Supreme Court

Reporting from Washington — The Supreme Court signaled Monday it is not anxious to revisit the abortion controversy in the year ahead, disappointing conservative activists who were cheered by the appointment of Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh.

After weeks of debate behind closed doors, a divided court turned down appeals backed by 13 conservative states that sought to defund Planned Parenthood.

The court’s action leaves in place federal court rulings in much of the country that prevent states from denying Medicaid funds to women who go to a Planned Parenthood clinic for healthcare, including medical screenings or birth control. It is already illegal in most cases to use federal money like Medicaid to pay for abortions, but some states wanted to go further, cutting off all Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood because the organization offers the procedure using alternative revenue sources.

In dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch, accused their colleagues of allowing a “politically fraught issue” to justify “abdicating our judicial duty.”

The lower courts are divided on the Medicaid funding dispute, making the high court’s refusal to clarify the issue all the more surprising to some.

“We created the confusion. We should clear it up,” Thomas wrote in Gee vs. Planned Parenthood. “So what explains the court’s refusal to do its job here? I suspect it has something to do with the fact that some respondents in these cases are named ‘Planned Parenthood.’ ”

The brief order denying the appeals from Louisiana and Kansas suggests Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Kavanaugh were not willing to hear the cases.

The high court’s refusal to hear an appeal petition is not a ruling, and it will not prevent the justices from taking up the issue in the future or ruling against Planned Parenthood eventually.

Kavanaugh’s vote against hearing the case was noteworthy since it was his first abortion-related case, but it does not necessarily reflect how he would rule in future cases. Many legal experts predict Kavanaugh would vote to restrict or overturn the landmark Roe vs. Wade abortion ruling.

For now, however, the chief justice may have preferred to avoid controversies that result in a 5-4 split along ideological lines, particularly in the aftermath of the fierce partisan fight over Kavanaugh’s confirmation. Last month, Roberts objected to President Trump’s criticism of an “Obama judge” and issued a statement saying, “We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges.”

Even so, if the court had agreed to decide the Medicaid dispute, the justices could well have split along the usual conservative versus liberal lines, with the five Bush or Trump appointees on one side and the Clinton and Obama appointees on the other side in dissent.

In their appeals, lawyers for Kansas and Louisiana pointed to a recent split among the U.S. appeals courts. Last year, the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis, breaking with others, upheld Arkansas’ decision to cut off funding to Medicaid to Planned Parenthood clinics.

It takes four justices to hear a case, and these appeals were considered in a series of closed-door meetings since late September. But the court’s conservatives were unable to gain the needed fourth vote. Kavanaugh took his seat in the second week of October, and his supporters have assumed he would vote in favor of restricting abortion rights when given the opportunity.

Catherine Foster, president of Americans United for Life, said her group was disappointed with the court’s action. “We join the dissent in calling on the court to do its duty,” she said.

“The pro-life citizens of states like Kansas and Louisiana, through their elected representatives, have clearly expressed their will. They do not want Medicaid tax dollars used to prop up abortion businesses like Planned Parenthood,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, an antiabortion nonprofit. “The pro-life grass roots will not stop fighting until every single tax dollar is untangled from the abortion industry.”

Planned Parenthood called the outcome a victory for patients. “As a doctor, I have seen what’s at stake when people cannot access the care they need, and when politics gets in the way of people making their own healthcare choices,” said Dr. Leana Wen, the group’s president. “We won’t stop fighting for every patient who relies on Planned Parenthood for life-saving, life-changing care.”

In the last decade, conservative states have sought to defund Planned Parenthood because it is the nation’s largest single provider of abortions. None of the Medicaid money pays for abortions, and most of the state funding bans have been blocked by federal judges.

Medicaid is jointly funded by the federal government and the states, and Congress has said its funds may not be used to pay directly for abortions, except when the woman’s life is in danger or in cases of rape or incest. But more than 2 million people go to Planned Parenthood clinics for birth control and general healthcare, including cancer screenings and pregnancy tests. And for low-income women, this healthcare can be paid for through Medicaid.

Republican lawmakers who sponsored the defund laws argue the states should not indirectly subsidize facilities that perform abortions.

But lawyers for Planned Parenthood and their patients have gone to federal courts and won rulings blocking most of the laws from taking effect. They have done so by relying on a provision in the Medicaid Act that says eligible patients may go to any doctor’s office, hospital or clinic that is “qualified to perform” the required medical services. If a federal law creates a right for individuals, plaintiffs like the Planned Parenthood patients may go to court and sue if that right is denied.

But in their appeals, lawyers for Kansas, Louisiana and 13 other states argued that Medicaid is a healthcare spending agreement, not a law that establishes rights for individuals. If so, they said, states may decide who is a qualified provider of healthcare.

The latest from Washington »

More stories from David G. Savage »

[email protected]

Twitter: DavidGSavage

WASHINGTON — The Texas redistricting case now before the Supreme Court turns on a question that often divides judges: Were the voting districts drawn based on politics, or race?

The answer, likely to come in a few days, could shift five congressional seats and tip political control of the House of Representatives after next year’s midterm elections.

Justice Samuel A. Alito, who oversees appeals from Texas, put a temporary hold on a judicial ruling that branded the newly drawn Texas voting map a “racial gerrymander.”

The state’s lawyers asked for a decision by Monday, noting that candidates have a Dec. 8 deadline to file for election.

They said the judges violated the so-called Purcell principle by making major changes in the election map “midway through the candidate filing period,” and that alone calls for blocking it.

Texas Republicans have reason to be confident the court’s conservative majority will side with them.

“We start with a presumption that the legislature acted in good faith,” Alito wrote for a 6-3 majority last year in a South Carolina case.

That state’s Republican lawmakers had moved tens of thousands of Black voters in or out of newly drawn congressional districts and said they did so not because of their race but because they were likely to vote as Democrats.

In 2019, the conservatives upheld partisan gerrymandering by a 5-4 vote, ruling that drawing election districts is a “political question” left to states and their lawmakers, not judges.

All the justices — conservative and liberal — say drawing districts based on the race of the voters violates the Constitution and its ban on racial discrimination. But the conservatives say it’s hard to separate race from politics.

They also looked poised to restrict the reach of the Voting Rights Act in a pending case from Louisiana.

For decades, the civil rights law has sometimes required states to draw one or more districts that would give Black or Latino voters a fair chance to “elect representatives of their choice.”

The Trump administration joined in support of Louisiana’s Republicans in October and claimed the voting rights law has been “deployed as a form of electoral race-based affirmative action” that should be ended.

If so, election law experts warned that Republican-led states across the South could erase the districts of more than a dozen Black Democrats who serve in Congress.

The Texas mid-decade redistricting case did not look to trigger a major legal clash because the partisan motives were so obvious.

In July, President Trump called for Texas Republicans to redraw the state map of 38 congressional districts in order to flip five seats to oust Democrats and replace them with Republicans.

At stake was control of the closely divided House after the 2026 midterm elections.

Gov. Greg Abbott agreed, and by the end of August, he signed into law a map with redrawn districts in and around Houston, Dallas, Fort Worth and San Antonio.

But last week federal judges, in a 2-1 decision, blocked the new map from taking effect, ruling that it appeared to be unconstitutional.

“The public perception of this case is that it’s about politics,” wrote U.S. District Judge Jeffrey V. Brown in the opening of a 160-page opinion. “To be sure, politics played a role” but “substantial evidence shows that Texas racially gerrymandered the 2025 map.”

He said the strongest evidence came from Harmeet Dhillon, the Trump administration’s top civil rights lawyer at the Justice Department. She had sent Abbott a letter on July 7 threatening legal action if the state did not dismantle four “coalition districts.”

This term, which was unfamiliar to many, referred to districts where no racial or ethnic group had a majority. In one Houston district that was targeted, 45% of the eligible voters were Black and 25% were Latino. In a nearby district, 38% of voters were Black and 30% were Latino.

She said the Trump administration views these as “unconstitutional racial gerrymanders,” citing a recent ruling by the conservative 5th Circuit Court.

The Texas governor then cited these “constitutional concerns raised by the U.S. Department of Justice” when he called for the special session of the Legislature to redraw the state map.

Voting rights advocates saw a violation.

“They said their aim was to get rid of the coalition districts. And to do so, they had to draw new districts along racial lines,” said Chad Dunn, a Texas attorney and legal director of UCLA’s Voting Rights Project.

Brown, a Trump appointee from Galveston, wrote that Dhillon was “clearly wrong” in believing these coalition districts were unconstitutional, and he said the state was wrong to rely on her advice as basis for redrawing its election map.

He was joined by a second district judge in putting the new map on hold and requiring the state to use the 2021 map that had been drawn by the same Texas Republicans.

