Texas

Nov. 29 (UPI) — Rep. Troy Hehls, R-Texas, on Saturday announced he will not seek re-election in 2026 and will retire from Congress and focus on his family.

Nehls, 57, since 2021 has represented Texas’ 22nd Congressional District, which is situated southwest of Houston and includes parts of Sugar Land, Richmond and Rosenberg, among other Texas communities.

“I have made the decision, after conversations with my beautiful bride and my girls over the Thanksgiving holiday, to focus on my family and return home after this Congress,” he said Saturday in a post on X.

“Before making this decision, I called President Trump personally to let him know of my plans,” he continued.

“President Trump has always been a strong ally for our district and a true friend, and I wanted him to hear it from me first,” Nehls added.

“Serving this country in the military, serving our community in law enforcement and serving this district in Congress has been the honor of my life.”

Nehls enlisted in the Army Reserve in 1988 and earned two Bronze Stars while serving in Bosnia, Iraq and Afghanistan.

He joined the Richmond (Texas) Police Department in 1994 and was elected sheriff of Fort Bend County in 2012, before winning the 2020 House election.

His announced retirement is among several made recently by Republicans and Democrats in the House of Representatives, including Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb. and Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

Nehls’ twin brother, Trever Nehls, already announced his candidacy for the seat and has been endorsed by Troy.

It was not a good day for Dr. Phil.

Phillip McGraw, the genial celebrity psychologist who spent a career calling out the behavior of others and doling out zingers, found himself upbraided by a bankruptcy judge.

Merit Street Media, McGraw’s new network, had filed for bankruptcy protection in July, a little more than a year after he launched the media startup, and then sued its distribution partner, Trinity Broadcasting Network.

During a nearly three-hour hearing in Dallas last month, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Scott Everett said that he’d “never seen a case” like the Chapter 11 filing McGraw’s company was attempting.

Everett cited evidence indicating McGraw had “violated” a court order by deleting “unflattering” text messages that allegedly described his plan to use the bankruptcy to “wipe out” creditor claims.

“What makes this case unique, unfortunately, is that it has been plagued with the attempted destruction of relevant evidence and less than truthful testimony by some of the key players,” said Everett, alluding to McGraw and his associates in the case.

Everett ruled that Merit Street be liquidated.

Following the hearing, a spokesperson for McGraw’s production company vigorously denied the accusation that he destroyed evidence and said he is appealing the ruling.

“Dr. McGraw’s excellent record of integrity, success and service to millions over two decades speaks for itself,” said Chip Babcock, attorney for McGraw’s production company.

The unraveling of McGraw’s media venture was a gut punch for the celebrity therapist who has assiduously built a reputation — and tremendous personal wealth — as one of the most trusted voices on television. But his fortunes faded amid a dying market for syndicated TV and clashes with a distributor and partner.

After 21 years as host of the successful syndicated talk show “Dr. Phil,” McGraw went out on his own last year. He launched Merit Street Media in Texas, a company that he said would promote “family values” and serve as an antidote to “woke” culture, only to find that his ambitions collided with a new television reality.

Unlike “Dr. Phil,” Merit Street was untethered to the well-oiled machine of Paramount Studios in Los Angeles, where it was filmed, and top-tier distribution partner CBS.

Moreover, the sheer force of McGraw’s personality could not overcome the fact that linear TV is on the wane. Syndicated daytime TV shows are no longer the cash cows they used to be as most viewers consume content through streaming and other digital outlets such as YouTube and TikTok.

“By the time he put this new company together, the ‘Dr. Phil’ era had kind of ended,” said Robert Thompson, director of the Bleier Center for Television and Popular Culture at Syracuse University. “There is a shelf life to these characters and he reached his.”

An Oprah favorite

McGraw rose from clinical psychologist to an American living room staple and self-help guru in the late 1990s after Oprah Winfrey anointed him as her protégé.

Television’s then-reigning queen hired McGraw to prepare for her libel case brought by Texas cattlemen in 1997. They claimed her comments during an episode about mad cow disease disparaged them and caused beef prices to drop.

Winfrey prevailed, but it was McGraw, a former linebacker with the commanding presence of a sheriff from an old-time western, who emerged victorious.

Oprah Winfrey launched “Dr. Phil” after he advised her during her Texas cattlemen’s libel trial in the late 1990s.

