Supreme

PHOENIX — The Arizona Supreme Court has denied a prosecutor’s appeal of an order that the state’s fake elector case against President Trump’s former chief of staff Mark Meadows, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and others over the 2020 presidential election be sent back to a grand jury.

The decision marks another setback for Democratic Atty. Gen. Kris Mayes as she struggles to push the sprawling case through the courts. Mayes’ office said it will again present the case in its entirety to a grand jury rather than end the prosecution.

The ruling came after similar cases in Michigan and Georgia were dismissed by the courts and a special prosecutor dropped a federal case in late 2024 that charged Trump with conspiring to overturn the 2020 election. Cases related to the fake elector scheme remain in Arizona, Nevada and Wisconsin.

A lower-court judge in Phoenix concluded in May that the case’s first grand jury hadn’t been shown the text of the Electoral Count Act, a 19th century law that governs the certification of presidential contests and was invoked by those charged in defending themselves.

Defense lawyers argued the law allowed for multiple slates of electors to be submitted to Congress in case the results were disputed, though it was amended in 2022 to specify that a state could put forward only one slate of electors and that it was the governor who would sign off.

There has been no movement in the Arizona case at the trial court level since mid-May.

Former President Joe Biden won Arizona in 2020 by 10,457 votes.

Billeaud writes for the Associated Press.

Israel’s Supreme Court rejects government ban on prisoner visits, affirming Red Cross access under international law.

Israel’s Supreme Court has unanimously rejected a government policy banning representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) from visiting Palestinian detainees in Israeli prisons.

The court ruled on Wednesday that by preventing the Red Cross from visiting prisoners, the government had contravened Israeli and international law, and therefore the policy must be repealed.

It also ruled that the government failed to present a legal foundation for its policy on annulling all visits after the Hamas-led attack on October 2023, in which more than 1,100 people were killed and more than 240 were taken captive.

The assault triggered a brutal war in Gaza, which has been defined as a genocide by several prominent scholars and an independent United Nations inquiry. The Israeli army killed more than 72,950 people in the enclave, according to Gaza’s Health Ministry, and reduced most of the besieged territory to rubble, and forced the displacement of nearly 1.9 million Palestinians.

Violence across the occupied West Bank perpetrated by Israeli forces also intensified to unprecedented levels. All visits to prisoners were halted, and information about them was not shared – something that used to be standard practice before the war. Back then, Israeli authorities accused Hamas of failing to secure access to the captives in Gaza.

It was the first time in 50 years that Israel prevented Red Cross visits, according to the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI), which filed the petition.

“For the first time in nearly three years, the over 9,000 Palestinian security prisoners being held in Israeli prisons and military detention centers will receive Red Cross visits,” ACRI said. The ban remained in place even after a “ceasefire” was agreed last October.

Initial petition

The petition by ACRI, Physicians for Human Rights, Israeli rights group HaMoked and Israeli NGO Gisha against the government policy was first filed in Israel’s High Court in February 2024. But the state of Israel asked for 27 extensions before a hearing was held at the end of October last year.

The ICRC welcomed the decision, saying it was ready to resume its visits. “We are continuing our dialogue with the Israeli authorities to resume our work in detention as soon as possible,” it said in a statement. It added that access to detainees and the ability to meet with them privately are obligations under international law.

Wednesday’s decision comes amid growing concerns over the ill-treatment of Palestinian detainees in Israeli prisons.

Last week, the United Nations released its annual report on conflict-related sexual violence verified in 2025. It cited torture, rape, gang rape, forced nudity and “cavity searches conducted without apparent security justification perpetrated” by Israeli armed forces and security forces primarily during detention and interrogation and across several sites, including the infamous Sde Teiman military camp, among others.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday night that Alabama Republican leaders may redraw their congressional voting districts to oust a Black Democrat and elect a white Republican.

The court’s conservatives, who ruled for Louisiana Republicans in a redistricting dispute, extended that decision to Alabama. The three liberals dissented.

The decision clears the way for the governor and state lawmakers to redraw their congressional voting map with six districts that favor Republicans and one that favors a Democrat.

“Weeks ago, I warned that vacating the District Court’s injunction in these cases would ‘unleash chaos and … confuse voters,’ ” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in dissent. “Yet just as Alabama doubled down on racial discrimination, the Court today doubles down on chaos. Because I choose to defend the rule of law and the right of all Alabamians to participate equally in democracy, I respectfully dissent.”

The justices granted an emergency appeal that was backed by the Trump administration and set aside the decision of a three-judge panel in Alabama.

The court in a brief opinion said the three judges should not have blocked Alabama’s new map.

“While federal courts should not impose changes close to an election, states are free to decide for themselves whether last-minute changes to an election are in their best interests,” the court said.

Alabama’s emergency appeal went to Justice Clarence Thomas, who referred it to the full court.

Those three judges, two of them Trump appointees, ruled that Alabama’s state lawmakers discriminated against Black voters, who made up a near majority in the center of the state.

Three years ago, the Supreme Court agreed.

In a 5-4 decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the justices upheld the creation of a second district in the center of the state where Black voters had a near majority.

The result then was an Alabama state voting map that favored five Republicans and two Democrats for the House of Representatives.

But last month, in the wake of the Louisiana decision, Alabama’s lawmakers went back to court, arguing that the state may return to the voting map with only a single Black majority district.

In his appeal to the Supreme Court, Alabama’s Atty. Gen. Steven Marshall argued that the high court’s decision in favor of Louisiana “vindicates Alabama position on the lawfulness” of its earlier voting map. He said the state should not be penalized for “refusing to intentionally discriminate” to favor Black voters.

The court’s decision has cleared the way for Republican-led states in the South to flip congressional districts in Louisiana, Tennessee, Florida and now Alabama.

NEW ORLEANS — A sharply divided Louisiana Supreme Court on Monday signed off on abolishing an elected office won by a New Orleans exoneree who had spent nearly 30 years in prison for murder before his conviction was vacated.

The 4-3 decision leaves Calvin Duncan with little path forward to try assuming the role of Orleans Parish clerk of criminal court, a job he won in a landmark election last year before Republican lawmakers raced to eliminate the office this spring.

In a blistering dissent, the court’s Democratic justices said the ruling opened the door to allowing Louisiana lawmakers to subvert the will of voters. The court’s conservative majority disagreed, writing that “this change was entirely within the authority of the Legislature.”

The court also rejected the New Orleans City Council’s attempt to hold a special election, which would have given Duncan the option to run again.

“At a time when our voting rights are under unprecedented attack, this decision clarifies that if we want to live in a democracy, we have to fight for it with every tool our system of government provides,” Duncan said in a statement.

Signed by Republican Gov. Jeff Landry, the bill eliminating the New Orleans clerk’s office was championed by GOP lawmakers as a necessary step toward government efficiency. Supporters denied that it had anything to do with Duncan or his past.

Democrats blasted the change as overreach from a largely white, conservative Legislature that they accused of seeking to thwart the will of a predominantly Black city. Those tensions surfaced again last month when Landry signed a new congressional map that eliminated one of the state’s two majority-Black House districts.

Duncan was convicted of a 1981 murder and was released from prison in 2011. In 2021, an Orleans Parish district judge vacated Duncan’s sentence, finding he had been unjustly convicted and the charges against him were dropped. Duncan is listed on the National Registry of Exonerations.

Brook writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court heads into the final month of its yearly term facing decisions on birthright citizenship, gun rights, transgender athletes and President Trump’s power over independent agencies.

Unlike in years past, the term’s most significant rulings were not left for the last week in June.

The court dealt Trump a major defeat in February by striking down his sweeping worldwide tariffs. The president is likely to suffer a second defeat when the justices reject his plan to revise the citizenship laws via an executive order.

Republicans won when the court struck down a Louisiana congressional district that favored a Black Democrat.

That decision has already shifted several congressional districts toward the GOP, but its greatest impact will be seen in 2028 and 2030.

Republicans are likely to prevail in two other pending cases.

One would free party committees to raise and spend more money to support their candidates. A second would change state laws to bar counting of mail ballots that arrive after election day.

The justices have 26 cases waiting to be decided before they go on a summer recess. Here are the major cases due for decision:

Trump and birthright citizenship

Does the 14th Amendment of 1868 mean what it says about who is a citizen?

It declares: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States.”

The Supreme Court upheld that understanding in 1898, ruling that Wong Kim Ark, who was born to Chinese parents in San Francisco, was a U.S. citizen at birth. Congress adopted birthright citizenship in the Immigration and Nationality Acts of 1940 and 1952.

But on his first day back in the White House, Trump issued an executive order to deny citizenship to the newborns of parents who in the country unlawfully or temporarily on a student, work or tourist visa.

Judges blocked the order from taking effect, and in April, the justices gave a skeptical hearing to Trump’s lawyers as the president sat in the gallery.

