monopolies and other big business.

He also rejected the idea that the new loan caps would force institutions to reduce costs for students, calling that “wishful thinking.”

The lawsuit is the 68th filed by Bonta’s office against the second Trump administration. Joining Bonta in the lawsuit — which was filed in the U.S. District Court in Maryland — were the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin, as well as the governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania.

Times staff writer Jaweed Kaleem contributed to this report.

The continued clashes and drone strikes reported by Ukraine despite a United States brokered ceasefire reveal the deep structural difficulties facing diplomatic efforts to end the Russia Ukraine war. Although both Moscow and Kyiv formally agreed to a temporary ceasefire between May 9 and May 11, reports of ongoing battlefield engagements, drone operations, and civilian casualties demonstrate how fragile and limited such agreements have become in the context of prolonged modern warfare.

The ceasefire emerged as part of a broader diplomatic push led by United States President Donald Trump to reduce hostilities and create momentum toward wider peace negotiations. However, within days both Russia and Ukraine accused each other of violations, exposing the absence of trust, verification mechanisms, and shared strategic objectives between the two sides.

The developments illustrate a broader reality increasingly visible in contemporary conflicts. Ceasefires no longer necessarily represent steps toward peace. Instead, they often function as temporary tactical pauses within wars that continue politically, militarily, and psychologically even during formal periods of de escalation.

The Structural Fragility of Modern Ceasefires

The Ukraine conflict demonstrates why ceasefires in modern interstate wars are becoming increasingly difficult to sustain. Unlike traditional wars where front lines were relatively static and centralized military command structures exercised greater control, contemporary conflicts involve decentralized operations, drone warfare, rapid communication systems, and continuous battlefield surveillance.

In such environments, even limited military activity can quickly trigger accusations of violations and retaliation. The reported drone attacks, artillery clashes, and combat engagements along the front line reflect how difficult it is to fully halt military operations across an extensive and heavily militarized battlefield.

Furthermore, both Russia and Ukraine continue to pursue strategic objectives incompatible with lasting compromise. Russia seeks to consolidate territorial gains and maintain pressure on Ukrainian forces, while Ukraine aims to resist occupation and preserve sovereignty. Without broader political agreement regarding the war’s fundamental issues, temporary ceasefires remain highly vulnerable to collapse.

The result is a situation where ceasefires may reduce the intensity of conflict in some areas while violence continues in others, creating ambiguity regarding whether peace efforts are genuinely progressing.

Drone Warfare and the Transformation of the Battlefield

One of the most significant features of the current conflict is the central role of drones in sustaining military operations even during ceasefire periods. Ukraine’s military reported thousands of so called kamikaze drone deployments, while Russia simultaneously accused Ukraine of launching drone attacks into Russian territory.

Drone warfare fundamentally alters the nature of ceasefires because unmanned systems allow states to maintain pressure without large scale troop offensives. Drones can conduct reconnaissance, target infrastructure, disrupt logistics, and inflict psychological pressure while remaining below the threshold of full conventional escalation.

This creates a strategic grey zone where both sides can continue military activity while formally claiming commitment to ceasefire agreements. The low cost, flexibility, and deniability associated with drone operations make them especially attractive during periods of limited diplomatic engagement.

The widespread use of drones also reflects the broader transformation of modern warfare into a technologically driven conflict characterized by constant surveillance and persistent low intensity attacks. In this environment, the distinction between war and ceasefire becomes increasingly blurred.

The apparent breakdown of the ceasefire also highlights the growing limitations facing United States led diplomatic efforts. Although Washington remains deeply influential in shaping international negotiations surrounding the conflict, its ability to enforce compliance remains constrained.

Temporary ceasefires require more than political announcements. They depend on verification systems, mutual trust, enforcement mechanisms, and shared incentives for de escalation. None of these conditions currently exist at sufficient levels between Russia and Ukraine.

Moreover, both sides appear to view military pressure as essential to strengthening their negotiating positions. This creates a paradox where diplomacy and warfare occur simultaneously rather than sequentially. Ceasefires therefore become instruments for tactical adjustment rather than genuine pathways toward peace.

The involvement of the United States also introduces additional geopolitical dimensions. Russia continues to frame the conflict as part of a broader confrontation with Western influence, while Ukraine depends heavily on Western military and diplomatic support. These dynamics complicate efforts to establish neutral or mutually accepted mediation frameworks.

Humanitarian Consequences and Civilian Vulnerability

Despite diplomatic initiatives, civilians continue to bear the costs of ongoing violence. Reports of deaths and injuries across regions including Zaporizhzhia, Kherson, Kharkiv, Donetsk, and Mykolaiv demonstrate how even limited ceasefire violations can produce severe humanitarian consequences.