(Christopher Smith / Invision / AP)

Much like books, pajama sets and certain chocolate brands, McGraw became one of Oprah’s favorite things. Recast as “Dr. Phil,” she featured him during weekly segments on her hugely popular talk show, starting in 1998. By 2002, a “Dr. Phil” spinoff began airing five days a week, produced by Winfrey’s Harpo Productions.

The show was distributed by CBS Media Ventures and filmed on a soundstage at Paramount studios on Melrose Avenue with a live audience, and it became the de facto voice for home viewers.

McGraw quickly earned a massive following for dispensing advice to cheating spouses, drug addicts, troubled teens, meddling in-laws, infamous criminals and celebrities. He delivered his no-nonsense, often blunt assessments wrapped in folksy Southern sayings such as “No matter how flat you make a pancake, it’s still got two sides.”

For more than two decades, “Dr. Phil” was a top-rated syndicated daytime talk show — 11 of those seasons at No. 1 — garnering 31 Daytime Emmy nominations. He was catapulted to stardom, appearing everywhere from late-night talk shows to sitcom cameos, even a character on “Sesame Street,” Dr. Feel. In 2020, he received a star on Hollywood’s Walk of Fame.

Dr. Phil McGraw with his wife, Robin McGraw, his son Jay McGraw and his wife, Erica Dahm, as well as their two children, London and Avery, at the ceremony celebrating Dr. Phil receiving a star on the Hollywood Walk Of Fame.

(Getty Images)

McGraw leveraged “Dr. Phil” as a launching pad for his ever-growing empire of bestselling books and various ancillary businesses, including a virtual addiction recovery program, a telemedicine app and production company, Stage 29, with his son Jay McGraw that produced shows like daytime’s “The Doctors.”

But as McGraw’s popularity and influence grew, so did the controversies.

The family of Britney Spears criticized him after he visited the troubled pop star when she was hospitalized on a psychiatric hold and issued a news release saying she was “in dire need of both medical and psychological intervention.”

A spokesperson for the Spears family said, “Rather than helping the family’s situation, the celebrity psychologist caused additional damage.”

McGraw later told viewers on his show that “I definitely think if I had it to do over again, I probably wouldn’t make any statement at all. Period.”

Claims of conflict

Questions were also raised that McGraw used his show to promote businesses and products connected to his family and affiliates, sometimes without fully disclosing those ties.

In 2006, McGraw settled a lawsuit for $10.5 million with consumers who alleged that he defrauded them by making false claims about a line of nutritional and weight-loss supplements that he endorsed on “Dr. Phil.”

He faced a Federal Trade Commission investigation into false advertising and the line was eventually discontinued.

McGraw denied the allegations and did not admit to wrongdoing or misrepresentation in the settlement.

“Dr. McGraw’s career stands among the most successful in television history,” Babcock said. “His programs always have been completely transparent, with all brand integrations under full network oversight and full FCC compliance.”

The on-air promotion of McGraw’s family businesses, such as his wife Robin McGraw’s skincare line and lifestyle brand and his son Jay McGraw’s books during “integrations,” also drew scrutiny.

Dr. Phil McGraw and son Jay McGraw.

(Jason LaVeris / FilmMagic)

“Dr. Phil” episodes frequently featured guests suffering from addiction who were often offered the opportunity to check into a treatment facility at the end of the episode.

In 2017, an investigation by STAT News and the Boston Globe alleged that the show highlighted specific treatment facilities in exchange for those recovery programs purchasing various products affiliated with McGraw.

A spokesman for the show had denied the allegations, saying that “any suggestion that appearances on Dr. Phil’s show are linked to the purchase or use of this program is false.”

McGraw’s wattage remained undimmed. He continued to branch into new ventures. He launched a podcast in 2019, “Phil in the Blanks,” and prime-time TV shows like “Bull,” a legal drama on CBS based on his experiences as a trial strategist, and another CBS legal drama, “So Help Me Todd.”

The “Dr. Phil” show has said that since its premiere, it has provided $35 million in resources to its guests after they appeared.

During the last years of “Dr. Phil,” staffers and viewers noticed that programming began to shift away from advising relationships, parenting and money issues to more conservative and cultural issues such as immigration and transgender athletes.

“He took a political slant already, but once COVID hit, [the show] skewed more and more political,” said one former longtime “Dr. Phil” staffer who declined to be named out of fear of retaliation.