The best outcome for Trump would be a ruling that rejects his executive order based on U.S. immigration law alone. Although a defeat, that could in theory permit Congress to revise the law and deny citizenship to the newborns of so-called “birth tourists.” (Trump vs. Barbara)

Guns and drugs

Can the government make it a crime for “habitual users of unlawful drugs” to have a gun, or does that violate 2nd Amendment rights?

Since 1968, federal law has prohibited gun possession by anyone who is an “unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.”

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in a Texas case struck down this provision as unconstitutional, except for someone who is “under an impairing influence” of drugs at the time of his arrest.

The Trump administration appealed and urged the Supreme Court to uphold the law against “habitual users of unlawful drugs,” including regular users of marijuana. (U.S. vs. Hemani)

In a second gun rights case, the court will decide whether Hawaii, California and three other states led by Democrats may forbid licensed gun owners from carrying a firearm into stores or private businesses open to the public unless they have the “express authorization” of the owners. (Wolford vs. Lopez)

Transgender athletes and school sports

Can states maintain separate sports teams for boys and girls “based on biological sex determined at birth” or does excluding transgender girls violate the Title IX law or the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection?

The justices heard appeals from West Virginia and Idaho after lower courts ruled they had discriminated against transgender girls, and most of them sounded ready to rule for the states.

The only question was whether the court will rule narrowly to uphold laws in the red states or go further to decide how Title IX applies nationwide. (West Virginia vs. B.P.J. and Little vs. Hecox)

Trump and independent agencies

Can the president fire the leaders of special agencies who were given a fixed term by Congress?

For most of American history, Congress created new boards or commissions with a specific mission, such as regulating railroad rates in the 1880s or nuclear power in the 1970s. By law, these agencies are led by a bipartisan board of experts who had a fixed term and could be fired only for cause.

But Trump and the court’s conservatives believe the president has the executive authority to control the government and to fire agency officials — but with one exception. The majority wants to preserve the independence of the Federal Reserve Board. (Trump vs. Slaughter)

Separately, the court will rule on whether Trump had the power to fire Fed Governor Lisa Cook for cause. He alleged she engaged in mortgage fraud and dismissed her in a social media post. The justices blocked her removal and sounded ready to rule she deserved due process of law and a full hearing to contest the allegations. (Trump vs. Cook)

Temporary Protected Status

Can the Trump administration cancel legal protection for more than 300,000 Haitians and Syrians who are living and working in this country?

In 1990, Congress created this protected status for foreign nationals who could not return home safely because of armed conflicts or natural disasters.

The Obama administration extended protection to Haitians and Syrians. Last year, Trump’s then-Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem sought to terminate it, but judges blocked her orders because it was still dangerous and unsafe in those countries.

Before the Supreme Court, Trump’s lawyers argued the law forbids “judicial review” of these executive decisions. (Mullin vs. Doe)

Campaign funds and political parties

Do the 50-year-old limits on how much political party committees can raise and spend to directly support their candidates violate the 1st Amendment?

During the Watergate era, Congress adopted limits on money in political campaigns, but the court has struck down the spending limits on free speech grounds. Left standing were the limits on direct contributions to candidates, including from political parties.

Republicans led by then-Sen. JD Vance sued, arguing the party limits were outdated and unwise in an era when super PACs are free to spend huge sums on campaigns. (National Republican Senatorial Committee vs. FEC)

The court also will rule on the GOP’s bid to strike down laws in California and most states that allow for counting mail ballots that were postmarked by election day but arrive a few days later. (Watson vs. Republican National Committee)

WASHINGTON — Alabama on Wednesday asked the Supreme Court to allow it to use a congressional map favoring Republicans in this year’s elections, despite a lower court’s ruling that the redistricting plan intentionally discriminates against Black people.

The state’s Republican leadership filed an emergency appeal with the justices a day after a three-judge court refused to let the state use a map it adopted three years ago that has a majority Black population in just one of its seven congressional districts.

The judges instead required Alabama to continue using a court-ordered map that was put in place for the 2024 elections that includes two districts where Black residents comprise a majority or close to it.

Atty. Gen. Steve Marshall told the court that the state did not intentionally discriminate against Black residents and should be allowed to hold elections this year under a map chosen by lawmakers, not judges.

The appeal is the latest development in the fallout from last month’s Supreme Court ruling that struck down a Black-majority district in Louisiana and weakened the federal Voting Rights Act. That ruling has led Republicans in several Southern states, including Alabama, to take steps to reshape voting districts with large minority populations that have elected Democrats.

The redistricting frenzy is part of a broader push by President Trump to try to hold on to Republicans’ slim House majority in the November elections.

The Alabama cases stretches back several years. The three-judge panel in 2023 ruled that a map drawn by Republican state lawmakers intentionally diluted the voting power of Black citizens. The court said the state, which is about 27% Black, should have two districts where Black voters are the majority or close to it. The court-selected map was used in 2024.

After the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in the Louisiana case, Alabama officials moved to implement the 2023 state-drawn map. The Supreme Court’s conservative majority agreed to lift the injunction that had blocked the map’s use and sent the case back to the three-judge panel for reconsideration in light of the Louisiana ruling.

In the meantime, voters cast ballots in Alabama’s May 19 primaries, and Republican Gov. Kay Ivey set new special primaries for Aug. 11 in four congressional districts affected by the map switch.

Upon further review, the judicial panel said it was standing behind its initial finding that there was “undisputed evidence” of intentional racial discrimination, a holding that was independent of and unaffected by the Supreme Court ruling on the Voting Rights Act.

It said the special congressional primaries should instead proceed under the previous court-approved districts.

The use of the court-ordered map led to the 2024 election of U.S. Rep. Shomari Figures, a Black Democrat. State Republicans are seeking to use a map that would give the GOP an opportunity to reclaim the south Alabama seat.

The state is asking for Supreme Court action by Monday as it makes preparations for the special vote in August.

Sherman writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected Florida’s long-shot attempt to sue California and Washington state over the issuance of commercial driver licenses to truckers who don’t speak English and are not authorized to be in the United States.

The case stems from a crash in Florida last year that killed three people. The driver, Harjinder Singh, is accused of making an illegal U-turn that caused the accident. Singh, who is from India, was carrying a valid commercial driver’s license from California and had earlier been granted one by Washington state.

Republican-led Florida has accused the Western states, led by Democrats, of openly defying immigration laws and asked the justices to rule that states lack the authority to issue CDLs to people who are not citizens or legal permanent residents.

The Supreme Court typically hears appeals of lower-court decisions, but it sometimes takes on what are known as original lawsuits in which states sue each other in the nation’s highest court.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. dissented from Tuesday’s order, as they often do when the court rejects an original lawsuit, saying that the court has no choice but to hear such cases.

Separately, a federal appeals court has blocked a Trump administration proposal to impose new restrictions that would severely limit which immigrants can get commercial driver’s licenses to drive a semitrailer truck or bus.

NEW YORK — Former Columbia University graduate student Mahmoud Khalil will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene after a federal appeals court on Friday declined to reconsider a decision that put the government a step closer to deporting him, the pro-Palestinian activist’s lawyers said.

Judges on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia voted 6-5 against having the court’s full complement of judges review the ruling. In January, a three-judge 3rd Circuit panel found that a federal judge in New Jersey who had sided with Khalil and ordered his release last year from immigration detention didn’t have jurisdiction to decide the matter.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which is involved in representing Khalil, said his lawyers will ask the 3rd Circuit for an order preventing the decision from taking effect — and barring Khalil from being detained or deported — while it asks the Supreme Court to take up the case.

An appeal to the high court is expected in the coming months, possibly in late summer.

“Today’s decision is not the final word, and we still strongly believe in our arguments going forward,” ACLU senior counsel Brett Max Kaufman said in a statement.

In its January ruling, the 3rd Circuit found that Khalil’s lawsuit challenging his detention and U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz’s subsequent rulings in the case were premature because federal law requires that such challenges first move through the separate immigration court system. That system is part of the Justice Department, not the judicial branch.

The decision didn’t decide the key issue in Khalil’s case: whether the Trump administration’s effort to throw Khalil out of the U.S. over his campus activism and criticism of Israel is unconstitutional.

Judge Cheryl Ann Krause, who had voted for the 3rd Circuit to review the decision, wrote in a dissent that the court was “abdicating our duty to meaningfully review Khalil’s constitutional claims. The Judicial Branch, she wrote, cannot fulfill its role as a check on the other branches of government, “if we write ourselves out of relevance and leave the Executive Branch to check itself.”

Khalil, 31, has also appealed to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Louisiana, where he was detained, after the Board of Immigration Appeals upheld his removal order.

Through his lawyers, Khalil argued that the immigration judge who issued the order failed to consider relevant evidence and wrongly upheld a charge that he had misrepresented information on his application for legal permanent resident status. That charge, Khalil’s lawyers said, was brought in retaliation for his protest activity.