The third judge on the panel was Jerry Smith, a Reagan appointee on the 5th Circuit Court, and he issued an angry 104-page dissent. Much of it was devoted to attacking Brown and liberals such as 95-year-old investor and philanthropist George Soros and California Gov. Gavin Newsom.

“In 37 years as a federal judge, I’ve served on hundreds of three-judge panels. This is the most blatant exercise of judicial activism that I have ever witnessed,” Smith wrote. “The main winners from Judge Brown’s opinion are George Soros and Gavin Newsom. The obvious losers are the People of Texas.”

The “obvious reason for the 2025 redistricting, of course, is partisan gain,” Smith wrote, adding that “Judge Brown commits grave error in concluding that the Texas Legislature is more bigoted than political.”

Most federal cases go before a district judge, and they may be appealed first to a U.S. appeals court and then the Supreme Court.
Election-related cases are different. A three-judge panel weighs the facts and issues a ruling, which then goes directly to the Supreme Court to be affirmed or reversed.

Late Friday, Texas attorneys filed an emergency appeal and asked the justices to put on hold the decision by Brown.

The first paragraph of their 40-page appeal noted that Texas is not alone in pursuing a political advantage by redrawing its election maps.

“California is working to add more Democratic seats to its congressional delegation to offset the new Texas districts, despite Democrats already controlling 43 out of 52 of California’s congressional seats,” they said.

They argued that the “last-minute disruption to state election procedures — and resulting candidate and voter confusion —demonstrates” the need to block the lower court ruling.

Election law experts question that claim. “This is a problem of Texas’ own making,” said Justin Levitt, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles.

The state opted for a fast-track, mid-decade redistricting at the behest of Trump.

On Monday, Dunn, the Texas voting rights attorney, responded to the state’s appeal and told the justices they should deny it.

“The election is over a year away. No one will be confused by using the map that has governed Texas’ congressional elections for the past four years,” he said.

“The governor of Texas called a special session to dismantle districts on account of their racial composition,” he said, and the judges heard clear and detailed evidence that lawmakers did just that.

In recent election disputes, however, the court’s conservatives have frequently invoked the Purcell principle to free states from new judicial rulings that came too close to the election.

Granting a stay would allow Texas to use its new GOP friendly map for the 2026 election.

The justices may then choose to hear arguments on the legal questions early next year.

SACRAMENTO — To be elected governor of California, a candidate needs six vital assets.

Maybe not the entire six-pack, but almost. They include:

–A salable message. How’s the candidate going to make life better for the voter? Specifics, not just poll-generated platitudes. And beating up on President Trump isn’t going to be enough for Democrats next year.

Voters will probably be getting migraine headaches from listening to both Trump and his critics.

–Curb appeal. It greatly helps to have matinee-idol looks like Gov. Gavin Newsom. But that gift is rare. Average appearance, verbal skills and a good message will usually suffice.

–Boatloads of money. It costs tens of millions of dollars to market a gubernatorial aspirant’s message in far-flung, heavily populated and diverse California.

–A strong desire to win, also known as “fire in the belly.” Rather than relaxing in a recliner while watching the Rams or 49ers, the willingness to fly off to beg strangers for campaign donations.

–A thick skin. Top-tier candidates are constantly attacked by rivals and often covered by the news media in ways deemed unfair. But overreacting can destroy a candidacy.

–A strong record of public service to show voters you’re committed and won’t need lots of time with training wheels.

There also are other assets that can help. For example: youth.

“We are, in fact, going through a generational change in American politics,” says longtime Democratic strategist Darry Dragow. “That’s inevitable. New generations of voters have not been widely represented in government. The boomers have held political power for a very long time.”

Baby boomers are roughly ages 60 through 79 — born after World War II, between 1946 and 1964.

Another plus is political incumbency — the ability for a candidate to be identified on the ballot label as, for example, attorney general or lieutenant governor. That denotes credibility and a record. You’re not allowed to call yourself a “former” anything.

Democratic strategist Garry South calls the current crop basically “a field of formers” and says that saddles them with an extra burden.

So far, the 2026 race to replace the termed-out Newsom has been a boring trot.

That’s largely because the public’s political focus has been on Trump and the toady Republican Congress. But it’s also because none of the gubernatorial candidates possesses the full six-pack of vital assets.

For months, the contest was frozen in waiting mode: Waiting for former Vice President Kamala Harris and Sen. Alex Padilla to decide whether they wanted to run. Either would have been an early favorite, but not a shoo-in. They’d have faced a fight. And neither apparently felt the job was worth it. No fire.

Democratic donors and activists also were focused on Proposition 50 and waiting for the Nov. 4 redistricting election to be over. Most money and effort were going there.

Now that’s all behind us and the real race is underway.

“It’s a total free-for-all,” Sragow says. “None of these candidates is really on anybody’s radar.”

There’s no actual front-runner.

“You can’t read anything into the polls,” Democratic consultant Gale Kaufman says. “Just because somebody is a few points ahead doesn’t make them a front-runner. We don’t even know who all the candidates are yet.”

A late October poll of registered voters by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies showed that 44% were undecided. Former Orange County Rep. Katie Porter led Democratic candidates with a scant 11%. Former U.S. Health Secretary Xavier Becerra was second at 8%.

Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, a Republican, was first overall with 13%. But never mind. No Republican has been elected to statewide office in California since 2006. And one won’t be 20 years later.

Last week, two more Democrats leaped into the race:

–Billionaire hedge fund founder Tom Steyer, 68, who ran for president in 2020 and got nowhere. He has a good populist, anti-Sacramento message and tons of money to voice it. But he has never held elected office. And Californians have historically rejected mega-rich, self-financing candidates attempting to begin their political career at the highest level.

–Rep. Eric Swalwell, 45, from the San Francisco Bay Area, who also ran unsuccessfully for president in 2020. He has a good message for progressives. But right now it may be too focused on Trump and not enough on Californians’ needs.

Aside from Steyer, none of the other Democratic aspirants are independently wealthy. They’ll need to raise barrels of money — ”24 hours a day, seven days a week,” Sragow says. That takes fire.

Other Democratic candidates:

–Porter, 51. She has curb appeal. But she publicly showed a thin skin with a contentious, rude performance during a TV interview in October. The nasty episode probably wasn’t fatal. But it apparently dropped her in polls, and that hurts fundraising.

–Becerra, 67. He has a respectful record as Health secretary, California attorney general and congressman. But questions were raised recently about Becerra’s judgment when federal prosecutors revealed the then-secretary didn’t notice that a top aide had raided his dormant political account for $225,000. Becerra wasn’t implicated. The aide pleaded guilty.

–Antonio Villaraigosa, 72, former Los Angeles mayor and state Assembly speaker. No one is more qualified to be governor. And he lets voters know where he stands. But they may be looking for someone younger.

–Betty Yee, 68, former state controller, Board of Equalization member and chief state budget honcho. She knows every inch of state government’s fiscal quagmire and has good ideas about unraveling it. But she’s short on curb appeal.

–State Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, 57, the lone incumbent in the field. But he missed an opportunity to shine as state schools chief.

One of these people will probably be our next governor, although others could still enter the race. So, maybe it’s time to start paying attention.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Pondering a run for governor, Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta faces questions about legal spending
C.A. vs. Trump: ‘Played with fire, got burned’: GOP control of House at risk after court blocks Texas map
The L.A. Times Special: California’s child farmworkers: Exhausted, underpaid and toiling in toxic fields

Until next week,
George Skelton

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Nov. 22 (UPI) — Former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro was detained early Saturday in Brasilia because of a possible “attempted escape” to an embassy days before he was to begin his 27-year prison sentence for leading a coup attempt.

Brazil’s Supreme Court issued a preventive arrest warrant that had been sought by police for Bolonaro, 70, who had been under house arrest with an ankle monitor since early August.

Bolsonaro, Brazil’s president from 2019 to 2022, is being held in a Federal Police station in Brasilia and will undergo a custody hearing on Sunday, the BBC reported.

He is scheduled to begin serving his sentence as the court reviews his appeals.

There was the possibility of “relocation to embassies near the residence, considering that the investigations revealed a history of planning to request asylum through a diplomatic representation,” the court said.

In August, police obtained a document during a raid that Bolsonaro had planned to seek asylum in Argentina last year. And days after the operation, he spent two nights at the Hungarian Embassy in Brazil in an apparent bid for asylum.

Bolsonaro’s lawyers planned to appeal the arrest, denying that Bolsonaro was attempting to flee.

Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who wrote the order, said “new facts” had come to light about the far-right former president.

His intention was “to break the electronic ankle bracelet to ensure success in his escape” that would be “facilitated by the confusion caused by the demonstration called by his son” outside his apartment complex.

The judge described it as a “high possibility of an attempted escape.”

The vigil planned for Saturday night was organized by his oldest son, Flavio, a senator.

“Are you going to fight for your country or just watch everything on your phone on your couch at home?” he asked his followers in a social media video.