During an appearance on Fox News in April 2020, McGraw said that pandemic lockdowns would be more fatal than the virus, drawing a widespread backlash on social media.

McGraw later posted a video saying he supported CDC guidelines but was concerned about the mental health effects of long-term quarantine.

“He was very good about getting big stories, but we had no input, and believe me, if we ever wanted to or tried, we’d be just told ‘no,’” said a former executive at CBS, who declined to be named due to the sensitivity of the subject matter.

Starting over in Texas

In 2023, McGraw announced that he was leaving CBS and returning to Texas to launch a new venture and broaden his audience, citing “grave concerns for the American family” and that he was “determined to help restore a clarity of purpose as well as our core values.”

Merit Street built a studio in a former AT&T call center in Fort Worth. Many of the staffers were veterans of “Dr. Phil” or had worked on McGraw-related content and relocated from Los Angeles to Texas.

Dr. Phil and President Trump at the National Day of Prayer event at the White House in May.

(Mandel Ngan / AFP via Getty Images)

The network, whose name was derived from meritocracy (with shades of main street), premiered in April 2024.

“Merit Street Media will be a resource of information and strategies to fight for America and its families, which are under a cultural ‘woke’ assault as never before,” McGraw said in a statement.

McGraw aired “exclusive” interviews with Donald Trump and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on his flagship, “Dr. Phil Primetime.”

Programming consisted of a slate of news, entertainment and conservative commentary programs with former syndicated television stars Nancy Grace and Steve Harvey, whose Steve Harvey Global had a 5% stake in the company, according to Merit’s bankruptcy filings.

In January, McGraw made headlines when he taped interviews with Trump’s top border policy advisor Tom Homan during controversial immigration raids by ICE agents in Los Angeles.

But Merit struggled to find an audience; only 27,000 viewers tuned into the network weekly during 2024, placing it at 130 out of 153 U.S. channels, according to the Hollywood Reporter.

“It’s totally false to say Merit had bad ratings,” Babcock said. “For a startup, it was like a rocket ship; at one point it passed CNN in the first few months of its existence.”

Merit soon scrapped the live audience for “Dr. Phil Primetime” and eventually production on its original programming came to a halt.

Four months after the network’s debut, the company cut 30% of its staff, including workers who had relocated from Los Angeles.

Facing mounting debts, Merit filed for bankruptcy protection in July, listing liabilities of at least $100 million.

“You could see the writing on the wall,” said the former CBS executive. “Ratings for syndication were dropping.”

While still a household name, McGraw was part of a waning breed of TV syndication stars — Judge Judy, Maury Povich and Ellen DeGeneres among them — whose shows were fast becoming nostalgic relics.

Former McGraw staffers from his CBS days said it appeared that he thought he could simply translate his name recognition and longtime popularity to the new venture, but failed to grasp the new digital media landscape.

“The programming model that he launched in 2024 was more appropriate two decades earlier,” said Syracuse University’s Thompson.

Merit Street faced internal strife as well, according to former staffers and court filings.

Former employees described tensions between Los Angeles transplants and less experienced nonunion crews.

“It was total disorganization,” said one former field producer who had worked for the “Dr. Phil” show and then relocated to Texas to work for Merit Street, who declined to be named out of fear of retribution. “Everyone kept saying this was a startup, and maybe it was. People made decisions but had no idea what they were doing,” the producer added.

A representative of McGraw’s production company conceded the startup had growing pains.

“The company thought they could produce the same quality production with less people,” he said.

Compounding matters, relations between Merit and its business and broadcast partner TBN also soured.

Merit alleged in its lawsuit that TBN provided “comically dysfunctional” technical services, with teleprompters and monitors blacked out during live programs before a studio audience.

The suit further alleged that TBN failed to pay TV distributors and had reneged on its promise to cover $100 million in production services and other costs.

McGraw, through his production company, bankrolled the struggling enterprise from December 2024 to May 2025, lending it $25 million, according to Merit’s lawsuit.

For its part, TBN accused McGraw and his production company Peteski Productions of “fraudulent inducement,” alleging in a countersuit that it had invested $100 million into Merit and that McGraw and Peteski had failed to bring in promised advertising revenue.

TBN said McGraw reached out to the company as a potential replacement for CBS as a distribution partner during the latter half of 2022.