The immigration judge suggested Khalil could be deported to Algeria, where he maintains citizenship through a distant relative, or Syria, where he was born in a refugee camp to a Palestinian family. Khalil’s lawyers have said he would face mortal danger if forced to return to either country.

An outspoken leader of the pro-Palestinian movement at Columbia, Khalil was arrested in March 2025. He then spent three months detained in a Louisiana immigration jail, missing the birth of his child.

Federal officials have accused Khalil of leading activities “aligned to Hamas,” though they have not presented evidence to support the claim and have not accused him of criminal conduct. They also accused Khalil of failing to disclose information on his green card application.

Khalil has dismissed the allegations as “baseless and ridiculous,” framing his arrest and detention as a “direct consequence of exercising my right to free speech as I advocated for a free Palestine and an end to the genocide in Gaza.”

The government justified the arrest under a seldom-used statute that allows for the expulsion of noncitizens whose beliefs are deemed to pose a threat to U.S. foreign policy interests. In June 2025, Farbiarz ruled that justification would likely be declared unconstitutional and ordered Khalil released.

President Trump’s administration appealed that ruling, arguing the deportation decision should fall to an immigration judge, rather than a federal court. The 3rd Circuit ruled 2-1 in the administration’s favor.

Judge Emil Bove, who was involved in investigating student protesters while a top Justice Department official, did not participate in the 3rd Circuit vote on whether to review the decision. He later issued an order denying a request by Khalil’s lawyers that he step aside from the matter, calling it moot.

Sisak writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Lindsay Whitehurst contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court on Thursday broadly upheld lawsuits by U.S. companies whose property was seized in Cuba prior to 1960, including claims against cruise ship lines that docked there in the past decade.

These suits do not seek compensation from Cubans but from those who “traffic in property which was confiscated by the Cuban government.”

In a 8-1 decision, the justices revived a $400-million judgment against four cruise lines whose ships stopped in Havana between 2016 and 2019.

All of them used docks that were built early in the 20th century by the Havana Docks Corporation, an American company.

Justice Clarence Thomas pointed to a rarely enforced 1996 law that authorized suits against those who “use property tainted by a past confiscation.”

Past presidents had suspended enforcement of the law, but President Trump allowed such claims to go forward.

That change in policy exposed “traffickers in confiscated property of United States nationals” to brings claims in federal courts, Thomas said.

The four cruise line companies — Caribbean Cruises, Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings, Carnival Corporation, and MSC Cruises — transported nearly a million paid passengers to Cuba, he wrote.

They paid the Cuban government tens of millions of dollars to do business in Cuba. They collectively earned hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue from voyages that included a stop in Havana, he said.

A federal judge in Florida ordered each of the cruise lines to pay $100 million in damages, but the U.S. appeals court in Atlanta blocked the decision by a 2-1 vote. It said Havana Docks Corporation had a contract to run the docks had expired in 2004.

Justice Elena Kagan made the same argument in dissent.

She said “the docks belonged to the Cuban Government — not Havana Docks — all along. What Havana Docks owned was only a property interest allowing it to use those docks for a specified time. And that time-limited interest expired in 2004 — more than a decade before the cruise lines ever used the docks.”

Still pending before the court is a similar claim from Exxon Mobil Corp., which was argued on the day in late February.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday turned down an appeal from Virginia Democrats whose new voter-approved state election map was canceled by the state’s Supreme Court.

The justices made no comment, and the legal outcome came as no surprise.

The U.S. Supreme Court has no authority to review or reverse rulings by state judges interpreting their state’s constitution — unless the decision turned on federal law or the U.S. Constitution.

But the Virginia ruling came as a political shock, particularly after 3 million voters had cast ballots and narrowly approved a new election map that would favor Democrats in 10 of its 11 congressional districts.

That would have represented an increase of four seats for Democrats in the House of Representatives.

Even worse for Democrats, the court setback in Virginia came a week after the Supreme Court’s ruling in a Louisiana case had bolstered Republicans.

In a 6-3 decision, the justices reinterpreted the Voting Rights Act and freed Republican-controlled states in the South to dismantle districts that were drawn to favor Black Democrats.

In the two weeks since then, the GOP has flipped seven districts in Tennessee, Alabama, Louisiana and Florida.

The Virginia Supreme Court decision pointed to a procedural flaw which turned on the definition of an “election.”

To amend the state Constitution, Virginia lawmakers must adopt the proposal twice — once before a “general election” and a second time after the election. It is then submitted to the voters.

Last fall, Democrats proposed to amend the state Constitution to permit a mid-decade redistricting.

However, by a 4-3 vote, the state justices said the General Assembly flubbed the first approval because it took place on Oct. 31 of last year, just five days before the election.

By then, they said, about 40% of the voters had cast early ballots.

In defense of the Legislature, the state’s attorneys said the proposed amendment was approved before election day, which complies with the state Constitution.

But the majority explained “the noun ‘election’ must be distinguished from the noun phrase ‘election day’.”

It reasoned that because early voters had already cast ballots before the constitutional amendment was first adopted, the proposal was not approved before the election.

The dissenters said the election took place on “election day” and the proposal had been adopted prior to that time.

The state’s lawyers adopted that view in their appeal and argued that under federal law, the election takes place on election day.
But the Supreme Court turned away the appeal with no comment.

The result is that a state amendment that won approval twice before both houses of the Legislature and in a statewide vote was judged to have failed.

The state says it will use the current map, which had elected Democrats to the House in six districts and Republicans in five.

ATLANTA — Same fight. New generation.

That’s the mantra of a multiracial group of civil rights leaders and activists organizing opposition to a mostly white conservative alliance dismantling the Voting Rights Act and political districts that allowed Black and other nonwhite voters to choose more of their elected leaders for the last half-century.

“We have to respond as quickly as possible,” NAACP President Derrick Johnson said in an interview. “The real question,” Johnson told the Associated Press, “is how do we as a country really address the effort to shrink us backwards into a 1950s reality?”

Johnson’s 117-year-old association, which was at the forefront of legal and legislative fights for Black political rights in the 20th century, is among scores of groups coming together Saturday in Alabama for a rally and tribute to the Civil Rights Movement that helped bring about the 1965 Voting Rights Act. They plan events in Selma, where voting rights advocates were attacked by white law enforcement officers on Bloody Sunday, and Montgomery, where a rescheduled march concluded two weeks later.

Unlike 61 years ago, the Alabama events are not the pinnacle of a protracted movement. Instead, civil rights activists hope they serve as a catalyst for a renewed crusade after the U.S. Supreme Court, two weeks ago, further weakened the VRA by no longer allowing race to be considered in how congressional and other districts are drawn.

They acknowledge difficulty in countering a white-dominated conservative network entrenched in the White House, Capitol Hill, federal courts and many state legislatures of the Old Confederacy, where a majority of Black Americans still live.

The VRA “was the foundational nucleus of the Civil Rights Movement,” said Jared Evans of the Louisiana-based Power Coalition for Equity and Justice. “They’ve taken that from us,” he said, with the recent Louisiana v. Callais decision on congressional districts and the earlier Shelby v. Holder decision in 2013 that rolled back federal oversight of election procedures in states and localities with a history of discrimination.

Georgia Sen. Raphael Warnock, who is senior pastor of Atlanta’s Ebenezer Baptist Church, where the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. once preached, said from his pulpit that the result is “Jim Crow in new clothes.”

Warnock pointed to King and the last voting rights movement. “We need political power. We need economic power. We need personal power,” he said, assuring parishioners that “your adversaries know that your voice matters” because they’re “bending over backwards” to diminish it.

Evans reached further back into history to say what must happen next.

“Our response must be and will be a second Reconstruction period,” Evans said.

Some Democrats want an answer from Congress

The ultimate goal, organizers said, is to win more elections, sway policy fights and protect diverse political representation at all levels.

U.S. Rep. Terri Sewell, a Black lawmaker who represents Selma, Alabama, said an immediate priority is to “reform and reintroduce” Democrats’ flagship voting bill, the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act.

Sewell, whose seat ultimately could be threatened under redistricting, said Democrats want to “completely” eliminate partisan gerrymandering.

She also said the legislation would “bring back pre-clearance,” the requirement for certain federal approvals that the court struck down in Shelby.

“We need to come up with a modern-day formula for showing just how egregious the behavior of these state actors is,” Sewell said.

The Supreme Court ruled in Callais that states do not have to draw majority nonwhite districts under the Voting Rights Act and, in fact, should not consider race at all when drawing boundaries. By arguing that the law’s remedies to combat discrimination had themselves become racist, the decision allows states to redraw heavily Black districts that have historically elected Democrats while arguing that the designs are based on party interests, not race.

President Trump praised the decision as “a BIG WIN for Equal Protection under the Law, as it returns the Voting Rights Act to its Original Intent, which was to protect against intentional Racial Discrimination.”