The court also said it was informed that there was a violation of Bolsonaro’s electronic monitoring equipment early Saturday.

“The information confirms the convict’s intention to break the electronic ankle bracelet in order to ensure the success of his escape, facilitated by the confusion caused by the demonstration,” the court said.

Bolsonaro’s sentence was to begin next week after all appeals were exhausted.

“The fact is that the former president was arrested at his home, with an electronic ankle monitor and under police surveillance. Furthermore, Jair Bolsonaro’s health is delicate and his imprisonment may put his life at risk,” his lawyers said in a statement.

And they noted the protest is protected by law.

On Sept. 11, Bolsonaro was sentenced and convicted in a plot to remain in power after losing the 2022 election to President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.

Four of five justices convicted him on all five counts.

Aside from the coup attempt, Bolsonaro was found guilty of taking part in an armed criminal organization, attempting to abolish Brazil’s democratic order by force, committing violent acts against state institutions and damaging protected public property after his supporters stormed government buildings on Jan. 8, 2023.

He is barred from running for public office until 2060, eight years after his sentence would end, when he would 105 years old.

On Friday, Bolsonaro’s lawyers asked the Supreme Court to allow him to serve his whole jail sentence under house arrest with electronic monitoring. He would be able to leave for medical treatment, including for pulmonary infections and other ailments.

Earlier this month, high-ranking military officials and a federal police officer were sentenced to prison after the Supreme Court justices found them guilty of attempting a coup and plotting to kill Lula da Silva.

“The message to Brazil, and to the world, is that crime doesn’t pay,” Reimont Otoni, a Workers’ party congressman and backer of Otono.

Otoni noted Bolsonaro’s plot included a conspiracy to assassinate Lula.

Also, high court justices knew about plans to assassinate Lula’s vice presidential running mate, and to arrest and execute de Moraes.

The conspiracy failed to get the backing of the army and air force commanders, and Lula was sworn in on Jan. 1, 2023.

One week later, supporters stormed and vandalized government buildings in the capital, Brasilia.

Bonsonaro, who has been referred to as the “Trump of the tropics,” has contended it was a “witch hunt.” U.S. President Donald Trump also calls it a “witch hunt” and punished the nation for the “disgrace” of how Bolsonaro has been treated, as well as for an “unfair trade relationship.”

Nov. 21 (UPI) — House Republicans have called on former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to testify before a committee investigating Jeffrey Epstein.

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., issued congressional subpoenas seeking Bill Clinton’s testimony Dec. 17 and Hillary Clinton a day later as the committee investigates the Epstein case, USA Today reported.

“The committee looks forward to confirming their appearance and remains committed to delivering transparency and accountability for survivors of Epstein’s heinous crimes and for the American people,” Comer said in a statement.

Comer on Aug. 5 sought the Clintons’ testimonies regarding their relationship with former financier and convicted sex offender Epstein, but their attorney asked Nov. 3 that they be allowed to submit a “written proffer of what little information” they have to share, according to the New York Post.

Comer accused the Clintons of demanding the House committee scrap any plans for them to appear before it when responding to the attorney’s request.

The committee chairman also said the attorney admitted the Clintons have relevant information regarding the matter.

“It is precisely the fact President Clinton and Secretary Clinton each maintained relationships with Mr. Epstein and Ms. [Ghislaine]Maxwell in their personal capacities as private citizens that is of interest to the committee,” Comer told the Clintons’ attorney.

Some legal experts have suggested the Clintons could claim executive privilege to avoid testifying before the committee, but others say the relationships they maintained while in their personal capacities would not be subject to executive privilege, according to the New York Post.

Maxwell unlikely to testify

While the Clintons are scheduled to appear before the House committee next month, Politico reported Maxwell has invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination if she were brought before the committee.

“I could spend a bunch of taxpayer dollars to send staff and members down there,” Comer said. “If she’s going to plead the Fifth, I don’t know that that’s a good investment.”

Maxwell is imprisoned for 20 years after being convicted on child-sex-trafficking charges in 2022.

Comer subpoenaed her testimony in July, but Maxwell said she only would testify after the appeals she filed regarding her conviction were addressed.

The Supreme Court since has denied her request to reassess her conviction.

Maxwell also has sought immunity against future prosecutions in exchange for her committee testimony, which Comer said will not happen.

She did participate in a two-day deposition with the Justice Department in July and afterward was transferred from a Florida prison to a minimum-security prison in Texas.

FBI, police protect Epstein files storage

The location where the Justice Department’s Epstein investigation files is being guarded after Mark Epstein, brother of Jeffrey, on Tuesday accused the FBI of scrubbing the files of any mention of Republicans while they are being held at its Central Records facility in Winchester, Va., Bloomberg reported.

Mark Epstein claimed a “credible source” told him the files were being doctored, and his claim was shared on social media. Several people suggested protesting the FBI’s Winchester office and possibly seizing the files.

FBI officials deemed such comments to be viable threats against the facility and the files and enhanced its security at the location. Police officers also are protecting Central Records facility officials and staff.

Summers and wife visited Epstein’s island

While the FBI is more closely guarding the Epstein investigation files, The Boston Globe reported that former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers and his wife, Elisa New, flew to Epstein’s privately owned Little Saint James island in the U.S. Virgin Islands 10 days after their 2005 wedding.

The trip was part of their extended honeymoon celebration and was a brief visit, Summers’ spokesperson Steven Goldberg.

Summers and New “have repeatedly expressed their regret for having any association with Jeffrey Epstein,” Goldberg said in a statement shared with the Boston newspaper Friday.

“Mr. Summers and Ms. New spent their honeymoon in St. John and Jamaica in December 2005, which was long before Mr. Epstein was arrested for the first time,” Goldberg said.

“As part of that trip, they made a brief visit of less than a day to Mr. Epstein’s island.”

Flight log records indicate Summers and New flew aboard Epstein’s private plane when they traveled from Bedford, Mass., to Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas, on Dec. 21, 2005.

They met with Maxwell and Epstein’s personal pilot, Larry Visoski, while on the island and during the same year that Florida investigators began looking into Epstein’s activities.

Despite Epstein’s subsequent arrest and guilty plea to two state charges that resulted in his designation as a sex offender and a year in jail, Summers, who also is a former Harvard University president, continued his friendly relationship with the financier.

That ended when Epstein was arrested in 2019 and later that year hung himself while jailed in New York City.

New also maintained her friendly relationship with Epstein and in 2014 thanked him for a donation that he made to support her academic research as a poetry professor at Harvard.

The financial gift from Epstein was not included in Harvard’s 2020 report regarding his activities involving the university.

New in 2018 also emailed Epstein regarding the novel Lolita, which is about an older man sexually abusing a 12-year-old girl, The Boston Globe reported.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday temporarily blocked a lower court ruling that found Texas’ 2026 congressional redistricting plan likely discriminates on the basis of race.

The order signed by Justice Samuel Alito will remain in place at least for the next few days while the court considers whether to allow the new map favorable to Republicans to be used in the midterm elections.

The court’s conservative majority has blocked similar lower court rulings because they have come too close to elections.

The order came about an hour after the state called on the high court to intervene to avoid confusion as congressional primary elections approach in March. The justices have blocked past lower-court rulings in congressional redistricting cases, most recently in Alabama and Louisiana, that came several months before elections.

The order was signed by Alito because he is the justice who handles emergency appeals from Texas.

Texas redrew its congressional map in the summer as part of Trump’s efforts to preserve a slim Republican majority in the House in next year’s elections, touching off a nationwide redistricting battle.

The new redistricting map was engineered to give Republicans five additional House seats, but a panel of federal judges in El Paso ruled 2-1 Tuesday that the civil rights groups that challenged the map on behalf of Black and Hispanic voters were likely to win their case.

If the ruling holds for now, Texas could be forced to hold elections next year using the map drawn by the GOP-controlled Legislature in 2021 based on the 2020 census.

Texas was the first state to meet Trump’s demands in what has become an expanding national battle over redistricting. Republicans drew the state’s new map to give the GOP five additional seats, and Missouri and North Carolina followed with new maps adding an additional Republican seat each. To counter those moves, California voters approved a ballot initiative to give Democrats an additional five seats.

The redrawn maps are facing court challenges in California, Missouri and North Carolina.

The Supreme Court is separately considering a case from Louisiana that could further limit race-based districts under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. It’s not entirely clear how the current round of redistricting would be affected by the outcome in the Louisiana case.

Sherman writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — Republicans won a significant political victory this month when moderate Senate Democrats joined them to end the longest government shutdown in U.S. history, relenting from a showdown over the rising costs of healthcare.

But the fight is already back on, with mere weeks to spare before the Trump administration faces a potential uproar from the public over the expiration of Affordable Care Act tax credits on New Year’s Day, when premium costs will skyrocket.