“McGraw specifically represented to TBN that he wanted to change networks because of what he perceived to be CBS’s censorship of the content aired on the ‘Dr. Phil Show.’ As McGraw put it, ‘I don’t want snot-nose lawyers telling me what I can and can’t say on TV,’” the lawsuit states.

Instead, they claimed in their complaint, McGraw and his company engaged in a “fraudulent scheme” to fleece TBN, a not-for-profit corporation.

In a statement to Variety, a spokesperson for McGraw and his production company called TBN’s lawsuit “riddled with provable lies.”

TBN did not respond to a request for comment.

Merit also clashed with another partner: Professional Bull Riders, which in November 2024 canceled its four-year contract with Merit and pulled its content, claiming the company had failed to pay the fees it owed.

Professional Bull Riders claims Merit Street stopped paying its broadcast fees and is owed $181 million.

(Anadolu via Getty Images)

PBR, which later signed with Fox Nation and CBS, alleged in a separate lawsuit that Merit breached their contract and is seeking $181 million.

“We’re glad he’s being held accountable,” said Mark Shapiro, the president and chief operating officer of TKO Group Holdings, parent company of PBR, in a statement to The Times.

“Merit Street agreed to work out its differences with PBR in a confidential proceeding which is ongoing. We were therefore surprised that PBR would publicly accuse us of violating our agreement when the facts are in dispute,” the company said in an earlier statement.

Two weeks after Merit filed for bankruptcy, McGraw announced the launch of another new network, Envoy Media Co., that would include live, “balanced news,” original entertainment programming and “immersive viewer experiences,” as well as original programming from friend and former Merit stakeholder Steve Harvey.

Last month, Envoy struck a distribution deal with Charter Communications.

“Dr. McGraw remains deeply proud of his past work and the millions of people it has reached. He’s now turning that same purpose and energy toward Envoy Media,” Babcock said.

But the Merit legal drama is far from over.

TBN has since alleged that Merit Street filed for bankruptcy in bad faith as a way to secure funding for Envoy.

A spokesperson for Peteski called TBN’s allegation “blatantly false” and said Envoy is independently financed.

Earlier this month, Judge Everett rejected Merit’s motion to pause the company’s liquidation while his ruling is appealed. He cited deleted texts in which McGraw described plans by Merit to file for bankruptcy protection to “wipe out” debts from its main creditors, TBN and PBR.

“Candor to the court is critical,” said Everett during his original ruling, and then declared that Merit Street Media “was as dead as a door nail when the bankruptcy was filed.”

CONCORD, N.H. — A college freshman trying to fly from Boston to Texas to surprise her family for Thanksgiving was instead deported to Honduras in violation of a court order, according to her attorney.

Any Lucia Lopez Belloza, 19, had already passed through security at Boston Logan International Airport on Nov. 20 when she was told there was an issue with her boarding pass, said attorney Todd Pomerleau. The Babson College student was then detained by immigration officials and within two days, sent to Texas and then Honduras, the country she left at age 7.

“She’s absolutely heartbroken,” Pomerleau said. “Her college dream has just been shattered.”

According to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, an immigration judge ordered Lopez Belloza to be deported in 2015. Pomerleau said she wasn’t aware of any removal order, however, and the only record he’s found indicates her case was closed in 2017.

“They’re holding her responsible for something they claim happened a decade ago that she’s completely unaware of and not showing any of the proof,” the lawyer said.

The day after Lopez Belloza was arrested, a federal judge issued an emergency order prohibiting the government from moving her out of Massachusetts or the United States for at least 72 hours. ICE did not respond to an email Friday from the Associated Press seeking comment about violating that order. Babson College also did not respond to an email seeking comment.

Lopez Belloza, who is staying with her grandparents in Honduras, told the Boston Globe she had been looking forward to telling her parents and younger sisters about her first semester studying business.

“That was my dream,” she said. “I’m losing everything.”

Ramer writes for the Associated Press.

LAS VEGAS — Rori Harmon scored 26 points and No. 4 Texas held on to beat No. 3 UCLA 76-65 on Wednesday in the Players Era Championship.

After building a 23-point lead late in the third quarter, the Longhorns staved off UCLA’s late surge to advance to Thursday’s championship game.

Texas (6-0) will face South Carolina in Thursday’s title game, while the Bruins (6-1) will play Duke for third place.