Groups mobilized for redistricting sessions

Many of the same groups who’ll be in Alabama on Saturday have already gone to Southern statehouses, where white Republican lawmakers moved swiftly to redraw congressional districts after Callais.

Alabama and Louisiana lawmakers reverted to a single majority-Black district, each scrapping a second district that had been ordered by lower federal courts under now-reversed VRA interpretations. Tennessee lawmakers gutted a majority Black district by splitting greater Memphis into three different sprawling districts — itself an obvious racial gerrymander the court had previously forbidden, Evans said.

Anticipating the Callais outcome, Florida and Texas proceeded with redistricting before it came down. Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp, a term-limited Republican, has called a June session to redraw congressional lines for the 2028 cycle. Mississippi and South Carolina have delayed the matter for now.

South Carolina state Senate Majority Leader Shane Massey was among the few white Republicans who pushed back against GOP redistricting plans. He said that not even pressure from Trump could sell him on disenfranchising Black South Carolinians instead of doing what’s best for his state.

Other white conservatives are still talking openly about ousting Reps. Jim Clyburn and Bennie Thompson, the only Black U.S. House members from South Carolina and Mississippi, respectively.

Evans, the Louisiana activist, predicted the fight ahead won’t just be about congressional representation.

“Look for them to go after state house and state senate seats — and then it will be the local level,” he said, adding that “it’s going to be an entire erasure of Black representation.”

The issue is more than a partisan Washington fight

Heavily minority districts drawn under the VRA before Callais nearly always elect Democrats. Black Americans have overwhelmingly aligned with the party since President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act, sparking a decades-long migration of most white Southern politicians to the Republicans. Latino and Hispanic voters still lean Democratic in most places as well.

The immediate fight shapes the midterm campaign scramble for control of the U.S. House during the final years of Trump’s presidency. Trump initially pushed Republican-run states to redistrict to protect the party’s fragile House majority.

But Johnson, the NAACP leader, said all voters should see more than partisan warfare or a regional battle over race.

Beyond party allegiance, Johnson argued, white conservatives want to curtail a range of rights “depending on how you pray, depending on who you love,” while also pushing economic policies that punish workers across racial and ethnic lines. From legislation to the confirmation of federal judges who decide constitutional questions, those policy outcomes start with election results.

“It’s not a Black problem,” Johnson said. “That’s an American problem.”

There is no singular movement or leader yet

Evans, Johnson and others acknowledged the complexity in harnessing disparate organizations and galvanizing voters on issues like redistricting and gerrymandering. But they insist the brazen nature of Republicans’ course has spurred engagement.

Johnson said he was on an organizing call in Mississippi this week that had 8,000 participants. Evans pointed to packed hallways in the state Capitols in Baton Rouge and Nashville, respectively.

The NAACP and allies have challenged new maps in multiple states, despite Callais. Many groups want to spur midterm turnout among Black voters, and others are disenchanted with white conservatives’ maneuvers in racially diverse places.

Johnson stressed the need for perseverance.

The 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision was seismic, with a unanimous court declaring segregated public schools unconstitutional and reversing 19th-century precedents denying Black Americans’ fundamental rights.

But it took 17 years — and many more court battles — for it to be implemented in most Southern school districts. Fights over mandated student busing continued beyond the South. It was a decade after Brown before Congress and Johnson enacted the movement’s seminal laws.

There’s no clear leader of a modern movement.

Johnson said it’s worth remembering that even with King at the helm before his assassination, “there was tension around strategy” in the 1950s and 1960s.

But even “through that tension, through many episodes, we were able to get directly in the right place.”

Barrow and Brown write for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected an antiabortion challenge to federal regulations that permit sending pills through the mail once a patient has consulted a doctor online.

The justices granted an emergency appeal from the makers of mifepristone and set aside an order from a U.S. appeals court in Louisiana that would have made it illegal to send or receive the medication by mail.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. dissented.

“The court’s unreasoned order granting stays in this case is remarkable,” Alito wrote. “What is at stake is the perpetration of a scheme to undermine our decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which restored the right of each State to decide how to regulate abortions within its borders.”

The decision is a setback for abortion opponents, including Louisiana Atty. Gen. Liz Murrill, who sued and argued that her state’s ban on abortion has been thwarted by abortion pills sent by mail.

Thursday’s order preserves access to the medication under the current rules, but it is not a final decision.

The case will now return to the 5th Circuit Court in New Orleans for further review.

“Today’s ruling buys time, but no peace of mind,” said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights. “Mifepristone access remains highly at risk as this case moves forward and the Trump administration conducts a politically motivated review of this pill with the hardly disguised aim of making it harder to get.”

National Right to Life expressed deep disappointment.

“Women facing unexpected pregnancies deserve real medical care and support, not a one-size-fits-all mail-order abortion system that minimizes risks and leaves women isolated during medical emergencies,” said Carol Tobias, the group’s president.

The legal dispute has put the Trump administration in a politically awkward spot.

Critics of abortion, including Republican attorneys general from 23 states, argued that the regulations adopted during the Biden administration have thwarted their state laws and allowed patients to obtain medication from doctors in California and New York.

But the Trump administration has shown no urgency to change the regulations that allow for dispensing the pills by mail.

Alito, who spoke at the 5th Circuit a week ago, said he agreed with the state’s argument.

“Louisiana’s efforts have been thwarted by certain medical providers, private organizations, and States that abhor laws like Louisiana’s and seek to undermine their enforcement,” he wrote. “These medical providers and private organizations have developed an operation enabling women in Louisiana and other States that restrict abortions to place an online order for a pill called mifepristone that induces abortion.”

Thomas said abortion is a crime in Louisiana.

The makers of the abortion pills have no grounds to sue “based on lost profits from their criminal enterprise. They cannot, in any legally relevant sense, be irreparably harmed by a court order that makes it more difficult for them to commit crimes.”

But most of the court’s conservatives refused to go along, even though they had voted to overturn the constitutional right to abortion.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justices Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett refused to block the current regulations on a fast-track appeal.

Two years ago, the court handed down a similar decision involving abortion pills and the 5th Circuit Court.

The justices overturned a 5th Circuit ruling on the grounds that the antiabortion doctors who sued had no standing because they did not prescribe or use the medication.

In 2000, the FDA approved the use of mifepristone as safe and effective for ending an early pregnancy or treating a miscarriage. It is used in combination with a second drug misoprostol, which induces cramping.

Since 2016, the FDA has relaxed regulations on its use. They include a requirement that women obtain the pills directly from a doctor or a medical clinic. However, it was understood the medication would be taken later at home.

The agency temporarily suspended this rule in 2021 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, then lifted it entirely in 2023.

Medication abortions now account for almost two-thirds of abortions in the United States, and telehealth is used in 27% of abortions nationwide. Last year, in response to abortion opponents, the Trump administration agreed to review the safety record of mifepristone.

“Mifepristone is one of the safest and most well-studied drugs on the market,” said Dr. Camille A. Clare, president of the American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists. “The FDA removed the in-person dispensing requirement after careful evaluation of the data because mifepristone is safe and effective even when distributed by mail.”

But the Louisiana attorney general decided to sue in federal court without waiting for the FDA.

She argued that the mailing of abortion medication, which was approved under the Biden administration, was undermining her state’s strict ban on abortions.

A federal judge in Louisiana said the state appeared to have a strong claim, but he decided not to rule on it until the FDA completed its review.

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals responded a few days later by ruling the FDA erred by relaxing its regulations to allow for dispensing the pills by mail. The three-judge panel then put its ruling into effect immediately on May 1.

Abortion law experts called out the decision as extreme and unusual.

“To our knowledge, no court has ever ordered the FDA to reimpose on a drug a safety rule the agency has thoroughly studied and deemed unnecessary,” said Melissa Goodman, executive director of UCLA’s Center for Reproductive Health, Law and Policy.

May 13 (UPI) — The South Carolina Supreme Court on Wednesday overturned the double murder convictions for former lawyer Alex Murdaugh for the slayings of his wife and son.

The court ordered a new trial for the 2021 deaths of Margaret Murdaugh and Paul Murdaugh. Alex Murdaugh was convicted in 2023 of the two murders — along with two counts of possession of a weapon during a violent crime — and sentenced to life in prison without the chance of parole.

In a 5-0 ruling Wednesday, though, the state’s highest court said the murder trial had been improperly influenced by county clerk Becky Hill. The justices said she “placed her fingers on the scales of justice, thereby denying Murdaugh his right to a fair trial by an impartial jury.”

“Although we are aware of the time, money and effort expended for this lengthy trial, we have no choice but to reverse the denial of Murdaugh’s motion for a new trial due to Hill’s improper external influences on the jury and remand for a new trial.”

Hill pleaded guilty last year to charges she lied to the court about showing sealed court documents to a photographer, NBC News reported. She was sentenced to one year of probation.