The fast-approaching deadline, coupled with stinging defeats in elections earlier this month driven by voter concerns over affordability, has prompted a series of crisis meetings in the West Wing over a path forward on Capitol Hill.

The White House response that emerged this week is a political Hail Mary for an increasingly divided party entering an election year: a second megabill, deploying the parliamentary tool of reconciliation, addressing not just healthcare costs but Trump’s tariff policies under intense scrutiny at the Supreme Court.

“We’re going to have the healthcare conversation. We’re going to put some legislation forward,” White House Deputy Chief of Staff James Blair said Tuesday, addressing a breakfast event hosted by Bloomberg Government, as House Republican leaders pitched the plan to their members in a closed-door meeting.

“The president probably would like to go bigger than the Hill has the appetite for,” Blair added, “so we’ll have to see how that, you know, works out.”

New plan, last minute

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise presented the plan to skeptical Republican lawmakers on Tuesday, arguing an extension of tax credits for what he called the “Unaffordable Care Act” — even if they are renegotiated on Republican terms — would only mask the problem of rising premium costs, ultimately burdening the taxpayer.

Trump sent a message to the caucus ahead of their meeting on Tuesday morning with a post on Truth Social, emphatic in all caps.

“THE ONLY HEALTHCARE I WILL SUPPORT OR APPROVE IS SENDING THE MONEY DIRECTLY BACK TO THE PEOPLE, WITH NOTHING GOING TO THE BIG, FAT, RICH INSURANCE COMPANIES, WHO HAVE MADE $TRILLIONS, AND RIPPED OFF AMERICA LONG ENOUGH,” Trump wrote. “THE PEOPLE WILL BE ALLOWED TO NEGOTIATE AND BUY THEIR OWN, MUCH BETTER, INSURANCE. POWER TO THE PEOPLE!”

“Congress, do not waste your time and energy on anything else,” Trump added. “This is the only way to have great Healthcare in America!!! GET IT DONE, NOW.”

Yet the plan is causing anxiety across a wide ideological range of Republican lawmakers, including moderates in vulnerable races entering next year’s midterm elections as well as those from deep red districts whose constituents rely on the Affordable Care Act, more widely known as Obamacare.

Nearly six in 10 Americans who use the ACA marketplace live in Republican districts, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. Enrollment is highest across the South, where districts across Texas, Mississippi, Georgia, South Carolina and Florida consistently see more than 10% of their residents relying on the program.

Going for broke with reconciliation

Trump’s proposal would do away with the tax credits, potentially overhauling health savings accounts that would encourage Americans to save on their own and choose their healthcare plan.

But it’s unclear whether such a dramatic, last-minute change in the healthcare system, still in draft form, would garner enough Republican support to pass the House, where Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) can only afford to lose two Republicans on party-line votes.

The bill would come in a perilous political environment for Republican lawmakers, who one year ago faced a tie with Democrats on a generic ballot, according to an NPR/PBS News/Marist poll. In the group’s latest poll, Democrats are up by 14 points.

Even if Trump’s proposal were to secure House support, the Trump administration’s plan to pursue a bill through reconciliation in the Senate — which allows the upper chamber to pass legislation with a simple majority, instead of 60 votes — could face significant hurdles.

Senate parliamentary rules only allow reconciliation to be used for legislation that directly changes federal spending, revenues, or the debt limit. That could encompass an overhaul to health savings accounts, and potentially to codify Trump’s tariff policies, which have been approved through reconciliation in years past. But the fine print would be up to the discretion of the parliamentarian, whose cuts to tangential policy provisions could upend delicate negotiations.

Reconciliation was used in Trump’s last major push to repeal Obamacare, in 2017, when the late Sen. John McCain (R-Az.) surprised the nation with a thumbs-down vote on the measure.

That bill, McCain argued, would have repealed the healthcare of millions without a plan to replace it.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Could Trump destroy the Epstein files?
The deep dive: A bombshell federal fraud case exploded inside Gov. Newsom’s powerful political orbit
The L.A. Times Special: This Arizona town is an unexpected magnet for Californians: ‘We do it our way’

More to come,
Michael Wilner
—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Nov. 19 (UPI) — A federal judge in Texas has ordered state schools to take down displayed posters of the Ten Commandments in supposed violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton directed schools across the Lone Star State to display the Ten Commandments less than a week after a federal court ruled in favor of 11 school districts that fought against the religious exhibition in classrooms.

On Tuesday, federal Judge Orlando L. Garcia issued a preliminary injunction that instructed the state’s districts to remove the display in violation of the Constitution’s Establishment Clause in the First Amendment.

“It is impractical, if not impossible, to prevent plaintiffs from being subjected to unwelcome religious displays without enjoining defendants from enforcing Senate Bill 10 across their districts,” he wrote.

Garcia’s order was effective December 1.

The case was brought on by 15 families of a multi-faith and nonreligious background.

“All Texas public school districts should heed the court’s clear warning: it’s plainly unconstitutional to display the Ten Commandments in classrooms,” said Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

It’s now the second time a court has ruled against the law signed into law in June by Texas Gov. Gregg Abbott, a Republican.

“Families throughout Texas and across the country get to decide how and when their children engage with religion — not politicians or public-school officials,” Laser continued.

Paxton has sued three school districts for refusing.

A legal representative for the American Civil Liberties Union in Texas said Garcia’s ruling was further affirmation of what’s already accepted legal truth: “the First Amendment guarantees families and faith communities — not the government — the right to instill religious beliefs in our children.”

Similar laws were struck down in Arkansas and Louisiana, which became the first state to pass the mandate in summer 2024.

Legal experts suggest the issue will eventually make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In 2015, a Ten Commandment monument was ordered by the state’s Supreme Court to be removed from the Oklahoma State Capitol grounds, arguing that Oklahoma’s constitution banned the use of public property for “the benefit of any religious purpose.”

“Our schools are for education, not evangelization,” Chloe Kempf, a staff attorney for the Texas ACLU, added in a statement. “This ruling protects thousands of Texas students from ostracization, bullying and state-mandated religious coercion.”

Every school district in Texas, she added, was “now on notice that implementing S.B. 10 violates their students’ constitutional rights.”

WASHINGTON — A federal court has blocked Texas from moving forward with a new congressional map hastily drawn in recent months to net Republicans up to five additional seats in the U.S. House of Representatives in next year’s midterm elections.

The ruling on Tuesday is a major political blow to the Trump administration, which set off a redistricting arms race throughout the country earlier this year by encouraging Texas lawmakers to redraw its congressional district boundaries mid-decade — an extraordinary move bucking traditional practice.

The three-judge federal court panel in El Paso said in a 2-1 decision that “substantial evidence shows that Texas racially gerrymandered the 2025 Map,” ordering the state to revert to the maps it had drawn in 2021.

Texas’ Republican governor, Greg Abbott, who at Trump’s behest directed GOP state lawmakers to proceed with the plan, vowed on Tuesday that the state would appeal the ruling all the way to the Supreme Court.

Californians responded to Texas’ attempted move by voting on Nov. 4 to approve a new, temporary congressional map for the state, giving Democrats the opportunity to pick up five new seats.

Initially, the proposal pushed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, known as Prop. 50, had trigger language that would have conditioned new California maps going into effect based on whether Texas approved its new congressional districts.

But that language was stripped out last minute, raising the possibility that Democrats enter the 2026 midterm election with a distinct advantage. The language was removed because Texas had already passed its redistricting plan, making the trigger no longer needed, said Democratic redistricting expert Paul Mitchell, who drew the maps for Prop. 50.

“Our legislature eliminated the trigger because Texas had already triggered it,” Mitchell said Tuesday.

Newsom celebrated the ruling in a statement to The Times, which he also posted on the social media site X.

“Donald Trump and Greg Abbott played with fire, got burned — and democracy won,” Newsom said. “This ruling is a win for Texas, and for every American who fights for free and fair elections.”

Legal scholars had warned that Texas’ bid would invite accusations and legal challenges of racial gerrymandering that California’s maps would not.

The new Texas redistricting plan appears to have been instigated by a letter from Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon, who threatened Texas with legal action over three “coalition districts” that she argued were unconstitutional.

Coalition districts feature multiple minority communities, none of which comprises the majority. The newly configured districts passed by Texas redrew all three, potentially “cracking” racially diverse communities while preserving white-majority districts, legal scholars said.

While the Supreme Court’s rulings on redistricting have been sporadic, the justices have generally ruled that purely political redistricting is legal, but that racial gerrymandering is not — a more difficult line to draw in southern states where racial and political lines overlap.

In 2023, addressing a redistricting fight in Alabama over Black voter representation, the high court ruled in Allen vs. Milligan that discriminating against minority voters in gerrymandering is unconstitutional, ordering the Southern state to create a second minority-majority district.