Modern conflicts increasingly expose civilian populations to continuous insecurity because fighting extends beyond conventional front lines. Drone strikes, missile attacks, and artillery exchanges create environments where daily life remains unstable regardless of official diplomatic announcements.

This persistent insecurity also produces long term social and psychological effects. Populations living under repeated cycles of ceasefire and renewed violence may gradually lose confidence in diplomatic processes altogether. Such conditions weaken public trust in negotiations and reinforce perceptions that military outcomes remain more decisive than political agreements.

The humanitarian dimension therefore remains central to understanding the broader implications of the war. Beyond territorial disputes and geopolitical competition, the conflict continues to reshape civilian life, displacement patterns, and regional stability across Eastern Europe.

The Strategic Logic Behind Continued Fighting

The continuation of battlefield clashes despite the ceasefire reflects rational strategic calculations by both parties. Neither Russia nor Ukraine wishes to allow the other side opportunities to regroup, reinforce positions, or gain battlefield advantage during temporary pauses.

For Russia, maintaining pressure along advancing sectors preserves momentum and signals military resolve. For Ukraine, continued resistance demonstrates operational resilience and prevents normalization of Russian territorial control.

This strategic logic makes limited violations almost inevitable in prolonged wars where military outcomes remain uncertain. Ceasefires become fragile because both sides fear that restraint could weaken their broader position in future negotiations or battlefield developments.

The situation also reflects how wars of attrition generate incentives for constant pressure rather than stable pauses. Each side seeks to exhaust the opponent economically, militarily, and psychologically over time.

Analysis

The reported ceasefire violations in Ukraine demonstrate the growing difficulty of achieving meaningful de escalation in modern high intensity conflicts. Temporary agreements may reduce some forms of violence, but they rarely address the deeper strategic, political, and technological dynamics sustaining prolonged warfare.

The Ukraine conflict illustrates several important realities shaping contemporary international security. First, ceasefires without comprehensive political frameworks remain highly unstable. Second, drone warfare and decentralized military technologies blur the distinction between peace and conflict. Third, diplomatic efforts increasingly coexist with ongoing military operations rather than replacing them.

The events also reveal the limits of external mediation in wars where core strategic objectives remain fundamentally incompatible. As long as both Russia and Ukraine continue viewing military pressure as essential to their long term goals, ceasefires are likely to function more as tactical interruptions than genuine transitions toward peace.

Ultimately, the fragility of the current ceasefire reflects a broader transformation in warfare itself. Modern conflicts are no longer defined solely by formal declarations of war or peace, but by continuous cycles of negotiation, limited escalation, technological warfare, and strategic uncertainty.

With information from Reuters.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court’s conservative majority on Wednesday sharply limited a part of the Voting Rights Act that has forced states to draw voting districts to help elect Black or Latino representatives to Congress as well as state and local boards.

In a 6-3 decision in Louisiana vs. Callais, the court ruled that creating these majority-minority districts may amount to racial discrimination that violates the 14th Amendment.

When weighing what the Voting Rights Act requires, “we start with the general rule that the Constitution almost never permits the federal government or a state to discriminate on the basis of race,” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote for the court.

Alito said states may draw election districts for partisan advantage but may not use race as a basis for redistricting.

The ruling in a Louisiana case appears to clear the way for Republican-led states across the South to redraw their election maps and eliminate voting districts that favor Black or Latino candidates for Congress, state legislatures and county boards.

UCLA law professor Rick Hasen said, “It is hard to overstate what an earthquake this will be for American politics,” adding that the decision makes the Voting Rights Act a “much weaker, and potentially toothless law.”

Hasen said it’s unclear how the decision will affect the November election because in many states early voting has already started and primaries have already taken place.

But the ruling’s long-term consequences for minority representation in Congress, state legislatures and local government are almost “certainly” going to be felt in 2028, Hasen said.

Republican leaders in states across the South have already signaled they intend to move quickly to redraw congressional maps in the wake of the ruling.

Alabama Atty. Gen. Steve Marshall said the state will “act as quickly as possible” to ensure its congressional maps “reflect the will of the people, not a racial quota system the Constitution forbids.” Marshall called the decision a recognition of how much the South has changed since the civil rights era.

“The court rightly acknowledged that the South has made extraordinary progress, and that laws designed for a different era do not reflect the present reality,” he said in a statement.

Florida was already in motion before the ruling came down. But Gov. Ron DeSantis celebrated the decision and said it was all the more reason for state lawmakers to redraw its congressional maps, in a manner that could give Republicans up to four more seats in Congress.