South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson said in a statement to CNN that he plans to retry Alex Murdaugh.

“While we respectfully disagree with the Court’s decision, my Office will aggressively seek to retry Alex Murdaugh for the murders of Maggie and Paul as soon as possible,” he said.

“No one is above the law and, as always, we will continue to fight for justice.”

Murdaugh’s lawyers welcomed the state supreme court’s decision.

“We look forward to a new trial conducted consistent with the Constitution and the guidance this court has provided,” they said.

May 12 (UPI) — Missouri’s Supreme Court has approved the state’s new congressional maps, handing a win to the Trump administration as it seeks to create additional Republican-favored seats ahead of November’s midterm elections.

The high court ruled unanimously Tuesday in three cases that challenged the map, stating in a joint opinion affecting two cases that the redraw does not violate the state’s Constitution, and rejected a referendum-related challenge against the bill that permitted the unorthodox mid-decade redraw.

“Today’s Missouri Supreme Court rulings are a HUGE victory for voters,” Missouri Gov. Mike Kehoe, a Republican, said in a social media statement Tuesday.

“Missourians are more alike than we are different, and our Missouri Values — rooted in common sense, hard work and personal responsibility — are stronger and far more aligned across both sides of the aisle than the extreme left-wing agendas pushed in states like New York, California and Illinois.

“The Missouri First Map ensures those values are represented fairly and accurately at every level of government.”

Missouri began the effort to redraw its congressional map last summer amid President Donald Trump‘s push for Republican-led states to create more GOP-favored seats for November’s midterm elections. The map, which Kehoe signed in September, redraws Democrat Rep. Emanuel Cleaver’s Kansas City-area district to include more rural, Republican-leaning areas, potentially whittling Missouri’s Democratic delegation in the U.S. House of Representatives from two seats to one.

Trump has repeatedly voiced concern about potential impeachment proceedings if Republicans lose the House. Creating additional Republican-leaning seats increases the GOP’s chances of maintaining control of the chamber, making impeachment less likely while limiting Democrats’ ability to conduct investigations into the Trump administration or stymie his agenda.

Texas was the first state to move on mid-decade redistricting, kicking off a gerrymandering arms race in which Democratic-led states sought to counter with their own maps and Republican-led states responded with additional redraws.

Fifteen states have moved to redistrict, with eight — seven Republican-led and one Democratic-led — having implemented new congressional maps, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Democratic-led Virginia also approved a new map, but the state Supreme Court overturned it last week.

The Missouri Supreme Court decisions on Tuesday resolve months of litigation in a trio of separate cases filed by Missouri voters against the redistricting.

In consolidating two cases that similarly challenged the constitutionality of the map’s redraw, the justices unanimously ruled that the appellants failed to show that it unlawfully slip the Kansas City-area district.

The other unanimous ruling sided against Missouri voters seeking to have the issue put to a ballot referendum.

Opponents to the maps criticized the court following its ruling, highlighting the fact that it was issued the same day arguments in the case were presented.

“While one might be inclined to hope that these justices managed to grapple with a highly complex, nuanced and consequential issue in just six hours, it seems clear the justices were not interested in the day’s proceedings and simply had their opinion already finalized, even before this morning’s argument,” Marina Jenkins, executive director of the National Redistricting Foundation, said in a statement.

“With this decision, the Missouri Supreme Court has shown Missourians the lack of seriousness with which it takes cases that pertain to protecting their right to vote — a complete and dangerous abdication of the judiciary’s role.”

The Campaign Legal Center, the American Civil Liberties Union Voting Rights Project and the ACLU of Missouri similarly criticized the ruling.

“Mere hours after argument was held, the court released its decisions siding against voters in every respect,” the groups said in a joint statement.

“We are extremely disappointed in these rulings, and in their failure to protect Missourians’ right to fair maps. This state — and our democracy — are worse off for this outcome.”

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court is leaving access to a widely used abortion pill untouched until at least Thursday, while the justices consider whether to allow restrictions on the drug, mifepristone, to take effect.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.’s order Monday allows women seeking abortions to continue obtaining the pill at pharmacies or through the mail, without an in-person visit to a doctor. It prevents restrictions on mifepristone imposed by a federal appeals court from taking effect for the time being.

The court is dealing with its latest abortion controversy four years after its conservative majority overturned Roe vs. Wade and allowed more than a dozen states to effectively ban abortion outright.

The case before the court stems from a lawsuit Louisiana filed to roll back the Food and Drug Administration’s rules on how mifepristone can be prescribed. The state claims the policy undermines the ban there, and it questions the safety of the drug, which was first approved in 2000 and has repeatedly been deemed safe and effective by FDA scientists.

Lower courts concluded that Louisiana is likely to prevail, and a three-judge panel of the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that mail access and telehealth visits should be suspended while the case plays out.

The drug is most often used for abortion in combination with another drug, misoprostol. Medication abortions accounted for nearly two-thirds of all abortions in the U.S. in 2023, the last year for which statistics are available.

The current dispute is similar to one that reached the court three years ago.

Lower courts then also sought to restrict access to mifepristone, in a case brought by physicians who oppose abortion. They filed suit in the months after the court overturned Roe.

The Supreme Court blocked the 5th Circuit ruling from taking effect over the dissenting votes of Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas. Then, in 2024, the high court unanimously dismissed the doctors’ suit, reasoning they did not have the legal right, or standing, to sue.

In the current dispute, mainstream medical groups, the pharmaceutical industry and Democratic members of Congress have weighed in cautioning the court against limiting access to the drug. Pharmaceutical companies said a ruling for abortion opponents would upend the drug approval process.

The FDA has eased a number of restrictions initially placed on the drug, including who can prescribe it, how it is dispensed and what kinds of safety complications must be reported.

Despite those determinations, abortion opponents have been challenging the safety of mifepristone for more than 25 years. They have filed a series of petitions and lawsuits against the agency, generally alleging that it violated federal law by overlooking safety issues with the pill.

President Trump’s administration has been unusually quiet at the Supreme Court. It declined to file a written brief recommending what the court should do, even though federal regulations are at issue.

The case puts Trump’s Republican administration in a difficult place. Trump has relied on the political support of antiabortion groups but has also seen ballot question and poll results that show Americans generally support abortion rights.

Both sides took the silence as an implicit endorsement of the appellate ruling. Alito is both the justice in charge of handling emergency appeals from Louisiana and the author of the 2022 decision that declared abortion is not a constitutional right and returned the issue to the states.

Sherman, Mulvihill and Perrone write for the Associated Press. Mulvihill reported from Haddonfield, N.J.

WASHINGTON — Democrats on Monday filed an emergency appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking to halt a Virginia ruling invalidating a ballot measure that would have given their party an additional four winnable U.S. House seats.

The move came after the Virginia Supreme Court on Friday struck down a constitutional amendment that voters narrowly passed just last month. The 4-3 state court decision found that the Democratic-controlled legislature improperly began the process of placing the amendment on the ballot after early voting had begun in Virginia’s general election last fall.

Democrats argued unsuccessfully that the U.S. Supreme Court has held that, even if early voting is underway, an election does not happen until election day itself.

The appeal is the latest twist in the nation’s mid-decade redistricting competition. It was kicked off last year by President Trump urging Republican-controlled states to redraw their lines and was supercharged by a recent Supreme Court ruling severely weakening the Voting Rights Act.

“The Court overrode the will of the people who ratified the amendment by ordering the Commonwealth to conduct its election with the congressional districts that the people rejected,” wrote lawyers for Virginia Democrats and Democratic state Atty. Gen. Jay Jones. “The irreparable harm resulting from the Supreme Court of Virginia’s decision is profound and immediate.”

The filing is a sign of Democratic desperation after the Virginia decision. Democrats are still favorites to recapture the U.S. House of Representatives, but their GOP rivals have claimed to have gained more than a dozen seats through redistricting. The voter-approved Virginia map would have partly offset that.

Democrats are taking a legal long shot in asking the justices to reverse the Virginia court’s ruling. The Supreme Court tries to avoid second-guessing state courts’ interpretations of their own constitutions. In 2023, it turned down a request by North Carolina Republicans to overrule a state Supreme Court decision that blocked the GOP’s congressional map.

Politically, the appeal could help a party struggling to compete with Republicans in the unusual mid-decade redrawing of congressional boundaries by providing fodder for election-year messaging about a partisan Supreme Court. The court recently allowed Louisiana Republicans to proceed with redistricting after the justices struck down a majority Black district as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.

Democrats have been set on their heels because, days after the Virginia ballot measure passed, the Supreme Court’s conservatives reversed decades of rulings and in effect neutered the Voting Rights Act, paving the way for Southern states to eliminate some majority Black districts and further pad Republican margins in Congress.

The Virginia amendment had been launched long before that ruling. It was intended as a response to Republican gains in Texas, Missouri, North Carolina and Ohio, and to blunt a new map in Florida that just became law. Once the Virginia amendment passed, it briefly turned the nationwide redistricting scramble into a draw between the two parties.