The Justice Department is also suing California to attempt to block the use of its new maps in next year’s elections.

Times staff writer Melody Gutierrez contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court agreed Monday to hear a Trump administration appeal that argues migrants have no right to seek asylum at the southern border.

Rather, the government says border agents may block asylum seekers from stepping on to U.S. soil and turn away their claims without a hearing.

The new case seeks to clarify the immigration laws and resolve an issue that has divided past administrations and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Under federal law, migrants who faces persecution in their home countries may apply for asylum and receive a screening hearing if they are “physically present in the United States” or if such a person “arrives in the United States.”

Since 2016, however, the Obama, Biden and Trump administrations responded to surges at the border by adopting temporary rules which required migrants to wait on the Mexican side before they could apply for asylum.

But in May, a divided 9th Circuit Court ruled those restrictions were illegal if they prevented migrants from applying for asylum.

“To ‘arrive’ means ‘to reach a destination,’” wrote Judge Michelle Friedland, citing a dictionary definition. “A person who presents herself to an official at the border has ‘arrived.’”

She said this interpretation “does not radically expand the right to asylum.” By contrast, the “government’s reading would reflect a radical reconstruction of the right to apply for asylum because it would give the executive branch vast discretion to prevent people from applying by blocking them at the border.”

“We therefore conclude that a non-citizen stopped by U.S. officials at the border is eligible to apply for asylum,” she wrote.

The 2-1 decision upheld a federal judge in San Diego who ruled for migrants who had filed a class-action suit and said they were wrongly denied an asylum hearing.

But Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer urged the Supreme Court to review and reverse the appellate ruling, noting 15 judges of the 9th Circuit joined dissents that called the decision “radical” and “clearly wrong.”

In football, a “running back does not ‘arrive in’ the end zone when he is stopped at the one-yard line,” Sauer wrote.

He said federal immigration law “does not grant aliens throughout the world a right to enter the United States so that they can seek asylum.” From abroad, they may “seek admission as refugees,” he said, but the government may enforce its laws by “blocking illegal immigrants from stepping on U.S. soil.”

Immigrants rights lawyers advised the court to turn away the appeal because the government is no longer using the “metering” system that required migrants to wait for a hearing.

Since June 2024, they said the government has restricted inspections and processing of these non-citizens under a different provision of law that authorizes the president to “suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of alien” if he believes they would be “detrimental to the interests of the United States.”

The government also routinely sends back migrants who illegally cross the border.

But the solicitor general said the asylum provision should be clarified.

The justices voted to hear the case of Noem vs. Al Otro Lado early next year and decide “whether an alien who is stopped on the Mexican side of the U.S.-Mexico border ‘arrives in the United States’ within the meaning” of federal immigration law.

SACRAMENTO — So far, gubernatorial candidate Xavier Becerra has escaped the bright spotlight focused on Gov. Gavin Newsom in the money pilfering scandal involving their former top aides. But that could change.

It seems only a matter of time before one of Becerra’s campaign rivals seizes the federal fraud case for attack fodder. I can hear it already: “If the man who wants to be governor can’t protect his own political funds, he shouldn’t be trusted to safeguard your tax money.”

That might not be fair, but this is big-time politics. And the word “fair” isn’t in the political dictionary.

Neither Becerra nor Newsom is implicated in any wrongdoing.

Newsom has drawn heavy media attention because his former chief of staff, Dana Williamson, is the central figure in the criminal case. Newsom also has made himself into a national political celebrity and the leader in early polling for the 2028 Democratic presidential nomination. That makes him prime news copy.

Becerra is low-profile by comparison, although he has achieved a very successful and respectable career: U.S. Health and Human Services secretary under President Biden, California attorney general and 12-term congressman.

It was Becerra’s dormant state political account that allegedly got pilfered of $225,000 while he was health secretary.

Federal prosecutors allege that Williamson, former Becerra chief of staff Sean McCluskie and Sacramento lobbyist Greg Campbell illegally diverted money to McCluskie’s wife, funneling the loot through shell companies for bogus consulting services.

McCluskie and Campbell both pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit fraud and have been cooperating with the federal government.

Williamson, who allegedly fleeced Becerra’s political kitty when she owned a government relations firm before joining Newsom’s staff, pleaded not guilty to bank and tax fraud charges. Besides raiding Becerra’s account, she’s accused of falsifying documents involving a COVID small-business loan and claiming $1 million in personal luxuries as business expenses on her income taxes.

After news of the case broke last week with Williamson’s arrest, Newsom’s office said the governor suspended her last November after she informed him of the federal investigation.

There also was a sophomoric attempt by a Newsom spokesperson to link the federal case to the combative relationship between President Trump and the California governor. It’s true Trump has been targeting his “enemies.” But this three-year FBI probe began under the Biden administration.

Becerra issued a statement saying that the “formal accusations of impropriety by a long-serving trusted advisor are a gut punch.” He also said he had been cooperating with the U.S. Justice Department‘s investigation.

The federal indictment alleges that McCluskie and Williamson misled Becerra about how monthly withdrawals from his political account were to be used.

The account stash of nearly $2 million was raised for a 2022 attorney general reelection campaign that never occurred because by then Becerra was health secretary. But the money could be used in some future state race, such as for governor.

Political operatives I talked with were stunned that $225,000 could be siphoned out of a politician’s campaign account without him noticing.

“Did the account have no one watching it except the consultants who were pilfering from it?” asked veteran Democratic consultant Garry South. “Those of us who have run campaigns are scratching our heads. I can’t imagine how this would happen.”

I asked the Becerra campaign.

A spokesperson replied that the health secretary had authorized payments for “campaign management” after being misled by trusted advisors.

Also, the spokesperson added, Becerra was counseled by a Health and Human Services attorney to distance himself from any “campaign or political activity” prohibited by the federal Hatch Act and ethics rules. So he delegated responsibility for managing the account to advisors.

And he got snookered and ripped off.

Will it tarnish Becerra’s image and hurt his campaign for governor? We don’t know yet. But probably not that much, if any. His only sin, after all, was trusting the wrong people and following an attorney’s advice.

Even big scandals don’t seem to damage politicians in this era — Trump being the unfathomable best example.

It could crimp Becerra’s fundraising if potential donors wonder where their money is actually going and whether anyone credible will be watching it.

The gubernatorial race is still wide open without a real front-runner. No candidate is captivating the voters.

A late October poll by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies showed paltry numbers for all candidates. Former Orange County Rep. Katie Porter led Democrats with 11% support among registered voters. Becerra was second with 8%. A whopping 44% of those surveyed were undecided.

Riverside County Sheriff Chad Blanco, a Republican, was first overall with 13%. But no Republican need apply for this job. California hasn’t elected a GOP candidate to a statewide office since 2006.

Becerra has as good a shot at winning as any current candidate. He was the leading Democrat among Latinos at 12%.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Front-runner or flash in the pan? Sizing up Newsom, 2028
CA vs. Trump: At Brazilian climate summit, Newsom positions California as a stand-in for the U.S.
The L.A. Times Special: Indictment of ex-Newsom aide hints at feds’ probe into state’s earlier investigation of video game giant

Until next week,
George Skelton

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Nov. 16 (UPI) — Hundreds of troops from the Texas National Guard and California National Guard will return to their home states after their deployment to Chicago and Portland, Ore., reports said Sunday.

President Donald Trump federalized 200 members of the Texas National Guard who were deployed to Chicago on Oct. 6, while another 200 from the California National Guard were deployed to Portland.

Around 300 Illinois National Guard troops were also activated in Chicago, and 200 Oregon National Guard troops were activated in Portland.

The Trump administration has justified the federalization of National Guard troops as a means to protect federal authorities and buildings amid widespread protests over raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other agencies.

Anonymous sources told CBS News and CNN that troops from California and Texas would soon return home, while the Trump administration would reduce the number of federalized Oregon National Guard members from 200 to 100, keeping all 300 Illinois National Guard members in place.

To activate the troops, Trump had invoked Title 10 of the federal code, which allows the president to call up National Guard members from any state if another is “in danger of invasion by a foreign nation” or if there is a “danger of rebellion against the authority of the government.”

The activations prompted immediate lawsuits in Illinois and Oregon, which contested Trump’s justification for federalizing and sending National Guard troops.

U.S. District Court Judge April Perry in her ruling had found that there was “no credible evidence that there is a danger of rebellion in the state of Illinois.”

Her ruling was then upheld by a circuit court panel that wrote “political opposition is not rebellion,” blocking the National Guard members from actually deploying on Chicago streets.

The Trump administration then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has issued an order for a supplemental briefing and has not yet granted a full review of the case.

Concurrently, U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut granted a temporary restraining order to block the federalization of Oregon National Guard troops in early October, also preventing them from deploying on Chicago streets.