Madison Booker finished with 16 points, seven rebounds and five assists for the Longhorns. Jordan Lee had 13 points and Justice Carlton chipped in 10.

The Bruins trailed by just four after a 24-7 run, sparked by Kiki Rice’s 12 points. But three failed possessions — a missed three-pointer and two turnovers — allowed Texas to pull away.

Gianna Kneepkens and Rice led the Bruins, each with 17 points. Charlisse Leger-Walker scored 13 points on 50% shooting.

Texas was superior defensively in the first quarter, forcing seven UCLA turnovers and turning them into six points. Despite going 0 for 4 from the three-point line, the Longhorns were nine of 15 (47.4%) from inside the arc in the opening period to take a 10-point lead after one.

The Longhorns doubled their lead in the second quarter, outscoring UCLA by 10 again, to take a 45-25 lead into the locker room at halftime. Texas shot a blistering 51.4% in the first half, while UCLA stumbled to a 44.4% clip after 20 minutes.

UCLA survived a scare when Lauren Betts left the game early in the third quarter with what appeared to be an upper-body injury.

Betts, an AP preseason All-American selection, collided with Booker and writhed in pain on the court, grabbing her arm as trainers tended to her. Betts returned to the game after spending several minutes in the locker room.

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.

Texas redrew its voting map as part of US President Donald Trump’s plan to win extra Republican seats in the 2026 midterm elections.

The United States Supreme Court has temporarily blocked a lower court ruling that found the Texas 2026 congressional redistricting plan likely discriminates on the basis of race.

The order signed on Friday by Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito will remain in place at least for the next few days while the court considers whether to allow the new map, which is favourable to Republicans, to be used in the US midterm elections next year.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton hailed the ruling, which had granted an “administrative stay” and temporarily stopped the lower court’s “injunction against Texas’s map”.

“Radical left-wing activists are abusing the judicial system to derail the Republican agenda and steal the US House for Democrats. I am fighting to stop this blatant attempt to upend our political system,” Paxton said in an earlier post on social media.

Texas redrew its congressional map in August as part of US President Donald Trump’s efforts to preserve a slim Republican majority in the House of Representatives in next year’s mid-term elections, touching off a nationwide redistricting battle between Republicans and Democrats.

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

The redrawn map was likely racially discriminatory in violation of US constitutional protections, the court found.

Nonprofit news outlet The Texas Tribune said the state is now back to using, temporarily, its 2025 congressional map for voting as the Supreme Court has not yet decided what map Texas should ultimately use, and the “legality of the map” will play out in court over the coming weeks and months.

Texas was the first state to meet Trump’s demands on redistricting. Missouri and North Carolina followed Texas with new redistricting maps that would add an additional Republican seat each.

To counter those moves, California voters approved a ballot initiative to give Democrats an additional five seats there.

Redrawn voter maps are now facing court challenges in California, Missouri and North Carolina.

Republicans currently hold slim majorities in both chambers of Congress, and ceding control of either the House or Senate to the Democrats in the November 2026 midterm elections would imperil Trump’s legislative agenda in the second half of his latest term in office.

There have been legal fights at the Supreme Court for decades over the practice known as gerrymandering – the redrawing of electoral district boundaries to marginalise a certain set of voters and increase the influence of others.

The court issued its most important ruling to date on the matter in 2019, declaring that gerrymandering for partisan reasons – to boost the electoral chances of one’s own party and weaken one’s political opponent – could not be challenged in federal courts.

But gerrymandering driven primarily by race remains unlawful under the US Constitution’s 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection under the law and 15th Amendment prohibition on racial discrimination in voting.

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.

Nov. 21 (UPI) — A U.S. Supreme Court justice on Friday night at least temporarily paused a lower court’s decision to throw out Texas’ new congressional map to potentially add five House seats for Republicans.

Justie Samuel Alito, chosen to decide on emergency appeals in the state, granted the request, writing it “is hereby administratively stayed” with a response to the application to be filed by 5 p.m. Monday.

So, this puts the block on hold until the full court decides.

Earlier Friday, state lawyers formally asked for an emergency stay to allow the map borders that were approved this summer by the legislature.

On Tuesday, a three-member panel in the U.S. District Court of Western Texas threw out the mapsin a 2-1 vote.

President Donald Trump had urged Texas to change the maps to favor Republicans.