That was unraveled by the Virginia Supreme Court’s decision. The justices are appointed by the legislature, which has flipped between the two parties in recent decades, and the body is generally not seen as having a clear ideological bent.

Whitehurst writes for the Associated Press.

The last time the Supreme Court threatened to end access to the country’s most popular abortion method, California’s network of online providers and their pharmaceutical suppliers scrambled to respond.

Now, with the fate of the cocktail used in roughly two-thirds of U.S. terminations once again in the balance, they’re not even breaking a sweat.

Dr. Michele Gomez, co-founder of the MYA Network, a consortium of virtual reproductive healthcare providers, said the supply chain is “ready to switch in a day” to an alternative drug combination.

“It’s not going away and it’s not going to slow down,” Gomez said.

On May 1, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled to block the drug mifepristone from being prescribed virtually and shipped through the mail, making such deliveries illegal across the country. On Monday, the Supreme Court stayed that decision, allowing prescriptions to resume until the court issues an emergency ruling next week.

Mifepristone is the first half of a two-drug protocol for medication abortion, which made up 63% of all legal abortions in the U.S. in 2023.

Between a quarter and a third of those abortions are now prescribed by healthcare providers over the internet and delivered by mail — a path Louisiana and other ban states are fighting to bar.

“Abortion access has gone up with all the telehealth providers,” Gomez said. “We uncovered an unmet need.”

But the cocktail’s second ingredient, misoprostol, can be used to produce abortion on its own — a method that’s often more painful and slightly less effective.

It would be easy for suppliers to switch to a misoprostol-only protocol — and much harder for courts to block it, experts said.

“We heard about this on Friday and organizations that mail pills were mailing misoprostol on Saturday,” Gomez said. “They already knew what to do.”

After the Supreme Court overturned Roe vs. Wade in 2022, California became one of the first states to enshrine abortion rights for residents in its Constitution and legislate protection for clinicians who prescribe abortion pills to women in states with bans.

Last fall, legislators in Sacramento expanded those protections by allowing pills to be mailed without either the doctor or the patient’s name attached.

But cases like the one being decided next week could still sharply limit abortion rights even in states with extensive legal protections, experts warned.

“Even though California has built a fortress around its own constitutional protections of reproductive freedom, those [protections] become vulnerable to the whims of antiabortion states if the Supreme Court gives those states their imprimatur,” said Michele Goodwin, professor at Georgetown Law and an expert on reproductive justice.

Coral Alonso sings in Spanish as protesters rally on the three-year anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning Roe vs. Wade on June 24, 2025, in Los Angeles. The ruling ended the federal right to legal abortion in the United States.

(David McNew / Getty Images)

Legal experts are split over how the justices will decide the medication’s mail-order fate.

“This is a case where law clearly won’t matter,” Eric J. Segall, a law professor at Georgia State University and an expert on the Supreme Court.

“In a very important midterm election year, I think there’s at least two Republicans on the court who will decide that upholding the 5th Circuit would really hurt the Republicans at the polls,” he said. “If women can’t get this by mail in California or other blue states where abortion is legal, it’s going to have devastating consequences, and I think the court knows that.”

But he and others believe it’s no longer a matter of if — but when and how — the drugs are restricted, including in California.

“This is curating a backdrop for a legal showdown that may surely come,” Goodwin said.

The court’s most conservative justices could find grounds to act in the long-forgotten Comstock Act of 1873. The brainchild of America’s zealously anti-porn postmaster Anthony Comstock, the law not only banned the mailing of the “Birth of Venus” and “Lady Chatterley’s Lover,” but also condoms, diaphragms and any drug, tool or text that could be used to produce an abortion.

Though it hasn’t been enforced since the 1970s, the antiabortion provision of the law remains on the books, experts said.

“The next move is with the Comstock Act, which Justices Alito and Thomas have already been hinting at,” Goodwin said. “In that case, it’s like playing Monopoly — we could skip mifepristone and go straight to contraception. The goal is to make sure none of that gets to be in the mail.”

That move would upend how Americans get both abortions and birth control, and put an unassuming L.A. County pharmacy squarely in the government’s crosshairs.

Although doctors in nearly two dozen states can safely prescribe medication abortion to women anywhere in the U.S., only a handful of specialty pharmacies actually fill those mail orders, Gomez explained. Among the largest is Honeybee in Culver City, which did not reply to requests for comment.

Even if the justices don’t reach for Comstock, a decision in Louisiana’s favor next week could create a two-tiered system of abortion across California and other blue states, experts said.

“The people this case hurts the most are the poor and the rural,” said Segall, the Supreme Court expert.

National data show that abortion patients are disproportionately poor. Most are also already mothers. Losing mail access to mifepristone would leave many with the more painful, less effective option while those with the time and means to reach a clinic continue to get the gold standard of care.

“There are fundamental questions of citizenship at the heart of this,” said Goodwin, the constitutional scholar. “Under the 14th Amendment, women are supposed to have equality, citizenship, liberty. It’s as though the Supreme Court has taken a black marker and pressed it against all of those words.”

For Gomez and other providers, that’s tomorrow’s problem.

“The lawyers and the politicians are just going to do their thing,” the doctor said. “The healthcare providers are just trying to get medications to people who need them.”

The Virginia Supreme Court on Friday struck down a voter-approved Democratic congressional redistricting plan, delivering another major setback to the party in a nationwide battle against Republicans for an edge in this year’s midterm elections.

The court ruled that the state’s Democratic-led legislature violated procedural requirements when it placed the constitutional amendment on the ballot to authorize the mid-decade redistricting. Voters narrowly approved the amendment April 21, but the court’s ruling renders the results of that vote meaningless.

“This violation irreparably undermines the integrity of the resulting referendum vote and renders it null and void,” the court said in its opinion.

Democrats had hoped to win as many as four additional U.S. House seats under Virginia’s redrawn U.S. House map as part of an attempt to offset Republican redistricting done elsewhere at the urging of President Donald Trump. That ruling, combined with a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision severely weakening the Voting Rights Act, has supercharged the Republicans’ congressional gerrymandering advantage heading into this year’s midterm elections.

Legislative voting districts typically are redrawn once a decade after each census to account for population changes. But Trump started an unusual flurry of mid-decade redistricting last year when he encouraged Republican officials in Texas to redraw districts in a bid to win several additional U.S. House seats and hold on to their party’s narrow majority in the midterm elections.

California responded with new voter-approved districts drawn to Democrats’ advantage, and Utah’s top court imposed a new congressional map that also helps Democrats. Meanwhile, Republicans stand to gain from new House districts passed in Florida, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio and Tennessee. They could add even more after the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in the Voting Rights Act case, which has prompted some other Republican states to consider redrawing their maps in time for this year’s elections.

Virginia currently is represented in the U.S. House by six Democrats and five Republicans who were elected from districts imposed by a court after a bipartisan redistricting commission failed to agree on a map after the 2020 census. The new districts could have given Democrats an improved chance to win all but one of the state’s 11 congressional seats.

Under the Demcoratic-drawn map, five districts would have been anchored in the Democratic stronghold of northern Virginia, including one stretching out like a lobster to consume Republican-leaning rural areas. Revisions to four other districts across Richmond, southern Virginia and Hampton Roads would have diluted the voting power of conservative blocs in those areas. And a reshaped district in parts of western Virginia would have lumped together three Democratic-leaning college towns to offset other Republican voters.

The state Supreme Court’s seven justices are appointed by the state legislature, which has toggled back and forth between Democratic, Republican and split control over recent years. Legal experts say the body doesn’t have a set ideological profile

The case before the court focused not on the shape of the new districts but rather on the process the General Assembly used to authorize them.

Because the state’s redistricting commission was established by a voter-approved constitutional amendment, lawmakers had to propose an amendment to redraw the districts. That required approval of a resolution in two separate legislative sessions, with a state election sandwiched in between, to place the amendment on the ballot.

The legislature’s initial approval of the amendment occurred last October — while early voting was underway but before it concluded on the day of the general election. The legislature’s second vote on the amendment occurred after a new legislative session began in January. Lawmakers also approved a separate bill in February laying out the new districts, subject to voter approval of the constitutional amendment.

Judicial arguments focused on whether the legislature’s initial approval of the amendment came too late, because early voting already had begun for the 2025 general election.

Attorney Matthew Seligman, who defended the legislature, argued that the “election” should be defined narrowly to mean the Tuesday of the general election. In that case, the legislature’s first vote on the redistricting amendment occurred before the election and was constitutional, he told judges.

An attorney for the plaintiffs, Thomas McCarthy, argued that an “election” should be interpreted to cover the entire period during which people can cast ballots, which lasts several weeks in Virginia. If that’s the case, he told justices, then the legislature’s initial endorsement of the redistricting amendment came too late to comply with the state constitution.