A circuit court panel then stayed her order, permitting their deployment as the case continued through the lower court.

Immergut then issued a ruling on Nov. 7 that found Trump’s federalization order to be unlawful, exceeding his statutory authority under Title 10 and violating the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution on state sovereignty, again blocking their deployment. The Trump administration has appealed that case to Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Meanwhile, U.S. Northern Command issued a statement Friday that said the U.S. Defense Department would “be shifting” its Title 10 footprint in Portland, Chicago and Los Angeles, which saw troop deployments earlier this year. It indicated that the U.S. would be establishing a “long-term presence” of troops in each city.

“Our work to protect federal functions, personnel, and property remains a top priority — each and every day. We are prepared to commit as many troops as needed, for as long as needed, to support our law enforcement partners in cities across the country,” the statement reads.

“Our troops in each city (and others) are trained and ready, and will be employed whenever needed to support law enforcement and keep our citizens safe.”

Nov. 14 (UPI) — The Georgia Prosecuting Attorneys Council announced a replacement for Fani Willis as the prosecutor in the election interference case against President Donald Trump and 14 others charged.

PAC Executive Director Peter J. Skandalakis announced on Friday, that he would prosecute the case because the group couldn’t find anyone to take it up.

“Several prosecutors were contacted and, while all were respectful and professional, each declined the appointment,” he said in the announcement. “Out of respect for their privacy and professional discretion, I will not identify those prosecutors or disclose their reasons for declining.”

In September, the Georgia Supreme Court denied Willis’ attempt to continue in the case. It refused to hear her appeal of a lower court’s decision to disqualify her because of “impropriety.” She had a romantic relationship with the special prosecutor in the case.

Another reason he chose to prosecute the case is that he has some familiarity with the case file. The documents he received to review included 101 banker boxes of documents and an 8-terabyte hard drive, which he hasn’t had the time to fully read.

Some of the others charged include former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and former Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani.

On Nov. 7, Trump pardoned 77 people, including those involved in the Georgia case.

Skandalakis said the pardons don’t apply to state charges, only federal ones. “Therefore, the task before my office remains unchanged,” he said.

Trump’s attorney Steve Sadow said the “politically charged prosecution has come to an end.”

“We remain confident that a fair and impartial review will lead to a dismissal of the case against President Trump,” Sadow said.

Skandalakis noted the importance of the case.

“I am keenly aware that this matter has been of significant public interest since January 2021, when District Attorney Fani Willis announced the initiation of the investigation,” he said in a statement. “My only objective is to ensure that this case is handled properly, fairly, and with full transparency discharging my duties without fear, favor, or affection.”

WASHINGTON  — The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business groups urged the Supreme Court on Friday to block new California laws that will require thousands of companies to disclose their emissions and their impacts on climate change.

One of the laws is due to take effect on Jan. 1, and the emergency appeal asks the court to put it on hold temporarily.

Their lawyers argue the measures violate the 1st Amendment because the state would be forcing companies to speak on its preferred topic.

“In less than eight weeks, California will compel thousands of companies across the nation to speak on the deeply controversial topic of climate change,” they said in an appeal that also spoke for the California Chamber of Commerce and the Los Angeles County Business Federation.

They say the two new laws would require companies to disclose the “climate-related risks” they foresee and how their operations and emissions contribute to climate change.

“Both laws are part of California’s open campaign to force companies into the public debate on climate issues and pressure them to alter their behavior,” they said. Their aim, according to their sponsors, is to “make sure that the public actually knows who’s green and who isn’t.”

One law, SB 261, will require several thousand companies that do business in California to assess their “climate-related financial risk” and how they may reduce that risk. A second measure, Senate Bill 253, which applies to larger companies, requires them to assess and disclose their emissions and how their operations could impact the climate.

The appeal argues these laws amount to unconstitutional compelled speech.

“No state may violate 1st Amendment rights to set climate policy for the Nation. Compelled-speech laws are presumptively unconstitutional — especially where, as here, they dictate a value-laden script on a controversial subject such as climate change,” they argue.

The emergency appeal was filed by Washington attorney Eugene Scalia, a son of the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

The companies have tried and failed to persuade judges in California to block the measures. Exxon Mobil filed a suit in Sacramento, while the Chamber of Commerce sued in Los Angeles.

In August, U.S. District Judge Otis Wright II in Los Angeles refused to block the laws on the grounds they “regulate commercial speech,” which gets less protection under the 1st Amendment. He said businesses are routinely required to disclose financial data and factual information on their operations.

The business lawyers said they had appealed to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals asking for an injunction, but no action has been taken.

Shortly after the chamber’s appeal was filed, state attorneys for Iowa and 24 other Republican-leaning states joined in support. They said they “strongly oppose this radical green speech mandate that California seeks to impose on companies.”

The justices are likely to ask for a response next week from California’s state attorneys before acting on the appeal.

WASHINGTON — Before flying to Brazil this week, showing up for the United States at an international summit skipped by the Trump administration, California Gov. Gavin Newsom made a stop in Texas. The redistricting fight that had started there had come to a halt in California thanks to the governor’s action. “Don’t poke the bear,” Newsom told an elated crowd of Democrats.

In Washington, a handful of Senate Democrats had just voted with Republicans to reopen the government, relenting on a fight for an extension of healthcare tax credits. Newsom lashed out harshly against his party colleagues. “Pathetic,” he wrote online, later telling The Times, “you don’t start something unless you’re going to finish.”

They were just Newsom’s latest moves in an aggressive strategy to shore up early support for an expected run for president starting next year, after the 2026 midterm elections, when both parties will face competitive primaries without an incumbent seeking reelection for the first time since 2016.

The opportunity to redefine a party in transition and win its presidential nomination has, in recent cycles, led to historically large primary fields for both Democrats and Republicans, often featuring over 20 candidates at the start of a modern race.

And yet, one year out, Newsom appears to be running alone and out front in an open field, with expected competitors taking few steps to blunt his momentum, ceding ground in public media and with private donors to the emerging front-runner.

Former Vice President Kamala Harris remains well-respected among Democratic voters and is said to be flirting with another campaign. Other candidates, including Govs. Wes Moore of Maryland, JB Pritzker of Illinois, Andy Beshear of Kentucky, Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania and Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan, Sens. Ruben Gallego of Arizona and Chris Murphy of Connecticut, New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, are all said to be considering bids.

But Newsom has begun pulling away from the pack in public polling, emerging as the Democrats’ leading choice and running competitively against top Republican contenders.

“It’s very early, but at the moment Gov. Newsom seems to have his finger more acutely on the pulse of Democratic voters than his 2028 rivals,” said Sawyer Hackett, a Democratic strategist and content creator who worked on presidential campaigns for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

“As a governor, Newsom has an advantageous perch to fight back and command attention,” Hackett said, “but he’s getting a significant head start in defining himself politically — as the guy who can take on Trump. And the battle for attention will only get harder as more contenders enter the ring.”

Running to the center

Over the summer, Newsom embraced a social media strategy leaning into the vitalist, masculine culture that has captured the attention of young American men and helped drive them to President Trump’s reelection campaign last year — a strategy that Newsom has said will be key to Democratic hopes of recapturing the White House.

“We need to own up to the fact that we ceded that ground — we walked away from this crisis of men and boys,” Newsom told CNN in an interview this week. “They were attracted to this notion of strength: strong and wrong, not weak and right.”

In a series of interviews and podcasts with with conservative commentators, the governor announced his opposition to transgender athletes competing in girls’ sports. He moved to limit access to California’s Medicaid program for immigrants without legal status. And he directed a crackdown on homeless encampments across cities in California that had blighted the state’s national image.

The moves were seen as an effort by Newsom to position himself as a centrist heading into the campaign, a posture that could benefit him in a general election. But it could also open the governor up to a robust challenge from the progressive left.

In 2014, as former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was laying the groundwork for her run for president, polling showed her as the overwhelming favorite to win the Democratic nomination — and ahead of all competitors by 49 points in the crucial battleground state of New Hampshire. She would ultimately secure the nomination, but only after facing down a serious challenge from Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who beat her soundly in the Granite State.

“One of the biggest pitfalls is who else might get in,” said Christian Grose, a professor of political science at USC and principal of Data Viewpoint, a data and polling firm. “At this stage with such a wide-open race, he is the front-runner, but who runs and who does not will shape his chances.”

Ocasio-Cortez could pose a similar challenge to an establishment candidate like Newsom, political analysts said. But her prospects in a Democratic primary and in a general election are different matters. In 2020, when Sanders once again appeared close to the nomination, other candidates cleared the field to help Joe Biden secure a victory and take on Trump.

“The shape of the field is still fuzzy,” said Jack Pitney, a politics professor at Claremont McKenna College. “AOC generates excitement, but no House member has gone directly to the White House since [James] Garfield in 1880.”