After the state filed its appeal, Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton wrote in a news release: “Texas engaged in partisan redistricting solely to secure more Republican seats in Congress and thereby better represent our state and Texans. For years, Democrats have aggressively gerrymandered their states and only cry foul and hurl baseless ‘racism’ accusations because they are losing.”

He described the legislation signed by Gov. Greg Abbott in August as Texas’ “Big Beautiful Map.”

The state had asked the high court by Monday night to decide on pausing the lower court ruling.

The lower court’s decision caused “chaos” for the election, the state said.

“Campaigning had already begun, candidates had already gathered signatures and filed applications to appear on the ballot under the 2025 map, and early voting for the March 3, 2026, primary was only 91 days away,” Texas officials told the Supreme Court.

Those seeking to run for House seats must declare their candidacy by Dec. 8.

U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Brown, appointed by President Trump in his first term, and David Guaderrama, appointed by President Obama, threw out the maps.

Circuit Court Judge Jerry Smith, nominated by President Ronald Reagan, dissented, writing: “In my 37 years on the federal bench, this is the most outrageous conduct by a judge that I have ever encountered in a case in which I have been involved.

“If, however, there were a Nobel prize for fiction, Judge Brown’s opinion would be a prime candidate.”

In the 107 pages, he mentioned billionaire George Soros, a donor for Democrats, 17 times.

Brown, writing the majority opinion, directed the state to correct four districts because they were illegal racial gerrymanders.

Brown focused on how the new map would affect the racial makeup of Texas’ congressional districts.

“The public perception of this case is that it’s about politics,” Brown wrote. “To be sure, politics played a role in drawing the 2025 map. But it was much more than just politics. Substantial evidence shows that Texas racially gerrymandered the 2025 map.”

But Texas disagreed, saying: politics, not race, drove the new maps.

“This summer, the Texas Legislature did what legislatures do: politics,” the state told the high court.

Texas said the lower court ruling “erroneously rests on speculation and inferences of bad faith.” And it said the state GOP’s chief mapmaker worked with data on partisanship rather than race.

After the decision, Paxton wrote in a post on X that he would appeal the order to the U.S. Supreme Court. He added that he expects the Supreme Court to “uphold Texas’ sovereign right to engage in partisan redistricting.”

Republicans now hold 25 of Texas’ 38 House seats.

Missouri and North Carolina approved a new map that could create another Republican-leaning district in each state.

Unlike those Republican-dominant states, California voters approved the new map that potentially can add five Democratic seats. Proposition 50 was approved by a 64.4-35.6%. The breakdown now is 43 Democrats and nine Republicans.

Other states are considering changes.

The U.S. House party breakdown is 219 Republicans, 213 Democrats and three vacancies. On Thursday, Democrat Mikie Sherill resigned her seat because she was elected New Jersey’s governor earlier this month.

Bill Melugin, an Orange County native who made his name at Fox News covering the U.S. southern border, is relocating to Washington, D.C. where he will cover Congress for the network.

Fox News announced Thursday that Melugin will begin his new role as congressional correspondent immediately.

“Bill’s dogged dedication to uncovering the story and deep understanding of national issues make him an excellent fit to cover the complex world of Congress,” Fox News President and Executive Editor Jay Wallace said in a statement.

Melugin, 35, has been a Los Angeles-based correspondent for the network since 2021, becoming a regular on-screen presence with his coverage of the undocumented migrants crossing the southern U.S. border. He did 1,000 live shots from the Rio Grande Valley in 2022.

Melugin handled a number of other major breaking news events across the country, including the 2025 California wildfires and the mass shooting at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas.

Melugin’s move to Washington is an indication that Fox News has larger plans for him. He has been brought to Washington several times in recent years for fill-in work at the anchor desk and a permanent role there is likely in his future.

Melugin has been reluctant to leave Los Angeles as he is close to his widowed mother Audrey, who lives in Orange County. But in a 2023 interview with the Times, she gave her blessing to any advancement opportunity.

“I’ve always told him if you have a better opportunity do it, but he is very protective of me,” she said. “I appreciate it. But I don’t want to be the one to hold him back either.”

Before joining Fox News Media, Melugin was an investigative reporter for the Fox-owned station KTTV in Los Angeles, where he was awarded three local Emmy awards for investigative work. He was part of the KTTV team that uncovered exclusive pictures of California Gov. Gavin Newsom dining at French Laundry without a mask at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020.