In January, a judge in rural Tazewell County, in southwestern Virginia, ruled that lawmakers failed to follow their own rules for adding the redistricting amendment to a special session last fall. Circuit Judge Jack Hurley Jr. also ruled that lawmakers failed to initially approve the amendment before the public began voting in last year’s general election and that the state had failed to publish the amendment three months before the election, as required by law. As a result, he said, the amendment is invalid and void.

The Virginia Supreme Court placed Hurley’s order on hold and allowed the redistricting vote to proceed before hearing arguments on the case.

Lieb writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON  — Louisiana’s state attorneys on Thursday urged the Supreme Court to stand aside for now and to uphold an appeals court ruling that would stop the mailing of abortion pills nationwide.

They blamed former President Biden for undermining the state’s strict bans on abortion and the Trump administration for slow-walking a study on the federal regulations that permit sending the pills through the mail.

The justices are likely to act soon on emergency appeals filed by two makers of mifepristone. They argued the pills have been shown to be safe and effective for ending an early pregnancy.

But last week, the conservative 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans ruled for Louisiana and revived an earlier regulation that would require women to obtain the pills in person from a doctor.

The three-judge panel also took the unusual step for putting its order into effect immediately. On Monday, Justice Samuel A. Alito, who oversees the 5th Circuit, issued an administrative stay that will keep the case on hold through Monday.

The justices have to decide whether Louisiana had standing to sue over the federal drug regulations, and if so, whether judges have the authority to overrule the Food and Drug Administration.

Two years ago, the Supreme Court by a 9-0 vote dismissed a similar challenge to the abortion pills that came from the 5th Circuit. And Chief Justice John G. Roberts has said in the past that judges should usually defer to the federal agency that is responsible fo regulating drugs.

In response to anti-abortion advocates, Trump’s Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. agreed to have the FDA review the safety record of mifepristone.

It was approved in 2000 as safe and effective for ending early pregnancies. And in the past decade, the agency had relaxed earlier restrictions, including a requirement that pregnant women visit a doctor’s office to obtain the pills.

But the FDA said last month its review is far from complete.

In October, Louisiana Atty. Gen. Liz Murrill decided to bypass the FDA review and went to federal court seeking a ruling that would prevent the pills being sent by mail.

A federal judge refused to decide on the issue while the FDA was undertaking its review. But the 5th Circuit chose to act now. The Louisiana state attorney put the focus on the Biden administration.

When the Supreme Court was considering the Dobbs case, which overruled Roe vs. Wade and the right to abortion, “the Biden Administration was preparing a plan that predictably would undermine that decision,” she wrote in Thursday’s response.

“Although Louisiana law generally prohibits abortion and the dispensing of mifepristone to pregnant women, out-of-state prescribers—freed from the in-person dispensing requirement — are causing approximately 1,000 illegal abortions in Louisiana each month by mailing FDA-approved mifepristone into the state,” she said.

The Trump administration has yet to tell the court of its views on this case.

WASHINGTON — The first baby boomer on the Supreme Court hit a milestone on Thursday, becoming the second-longest-serving justice in history at a time when his influence has never seemed greater.

Once an outlier on the nation’s highest court, Justice Clarence Thomas has become a towering figure in the conservative legal movement over the last decade as he helped secure landmark rulings on abortion, voting and Second Amendment rights.

The only justice with a longer tenure is liberal William O. Douglas. Thomas would overtake Douglas in 2028 if he remains on the court — and there’s no sign he plans to retire anytime soon.

“I think he’s more energized and excited now than when I first met him,” said John Yoo, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, who served in Republican President George W. Bush’s administration after his time as a Thomas clerk three decades ago.

Thomas was confirmed in 1991 after contentious hearings that included sexual harassment allegations. More recently, his acceptance of luxury trips has raised a storm of ethics questions. He’s nevertheless gone from near-silence at oral arguments to asking the first questions and penning a landmark ruling expanding Second Amendment rights.

Following the appointment of three conservative justices by Republican President Trump, Thomas is now the most senior member of a supermajority that’s also overturned abortion as a constitutional right, ended affirmative action in college admissions and sharply limited the Voting Rights Act.

“The court has radically moved in his direction over the course of his time on the court,” said Stanford University law professor Pamela Karlan. Thomas’ seniority means he can decide who writes an opinion if he’s part of a majority that doesn’t include Chief Justice John Roberts, a factor that can nudge other votes behind closed doors, Karlan said.

Off the bench, Thomas’ sphere of influence also includes his large, close-knit network of former clerks, who have served in the Trump administration and are increasingly filling out the ranks of federal judges.

“That is an important legacy that he will leave,” said Sarah Konsky, director of the Supreme Court and Appellate Clinic at the University of Chicago Law School. “Even as justices’ own time on the court winds down, significant influence lives on through their clerks.”

That’s not to say Thomas’ time on the court is up. In a recent speech, Thomas tied the nation’s highest ideals to a conservative vision of limited government — and launched a broadside on progressivism seen by critics as unfair and inappropriate. In the room at the University of Texas, though, it earned a standing ovation.

Thomas, who became the second Black member of the court, now has a tenure that tops 34 years, putting him ahead of Justice Stephen J. Field, who was appointed by Lincoln before the end of the Civil War and served as the only 10th justice until 1897.

For Thomas, 77, it’s a long way from the hearings at which his nomination by Republican President George H.W. Bush was nearly derailed by allegations that he had sexually harassed Anita Hill, a charge he forcefully denied.

Thomas has more recently come under scrutiny for lavish, undisclosed trips from a GOP megadonor and the conservative political activism of his wife, who backed false claims that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump. The justice has said he wasn’t required to disclose the trips he took with friends and ignored calls to recuse himself from cases related to the election.

On the court, though, recent years have also brought perhaps the most significant work of his career, especially a 2022 opinion he wrote that found people generally have the right to carry a gun in public. The justice did not respond to a request for comment on his tenure.

His own jurisprudence has changed little over the years, said Scott Gerber, author of “First Principles: The Jurisprudence of Clarence Thomas.” Even as the majority moves his way, he’s continued to write dissents that get noticed.

“He’s incredibly consistent,” Gerber said. Once known for solo dissents, “now he writes majority opinions.”

Whitehurst writes for the Associated Press.

COLUMBIA, S.C. — An election-year redistricting movement has spread to South Carolina as Republicans attempt to redraw majority-Black congressional districts that have suddenly become susceptible because of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling upending protections for minority voters.

Urged on by President Trump, South Carolina Republicans are attempting to redraw a district long held by a Black Democratic lawmaker in their quest for a clean sweep of the state’s seven congressional seats.

Lawmakers already are meeting in special sessions in Alabama and Tennessee in a bid to change their U.S. House districts. And Louisiana lawmakers are making plans for new congressional districts after the Supreme Court last week struck down the state’s current map.

The stakes are high for minority voters who stand to lose their preferred representatives and for any Republican lawmakers reluctant to follow Trump’s wishes. In Republican primary elections Tuesday, Trump-endorsed challengers defeated at least five of the seven Indiana state lawmakers targeted by Trump’s allies for refusing to support a congressional redistricting effort last year.

The Supreme Court’s recent ruling said Louisiana relied too heavily on race when creating a second Black-majority House district as it attempted to comply with the Voting Rights Act. The ruling significantly altered a decades-old understanding of the law, giving Republicans grounds to try to eliminate majority-Black districts that have elected Democrats.

The ruling revved up an already intense national redistricting battle ahead of a November midterm election that will determine control of the closely divided House.

Since Trump prodded Texas to redraw its U.S. House districts last year, a total of eight states have adopted new congressional districts. From that, Republicans think they could gain as many as 13 seats while Democrats think they could gain up to 10 seats. But some of the new districts could be competitive in November, meaning the parties may not get all they sought.

South Carolina to test its will for redistricting

Democratic U.S. Rep. Jim Clyburn has represented South Carolina’s 6th Congressional District since it was redrawn to favor minority voters in 1992. He’s running for an 18th term. But it could get harder for him to win reelection if Republicans redraw his district.

Leaders in the state House and Senate said a redistricting effort needs to start with a two-thirds vote in each chamber. The issue could come up as soon as Wednesday. But if only a few Republicans aren’t on board, it can’t succeed.

Senate Majority Leader Shane Massey has warned that redistricting could backfire because of thin political margins, resulting in a second Democrat in the U.S. House. Massey told reporters Tuesday that he had a cordial conversation with Trump about redistricting, each laying out their concerns.

The state’s primaries are June 9 and early voting starts in three weeks.

Alabama looks at setting a new primary

The state House on Wednesday could debate legislation that would allow Alabama to hold a special congressional primary, if the Supreme Court clears the way for the state to change its U.S. House districts.