Risks to an early start

Newsom’s yearlong head start has earned him practical advantages. The campaign for Proposition 50, Newsom’s successful bid to redraw California’s congressional map along partisan lines, drew a new set of donors to a governor whose experience up until now had been limited to statewide office. Assertive exposure on social and legacy media has enhanced his name recognition nationwide.

He will need both to compete against Harris, a fellow Californian who could be convinced to stay out of the race if she isn’t confident she will win the primary, a source familiar with her thinking told The Times. Harris would enter the race with the benefit of widespread name identification and inherited donor rolls from her previous campaigns.

“This stage in the race for 2028 we generally call the ‘pre-primary’ period, in which would-be candidates compete for three resources: media attention, money, and staff. Newsom is definitely ahead in the “media pre-primary” at this point,” said Todd Belt, professor and director of the political management master’s program at George Washington University.

“A candidate definitely wants to be seen as the front-runner early on in order to attract the best staff,” Belt said. “It’s also good to get donors committed early on so they don’t contribute to others in the race, and you can then go back to them for more donations and bundling.”

But in a media environment where voters have increasingly short attention spans, Newsom could risk flaming out early or peaking too soon, analysts said.

Other centrist candidates could emerge with less baggage, such as Gallego, a young Latino lawmaker and Marine combat veteran from a working-class background.

“If Democrats care about winning the general election, Ruben Gallego is one to watch,” Pitney added. “He could appeal to groups with which Democrats have struggled lately. Newsom does not exactly give off blue-collar vibes.”

Grose, of USC, also said that Newsom’s association with coastal California could pose significant political challenges to the governor.

“There are pitfalls,” Grose said. “He needs to sell California, so any perceptions of the state’s problems don’t drag him down.”

What else you should be reading

The must-read: LAFD knew of firefighter complaints about Lachman mop-up and said nothing
The deep dive: Immigrant detainees say they were harassed, sexually assaulted by guard who got promoted
The L.A. Times Special: 26 Los Angeles restaurants to order Thanksgiving takeout from this year

More to come,
Michael Wilner
—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Reporting from Washington — President Trump is expected to move quickly to nominate a replacement for retiring Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s soon-to-be-vacant Supreme Court seat, and two leading candidates are veteran Washington, D.C., appellate Judge Brett Kavanaugh and Judge Amy Coney Barrett, a former Notre Dame law professor and recent Trump appointee to the 7th Circuit in Chicago.

They emerged from a list of more than two dozen potential nominees put together by the conservative Federalist Society and Heritage Foundation.

The list was Trump’s idea and it has proven effective, said Leonard Leo, a Federalist Society official who is advising the White House. It told Republican voters that he was serious about appointing only reliable conservatives to the high court, he said.

Unlike in decades past, when presidents and their top lawyers scrambled to find a qualified nominee when a vacancy suddenly arose, the Federalist Society list is the result of careful screening. A team of lawyers read and analyzed everything written or said by the candidates.

Their unofficial motto is “No more Souters,” a reference to now-retired Justice David H. Souter, who was nominated by President George H.W. Bush in 1990. Souter was a little-known judge from New Hampshire, but the White House team assured Republicans he was a conservative.

They were wrong. Souter was careful and cautious as a judge and devoted to precedent. But his leanings were moderate to liberal. In 1992, Souter along with Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Sandra Day O’Connor joined to uphold the right to abortion announced two decades earlier in Roe vs. Wade.

Conservatives are determined never to make the same mistake again.

Kavanaugh, 53, grew up in Washington and is the favorite of many conservative lawyers here. He went to Yale Law School and clerked at the Supreme Court for Kennedy alongside Neil M. Gorsuch, who joined the court last year as Trump’s first appointment. Kavanaugh was a top deputy to independent counsel Kenneth Starr in the long investigation of President Clinton, and he drafted the Starr Report that led to Clinton’s impeachment. He also joined the legal team that represented George W. Bush in the fight over the recount in the 2000 presidential election.

Kavanaugh worked in the White House counsel’s office for Bush and later served as his staff secretary.

In 2003, Bush nominated him to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, but Democrats initially blocked his confirmation. Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) called him a “very bright legal foot soldier” who has been in the middle of every partisan legal battle. But Kavanaugh finally won confirmation in 2006.

Since then, Kavanaugh has written hundreds of opinions, and he is known for always staking out a conservative position.

“He is much more conservative in his approach to law than Justice Kennedy,” said Justin Walker, a University of Louisville law professor who clerked for Kavanaugh at the appeals court and Kennedy at the Supreme Court. “There is no guesswork with Judge Kavanaugh. He is extremely predictable.”

Walker cited, as an example, Kavanaugh’s support for the right to own a semiautomatic rifle under the 2nd Amendment. In 2008, the Supreme Court struck down a District of Columbia ordinance that prohibited residents from having a handgun at home. The same plaintiff later claimed the right to possess a semiautomatic weapon, but lost by a 2-1 vote in the D.C. Circuit, Walker noted. Kavanaugh wrote a lengthy dissent arguing that the 2nd Amendment included the right to have such a weapon.

The Supreme Court, however, has rejected appeals raising that issue, which has the effect of upholding laws and ordinances that banned such assault weapons.

Last fall, Kavanaugh was involved in a quick-moving dispute over whether a migrant teenager in Texas could be released from immigration custody to obtain an abortion. A federal judge cleared the way, but Kavanaugh wrote a 2-1 decision siding with Trump administration lawyers and blocking the abortion for up to 10 more days. The full appeals court intervened and overturned his ruling. In dissent, he faulted his more liberal colleagues as wrongly creating a “new right for unlawful immigrant minors in U.S. government detention to obtain abortion on demand.”

Like many judges, he has avoided any direct comments in his legal opinions about Roe vs. Wade, the landmark abortion ruling that will loom large over upcoming confirmation hearings.

In contrast to Kavanaugh, Barrett, 46, is a newcomer with a sparse record as a judge. She is a product of the University of Notre Dame and South Bend, Ind. She went law school at Notre Dame and spent a few years in Washington as a law clerk for D.C. Circuit Judge Laurence Silberman and Justice Antonin Scalia. She returned in 2002 to teach law at Notre Dame.

Barrett was narrowly confirmed by the Senate in November, and now commutes a few days a week from South Bend to downtown Chicago.

She has, however, written and spoken frequently about the importance of her Catholic faith and in her belief that life begins at conception. In a 2003 scholarly article, she suggested Roe vs. Wade was an “erroneous decision.”

During her Senate hearing, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said she had read Barrett’s writings, adding that the “dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s a concern.”

That comment triggered a sharp backlash from Barrett’s defenders and others, who said the nominee was being criticized for her faith.

But if Barrett is the nominee, Democrats and liberal activists are certain to focus on her views about abortion and the role they might play if the court is asked to overturn Roe.

The latest from Washington »

More stories from David G. Savage »

[email protected]

Twitter: DavidGSavage

SACRAMENTO — One takeaway from last week’s elections: The role model for California Gov. Gavin Newsom as he runs for president should be New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani.

Actually, Mamdani should be emulated not only by Newsom but by Democrats running for office anywhere.

Neither Newsom, of course, nor any candidate outside the most leftist burgs in America should wear the label “democratic socialist,” as Mamdani calls himself. That would frighten too many voters.

But what does appeal to voters — and always has in America — is a strong, positive message of hope. People like to think that a candidate understands their daily troubles and has a vision of how to make their lives better.

Mamdani is a 34-year-old Ugandan-born Muslim of Indian descent and a back-bench New York state assemblyman who the political experts would never figure to win a top-tier elective post such as New York mayor. But he has charisma, exudes authenticity and fills voters with hope.

OK, some of his campaign promises are undeliverable, even in liberal New York: free bus service, free child care and city-run grocery stores. But I suspect many voters didn’t take those pledges literally. It was the boldness and commitment to change for their betterment that drew people to him.

It’s a message framework that has been a winner throughout history.

Franklin D. Roosevelt promised “a new deal for the American people” and gave them hope with his radio fireside chats during the Great Depression.

John F. Kennedy offered a “new frontier.” Barack Obama chanted, “Yes we can” and ran on a slogan of “hope.”

They were all Democrats. But Republican founder Abraham Lincoln urged Americans to “vote yourself a farm and horses” and promised them homesteads on the western frontier.

Ronald Reagan declared: “Let’s make America great again.” Then Donald Trump stole the line and ruined it for any future candidate.

Newsom’s spiel has mostly been that Trump is lower than a worm. That has worked up until now. He has established himself as the Democrats’ most aggressive combatant against Trumpism — and the leader in early polling for the party’s 2028 presidential nomination.

Last week, his national party credentials were bolstered after orchestrating landslide voter approval of Proposition 50, aimed at countering Trump-coerced congressional redistricting in Texas and other red states.