He previously held anchor and reporter roles at Fox TV affiliates in Charlotte, North Carolina, and El Paso, Texas.

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.”

Nov. 19 (UPI) — Texas Gov. Gregg Abbott has designated two Muslim groups, including the United States’ largest, on accusations of being terrorist organizations.

The proclamation from Abbott, a Republican and President Donald Trump ally, designates the Council on American-Islamic Relations and the Muslim Brotherhood as foreign terrorist organizations and transnational criminal organizations.

The designation puts both organizations and their members under “heightened enforcement” while prohibiting them from purchasing or acquiring land in the Lone Star State.

Abbott blacklisted them by claiming they want to “forcibly impose Sharia law and establish Islam’s ‘mastership of the world.'” No proof of either claim was provided.

“These radical extremists are not welcome in our state and are now prohibited from acquiring any real property interest in Texas,” Abbott said in a statement.

CAIR, the United States’ largest Muslim advocacy group, was founded in 1994 with the mission to promote justice, protect civil rights and empower American Muslims. CAIR condemns all acts of terrorism by any group designated by the United States as a terrorism organization, including Hamas.

The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in Egypt in the 1920s, renounced violence in the 1970s and now provides a mixture of religious teaching with political activism and social support, such as operating pharmacies, hospitals and schools, according the Council on Foreign Relations.

CAIR said its Texas chapter will continue its civil rights work and that its lawyers are considering legal action, calling Abbott’s designation “defamatory and lawless.”

In response, CAIR sent Abbott a letter refuting his accusations while accusing his office of spending months “stoking anti-Muslim hysteria” to smear those critical of Israel over its war in Gaza.

“Unlike your office, which has unleashed violence against Texas students protesting the Gaza genocide to satisfy you AIPAC donors, our civil rights organization answers to the American people, relies on support form the American people and stands up for American values,” Robert McCaw, director of government affairs at CAIR, said in the letter.

State Rep. Ron Reynolds, a Democrat, chastised Abbott’s designation as “discriminatory, dangerous and an attack on Muslim families.”

“I will not stay silent while innocent Texans are targeted,” he said in a statement. “This is the moment to stand up, speak our and make good trouble.”

Nov. 18 (UPI) — A federal court ordered Texas on Tuesday to throw out its redrawn Republican-friendly congressional maps for the 2026 election after finding it constituted an illegal racial gerrymander.

The 2-1 order by the three-judge panel in the U.S. District Court of Western Texas is a significant setback for Republicans after they pushed through an unusual redistricting of Texas’ congressional seats to insulate their slim House majority ahead of next year’s midterms.

President Donald Trump openly urged Texas state lawmakers to adopt the new congressional map in order to help the party’s prospects in Washington. Democratic lawmakers responded by fleeing the state in what was ultimately an unsuccessful attempt to deny Republicans the quorum needed to pass the new maps.

State Rep. Gene Wu, a Democrat who led the quorum break, welcomed the court’s ruling in a post on X.

“Texas House Dems stood up to Abbott & Trump,” he wrote. “We broke quorum & we fought in the courts! We did not back down.”

However, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton wrote in a post on X that he would appeal the order to the U.S. Supreme Court. He criticized what he called partisan gerrymandering in Democratic-led states, including California, Illinois and New York. He added that he expects the Supreme Court to “uphold Texas’s sovereign right to engage in partisan redistricting.”

Republicans currently hold 25 of Texas’ 38 House seats, and the now-scrapped redistricting was expected to give the party an edge by diluting Democratic strongholds.

But U.S. Judge Jeffrey Brown, a Trump appointee, instead focused on how the new map would affect the racial makeup of Texas’ congressional districts.

“The public perception of this case is that it’s about politics,” Brown wrote. “To be sure, politics played a role in drawing the 2025 map. But it was much more than just politics. Substantial evidence shows that Texas racially gerrymandered the 2025 map.”

In his ruling, Brown cited a July letter from U.S. Department of Justice officials to Paxton and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, directing the state to correct four districts because they were illegal racial gerrymanders.

Brown wrote that the letter was difficult to assess because it contained “so many factual, legal and typographical errors.” But Brown pointed out that Abbott cited the letter as the reason he added congressional redistricting to the legislature’s special session earlier this year.