The proposed congressional maps, drawn by DeSantis’ office, were first unveiled to Fox News on Monday. On Wednesday, both chambers approved the maps, and readied them for DeSantis’ final approval.

In Mississippi, Gov. Tate Reeves had already called lawmakers into a special session at the end of May in anticipation of a court ruling on the Voting Rights Act. In a post on X, Reeves underscored the ideological underpinnings to the ruling’s potential implications.

“First Dobbs. Now Callais. Just Mississippi and Louisiana down here saving our country!” Reeves wrote.

Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.) speaks at a news conference outside the U.S. Capitol after the Supreme Court ruling.

(Tom Williams / CQ-Roll Call / Getty Images)

At issue was how to ensure equal representation for Black and Latino citizens.

About one-third of Louisiana’s voters are Black, but the state seeks an election map that will elect white Republicans to five of its six seats in the House of Representatives.

Lower courts said that map violated the Voting Rights Act because it denied fair representation to Black residents.

The state had one Black-majority district, in New Orleans.

Two years ago, judges upheld the creation of a second Black-majority district that stretched from Shreveport to Baton Rouge on the grounds that it was required under the law.

The state’s Republican leaders appealed and argued that race was the motivating factor in drawing the second district.

Alito and the conservatives agreed and called that district an “unconstitutional racial gerrymander.”

The three liberals dissented. The consequences of the ruling “are likely to be far-reaching and grave,” said Justice Elena Kagan, adding that it will allow “racial vote dilution in its most classic form.”

She said the decision means “a state can, without legal consequence, systematically dilute minority citizens’ voting power. Of course, the majority does not announce today’s holding that way. Its opinion is understated, even antiseptic.”

But she said states across the South may draw electoral districts that deprive Black voters of equal representation. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson agreed.

The decision was the latest example of a partisan political dispute in which the court’s six Republican appointees vote in favor of the Republican state plan, while the three Democratic appointees dissent.

The ruling is likely to have its greatest impact in the Southern states, where white Republicans are in control and Black Democrats are in the minority.

The court’s divide over redistricting is similar to the long dispute over affirmative action.

For decades, university officials said they needed to consider the race of applicants to achieve diversity and equal representation.

But in 2023, the court by a 6-3 vote struck down college affirmative action policies at Harvard and the University of North Carolina and ruled race may not be used to judge applicants.

The historic Voting Rights Act of 1965 succeeded in clearing the way for Black citizens to register and vote across the South, but it took longer for Black candidates to win elections.

The dispute was highlighted in a 1980 case from Mobile, Ala. Its three commissioners were elected to six-year terms, and each of them ran countywide.

Even though one-third of the county’s voters were Black, white candidates always won.

The Supreme Court upheld this arrangement as legal and constitutional. In dissent, Justice Thurgood Marshall said Black residents were left with the right to cast meaningless ballots.

In response, Congress amended the Voting Rights Act in 1982 to say states must give minorities an opportunity to elect representatives of their choice.

Four years later, the Supreme Court interpreted that to mean that states had a duty to draw voting districts that would elect a Black or Latino candidate if these minorities had a sufficiently large number of voters in a particular area.

In recent years, the court’s conservatives, led by Justice Clarence Thomas, have chafed at the rule on the grounds it sometimes required states to use race as a factor for drawing election districts.

Alito’s opinion adopted that view and said states are not required or permitted to use race as a basis for drawing districts.

Hours after the ruling came out, President Trump met with reporters in the Oval Office and said he had not yet seen the decision. He was visibly excited, however, when a reporter explained the decision favored Republicans.

“I love it!” he said. “This is very good.”

Former President Obama said in a statement that the court’s decision “effectively guts a key pillar of the Voting Rights Act, freeing state legislatures to gerrymander legislative districts to systematically dilute and weaken the voting power of racial minorities — so long as they do it under the guise of ‘partisanship’ rather than explicit racial bias.”

The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, in Los Angeles, also denounced the decision.

“The Supreme Court’s decision blesses racially discriminatory gerrymandering, and dismantles the legal protections for minority voters,” said Nina Perales, the group’s vice president for litigation. It “openly invites states to dilute minority voting strength, and undermines our democracy.”

Despite on-again, off-again negotiations, the United States has no other option but to pursue a diplomatic solution with Iran, argues Vali Nasr, professor of international affairs and Middle East studies at Johns Hopkins University.

Nasr tells host Steve Clemons that the US-Israel war on Iran has shown the limits of military force.

“You don’t go to the table to demand surrender. The other side is not going to surrender because they haven’t lost. So you have to cut a deal,” Nasr said, adding that Iran’s objective is to make sure the US and Israel understand that “war with Iran isn’t easy”.