In light of the court’s ruling on Louisiana’s districts, Alabama officials have asked courts to set aside a judicial order to use a U.S. House map that includes two districts with a substantial number of Black voters. Republicans instead want to use a map passed in 2023 by the Legislature that could help the GOP win at least one of those two seats currently held by Democrats.

Alabama’s primaries are scheduled for May 19. If the Supreme Court grants the state’s request after or too close to the primary, the legislation under consideration would ignore the results of that primary and direct the governor to schedule a new primary under the revised districts.

Democrats denounced the legislation as a Republican power grab that harkens back to the state’s shameful history of denying Black residents equal rights and representation.

Republicans are “working to secure an electoral victory by taking Alabama back to the Jim Crow era, and we won’t go back,” Democratic U.S. Rep. Terri Sewell told a crowd gathered outside the Alabama Statehouse.

Tennessee plan targets Memphis district

Republican Gov. Bill Lee called Tennessee lawmakers into a special session to consider a plan urged by Trump that could break up the state’s lone Democratic-held U.S. House district, centered on the majority-Black city of Memphis. Republicans didn’t say much about the plan Tuesday.

But as the state Senate began work Tuesday, shouts of “shame, shame, shame” could be heard inside the chamber from protesters gathered in the hallways. On the chamber floor, state Sen. Raumesh Akbari, a Black Democrat from Memphis, called the redistricting “an act of hate.”

Martin Luther King III sent a letter to Tennessee legislative leaders expressing “grave concern” about the plan to divide Memphis, saying the move could undermine the work for voting rights carried out by his father, Martin Luther King Jr.

The candidate qualifying period in Tennessee ended in March, and the primary election is scheduled for Aug. 6.

Thousands had already voted in Louisiana

After last week’s Supreme Court decision, Republican Gov. Mike Landry postponed the state’s May 16 congressional primary to allow time for lawmakers to approve new U.S. House districts. State Sen. Caleb Kleinpeter, a Republican, said a redistricting committee he leads plans to hold a public hearing Friday.

Louisiana voters had already sent in more than 41,000 absentee ballots by last Thursday, when Landry suspended the House primaries, according to the Secretary of State’s Office. That’s about a third of all the absentee ballots sent out to voters. Around 19,000 were from registered Democrats, 17,000 from registered Republicans and the remainder belonged to neither party.

Democrats and civil rights groups have filed several lawsuits challenging the suspension of Louisiana’s congressional primary.

Collins, Loller, Chandler and Lieb write for the Associated Press. Chandler reported from Montgomery, Ala., Loller from Nashville and Lieb from Jefferson City, Mo. AP writer Jack Brook contributed to this report from New Orleans.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court often resembles a feuding family where the same heated arguments go on for years.

The justices disagree over race, religion, abortion, guns and the environment, and more recently, presidential power and LGBTQ+ rights. And while they try to maintain a cordial working relationship, they don’t claim to be good friends.

“We are stuck with one another whether we like it or not,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote last year in her book, “Listening to the Law.”

And like it or not, the testy exchanges and simmering anger have been increasing, driven by the sharp ideological divide.

The three liberals had known since October the conservative majority was preparing to elevate partisan power over racial fairness.

By retreating from part of the Voting Rights Act, the court’s opinion last week by Justice Samuel A. Alito will allow Republicans across the South to dismantle voting districts that favor Black Democrats.

Justice Elena Kagan, who first came to the court as a law clerk for Justice Thurgood Marshall, denounced the “demolition” of a historic civil rights law.

In dissent, she quoted Marshall’s warning that if all the voting districts in the South have white majorities, Black citizens will be left with a “right to cast meaningless ballots.”

But Alito and Chief Justice John G. Roberts joined the court 20 years ago believing the government may not make decisions based on race.

Their first major ruling was a 5-4 decision that struck down voluntary school integration policies in Seattle and Louisville. It was illegal to encourage some students to transfer based on their race, Roberts said.

When faced with a redistricting case from Texas, Roberts described it as the “sordid business … [of] divvying us up by race.”

With President Trump’s three appointees on the court, the conservatives had a solid majority to change the law on race. Three years ago, they struck down college affirmative action policies.

Watching closely were states such as Alabama and Louisiana.

They had been sued by voting rights advocates, and both had been required to draw a second congressional district with a Black majority.

Their state attorneys appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing these race-based districts were unconstitutional.

In a decision that surprised both sides, Alabama lost by a 5-4 vote in 2023.

Roberts said the Voting Rights Act as interpreted by past decisions suggests Alabama must draw a second congressional district that may well elect a Black candidate. The three liberals agreed entirely and Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh cast a tentative fifth vote.

Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas filed strong dissents, joined by Barrett and Justice Neil M. Gorsuch.

Last year, the justices agreed to decide a nearly identical appeal from Louisiana, and this time Roberts joined the conservative majority and assigned the opinion to Alito.

He argued the Voting Rights Act gave “minority voters” an equal right to vote but not a right to “elect a preferred candidate.”

The decision dealt a double blow to Black Democrats because an earlier 5-4 opinion by Roberts freed state lawmakers to draw voting districts for partisan advantage.

That ruling, combined with Wednesday’s decision, will bolster Republicans trying to maintain their narrow hold on Congress.

As if to highlight that point, the court’s six Republican appointees were guests of President Trump at Tuesday’s White House dinner for King Charles.

Just a few days before, Trump had slammed the court in another social media post.

“The Radical Left Democrats don’t need to ‘Pack the Court’. It’s already Packed,” he wrote. “Certain ‘Republican’ Justices have just gone weak, stupid, and bad.” They had struck down his sweeping tariffs, he said, “they probably will … rule against our Country on Birthright Citizenship.”

That didn’t stop him from inviting them to the White House, nor did the partisan appearances dissuade them from attending.

Alito is enjoying his moment of acclaim as the voice of the conservative legal movement.

In March, the Federalist Society held a day-long conference in Philadelphia to celebrate the “Jurisprudence of Justice Alito.”

He is the subject of two new books. One, by journalist Mollie Hemingway, calls him “the justice who reshaped the Supreme Court and restored the Constitution.”

The other, by author Peter S. Canellos, is “Revenge for the Sixties: Sam Alito and the Triumph of the Conservative Legal Movement.”

Alito attended Princeton during the Vietnam War and was put off “by very privileged people behaving irresponsibly,” as he later described his classmates.

He then went to the Yale Law School and, like Thomas, left with a lasting disdain for the left-leaning faculty and students.

Alito has a book of his own scheduled to be released in October. It is called “So Ordered: An Originalist’s View of the Constitution, the Court and Our Country.”

Last month, rumors and speculation had it that Alito and perhaps Thomas planned to retire this year so Trump and the Senate Republicans could quickly fill their seats.

At age 76, Alito is at the peak of his influence and has no interest in stepping down, and he and Thomas confirmed to news organizations they had no plans to retire this year.

For 20 years, Alito has cast reliably conservative votes at the Supreme Court and regularly argued for moving the law farther to the right.

Most famously, he wrote the court’s 5-4 opinion in the Dobbs case that overturned Roe vs. Wade and the constitutional right to abortion.

Roberts issued a partial dissent, arguing the court should uphold Mississippi’s 16-week limit on abortions and stop there.

Alito has called religion a “disfavored right,” and there too a change is underway.

In the decades before his arrival, the court had handed down steady rulings barring taxpayer funds for religious schools or religious ceremonies or symbols in public schools or city parks.

Then, the court viewed these official “endorsements” of religion as violations of the 1st Amendment’s ban on an “establishment” of religion or the principle of church-state separation.

Those decisions have faded into the background, however.

Instead, Alito, Roberts and the four other conservatives see today’s threat as one of discrimination against religion, not official favoritism for religion.

They ruled church schools and their students may not be denied state aid because of religion. Similarly, Catholic charities and other religious groups may not be excluded from publicly funded programs because they refuse to accept same-sex parents, the justices said.

They upheld a football coach’s right to pray on the field. And they ruled for a wedding cake maker in Colorado and other business owners who refused to serve same-sex couples in violation of a state civil rights law.

Religious liberty has now replaced separation of church and state as the winning formula at the Supreme Court.

The next test on that front may come from Louisiana, which calls for the posting of the Ten Commandments in public school classes.

In the past, the court had ruled such religious displays violated the 1st Amendment, but it is not clear that the current majority will agree.

The court’s oral arguments for this term ended last week. Many of them were dominated by questions from liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

A statistical tally by Adam Feldman for Scotusblog found that Jackson, the newest justice, had spoken twice as many words as the most talkative of the conservative justices.

Her arrival shifted the “center of verbal energy” to the liberal side, Feldman wrote. While Jackson “sits in a class of her own,” Sotomayor also presses the argument on the liberal side.

The court now has about eight weeks to hand down the decisions in 35 remaining cases. Usually, May and June can be a trying time because of intense disagreements over the opinions in close cases.

But for the liberal justices, it also may be a time mostly for writing dissents.