Trump is desperate for the GOP to retain its narrow majority in the House of Representatives during next year’s midterm elections. But Proposition 50 gerrymandering could flip five California seats from Republican to Democrat — perhaps helping Democrats capture House control. Newsom becomes a party hero.

“He’s now a serious front-runner for the Democratic nomination,” says Bob Shrum, a former Democratic consultant who is director of the Center for the Political Future at USC.

Political strategist Mike Murphy, a former Republican turned independent, says “the Democratic presidential race in ‘25 has been won by Gavin Newsom. He made a bet [on Proposition 50] and it paid off.”

But Shrum, Murphy and other veteran politicos agree that Newsom at some point must change his script from predominantly anti-Trump to an appealing agenda for the future.

“He has to have an affordability message, for one,” Shrum says. “And he has to connect with voters. Voters just don’t go down a list of issues. FDR, JFK, Obama, they all were very connected with voters.”

Murphy: “He’s going to have to expand from fighting Trump to talking about his vision for helping the middle class. I’d say, ‘The era of Trump will soon be over. I have a way to bring back the American dream and here’s how I’m going to do it.’”

Easier said than done, especially if you’re the governor of troubled California.

“If it’s about a referendum on California, he has a vulnerability,” Murphy says. “He can’t run on ‘California is great.’”

Newsom consistently brags that California is a pacesetter for the nation. But lots of Americans want nothing to do with our pacesetting.

“You can’t have the highest unemployment, highest gas prices and the biggest homeless problem and tell Americans that everything in California is hunky-dory,” says Republican consultant Rob Stutzman. “Because voters don’t believe that.”

But Democratic consultant Bill Carrick, a South Carolina native, dismisses the effect of anti-California attitudes in Democratic presidential primaries.

“The notion that he can’t win in the South and border states, that’s nonsense,” Carrick says. “People who say that are Republicans. They don’t like Newsom or any other Democrat. People who vote in primaries are hardcore Democrats.”

But Carrick acknowledges that an anti-California bias could hurt Newsom in some states during a general election.

Here’s another takeaway from the elections: The Democratic Party is not in the toilet as far as it has been soul-searching since last November’s presidential election.

Last week, Democrats won everything from local commissioner to governor in much of the country. It confirmed my belief that the party’s chief problem in 2024 was a lousy presidential effort.

President Biden didn’t withdraw early enough for the party to hold primaries that would have allowed its nominee to build wide support. And Kamala Harris simply lacked appeal and didn’t inspire.

Democratic voter enthusiasm was contagious this time.

“There was one of the most exciting ground operations I’ve seen in a long time for 50,” says Democratic strategist Gale Kaufman. “Local party clubs, activists, union members all came together.”

Democrats can thank Trump.

“Voters really don’t trust Democrats but they‘re so angry with Trump it doesn’t matter,” says Dan Schnur, a political science instructor at USC and UC Berkeley.

Final takeaway: Trump has morphed into a Republican albatross.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: After outburst, Katie Porter’s support in the California governor’s race slips, new poll shows
The TK: Proposition 50 is a short-term victory against Trump. But at what cost?
The L.A. Times Special: Taking inspiration from Mamdani, democratic socialists look to expand their power in L.A.

Until next week,
George Skelton

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Nov. 10 (UPI) — The nation’s high court will decide if mail-in ballots need to be submitted by Election Day in a ruling that could affect the 2026 midterm election.

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to weigh in on whether individual states can accept mail-in ballots sent on Election Day, in a bid by Mississippi GOP leaders to overturn a similar state law.

“The stakes are high: ballots cast by — but received after — Election Day can swing close races and change the course of the country,” Mississippi’s Attorney General Lynn Fitch, a Republican, wrote in court documents.

Mississippi election law permits mail-in ballots received after Election Day to be counted.

Around 16 states currently count ballots received after Election Day, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

The practice has been targeted by the Republican National Committee. A Mississippi court backed state Republicans in the belief that state statutes preempt federal law.

In addition, Mississippi’s Libertarian Party also joined the lawsuit in opposition to the state’s current practice.

Each state manages its own election process. But federal law states election day is the first Tuesday in November.

Republicans claim that states accepting ballots after Election Day is a contravention of federal law.

“It should await a case where the lower court answers the question presented incorrectly, should one ever arise,” the RNC stated in a court filing.

U.S. President Donald Trump has flip-flopped on the issue of mail-in ballots for years, most recently in opposition as Republicans seek to expand and maintain power ahead of next year’s election, including efforts at mid-cycle redistricting after sweeping nationwide defeats for the GOP in state and local races on Nov. 4.

Meanwhile, oral arguments in the case are expected next year.

A decision could arrive as early as summer 2026, ahead of November’s mid-term elections.

The US Supreme Court has declined to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, its landmark ruling that legalised same-sex marriage nationwide.

On Monday (10 November), the court denied the appeal from Kim Davis, the former Kentucky county clerk who made headlines for refusing to sign marriage licenses for gay couples. Davis faces hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages and legal fees.

The possibility of same-sex marriage being overturned gained widespread attention in 2022 after the court’s 6-3 conservative majority overturned Roe v. Wade, ending the federal right to abortion. Another factor is that the Supreme Court is now far more conservative than the court that decided Obergefell in 2015.

According to reports, the court did not provide an explanation for its decision to deny the appeal.

Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said in a statement: “Today, love won again. When public officials take an oath to serve their communities, that promise extends to everyone – including LGBTQ+ people. The Supreme Court made clear today that refusing to respect the constitutional rights of others does not come without consequences.”

Justice Anthony Kennedy, the key swing vote who authored the Obergefell decision in 2015 and retired three years later, added: “No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than they once were.”

Davis was represented by Liberty Counsel, a far-right Christian legal group and Southern Poverty Law Center-designated anti-LGBTQIA+ hate group.

Founded in 1989, the group has consistently campaigned against LGBTQ+ rights, opposing same-sex marriage, the decriminalisation of homosexuality, and measures banning conversion therapy.

In her Supreme Court appeal, Davis raised several arguments, focusing on religious freedom and claims of sovereign immunity, while also directly challenging the Obergefell decision.

She contended that the Constitution “makes no reference to same-sex marriage and no such right is implicitly recognized by any constitutional provision.”

Mary Bonauto, a seasoned civil rights attorney with GLAD Law who argued the Obergefell case, welcomed the Supreme Court’s swift dismissal of Davis’ appeal.

“The only thing that has changed since Obergefell was decided is that people across the country have seen how marriage equality provides protection for families and children, and that protection strengthens communities, the economy and our society,” she said.

“Today millions of Americans can breathe a sigh of relief for their families, current or hoped for, because all families deserve equal rights under the law.”

The Trump administration is demanding states “undo” full SNAP benefits paid out under judges’ orders last week, now that the Supreme Court has stayed those rulings, marking the latest swing in a seesawing legal battle over the anti-hunger program used by 42 million Americans.

The demand from the U.S. Department of Agriculture came as more than two dozen states warned of “catastrophic operational disruptions” if the administration does not reimburse them for those SNAP benefits they authorized before the Supreme Court’s stay.

Nonprofits and Democratic attorneys general sued to force the Trump administration to maintain the program this month. They won the favorable rulings last week, leading to the swift release of benefits to millions in several states.

But, even before it won a stay on those rulings through an appeal to the Supreme Court on Friday night, the Trump administration balked at reimbursing states for the initial round of SNAP payments. Wisconsin, for example, loaded benefits onto cards for 700,000 residents, but after the U.S. Treasury froze its reimbursements to the state, it anticipates running out of money by Monday, Democratic Gov. Tony Evers’ administration warned in a lengthy statement Sunday.

The lack of money could leave vendors unpaid and trigger escalating legal claims, the states warned. “States could face demands to return hundreds of millions of dollars in the aggregate,” the filing at the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals says.

That situation “would risk catastrophic operational disruptions for the States, with a consequent cascade of harms for their residents,” the filing concludes.

That filing arrived as the Department of Agriculture on Saturday told states it would now consider any payments made last week to be “unauthorized.”

“To the extent States sent full SNAP payment files for November 2025, this was unauthorized,” Patrick Penn, deputy undersecretary of Agriculture, wrote to state SNAP directors. “Accordingly, States must immediately undo any steps taken to issue full SNAP benefits for November 2025.”

Evers issued a quick response to the Trump administration’s demand. “No,” the governor said in a statement.

“Pursuant to and consistent with an active court order, Wisconsin legally loaded benefits to cards, ensuring nearly 700,000 Wisconsinites, including nearly 270,000 kids, had access to basic food and groceries,” Evers said. “After we did so, the Trump Administration assured Wisconsin and other states that they were actively working to implement full SNAP benefits for November and would ‘complete the processes necessary to make funds available.’ They have failed to do so to date.”

Bauer and Riccardi write for the Associated Press.