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.

The majority on a federal court in El Paso, Texas, found that the new map used race to redraw congressional districts.

A panel of federal judges has ruled that Texas’s newly redrawn congressional districts cannot be used in next year’s 2026 midterm elections, striking a blow to Republican efforts to tilt races in their favour.

On Tuesday, a two-to-one majority at the US District Court for western Texas blocked the map, on the basis that there was “substantial evidence” to show “that Texas racially gerrymandered” the districts.

Partisan gerrymandering has generally been considered legal under court precedent, but dividing congressional maps along racial lines is considered a violation of the US Constitution and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

“The public perception of this case is that it’s about politics. To be sure, politics played a role in drawing the 2025 Map. But it was much more than just politics,” the court’s majority wrote in the opening of its 160-page opinion.

The ruling marked a major setback to efforts to redraw congressional districts ahead of the critically important midterms, which decide the composition of the US Congress.

All 435 seats in the House of Representatives will be up for grabs in that election. With Republicans holding a narrow 219-seat majority, analysts speculate that control of the chamber could potentially switch parties.

Texas, a Republican stronghold, had kicked off a nationwide race to redesign congressional districts in favour of one party or the other.

In June, news reports emerged that the administration of President Donald Trump had reached out to state officials to redraw the red state’s map, in order to gain five additional House seats for Republicans.

Despite hesitations and a walkout by state Democrats, the Texas legislature passed a new, gerrymandered map in August.

That inspired other right-leaning states, notably North Carolina and Missouri, to similarly redraw their districts. North Carolina and Missouri each passed a map that would gain Republicans one additional House seat.

Texas’s actions also sparked a Democratic backlash. California Governor Gavin Newsom spearheaded a ballot campaign in his heavily blue state to pass a proposition in November that would suspend an independent districting commission and instead pass a partisan map, skewed in favour of Democrats.

Voters passed the ballot initiative overwhelmingly in November, teeing up Democrats to gain five extra seats in California next year.

The state redistricting battle has sparked myriad legal challenges, including the one decided in Texas on Tuesday.

In that case, civil rights groups accused the Texas government of attempting to dilute the power of Black and Hispanic voters.

Judges David Guaderrama, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, and Jeffrey V Brown, a Trump appointee, wrote the majority decision in favour of the plaintiffs.

A third judge — Jerry Smith, appointed under Ronald Reagan — dissented from their decision.

Writing for the majority, Brown said that Trump official Harmeet Dhillon, the head of the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, made the “legally incorrect assertion” that four congressional districts in the state were “unconstitutional” because they had non-white majorities.

The letter Dhillon sent containing that assertion helped prompt the Texas redistricting fight, Brown argued.

The judge also pointed to statements Texas Governor Greg Abbott made, seeming to reference the racial composition of the districts. If the new map’s aims were purely partisan and not racial, Brown indicated that it was curious no majority-white districts were targeted.

Tuesday’s ruling restores the 2021 map of Texas congressional districts. Currently, the state is represented by 25 Republicans and 12 Democrats in the US House.

Already, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has pledged to appeal the ruling before the US Supreme Court.

“The radical left is once again trying to undermine the will of the people. The Big Beautiful Map was entirely legal and passed for partisan purposes to better represent the political affiliations of Texas,” Paxton wrote in a statement posted to social media.

He expressed optimism about his odds before the conservative-leaning Supreme Court. “I fully expect the Court to uphold Texas’s sovereign right to engage in partisan redistricting.”

California’s new congressional map likewise faces a legal challenge, with the Trump administration suing alongside state Republicans.

Hundreds of National Guard troops deployed to Chicago and Portland, Ore., are being sent home, and those who will remain will continue to stay off the streets amid court battles over their deployment by the Trump administration, a defense official said Monday.

The withdrawal of soldiers — sent from California and Texas — is part of a larger change to troop deployments after President Trump began his immigration crackdown in various cities with Democratic leadership. The official requested anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss the issue.

U.S. Northern Command said in a statement Sunday it was “shifting and/or rightsizing” units in Portland, Los Angeles and Chicago. Although it said there would be a “constant, enduring, and long-term presence in each city.”

In the coming days, 200 California National Guard troops currently deployed to Oregon will be sent home, and about 100 will remain in the Portland area doing training, the official said. The military also plans to cut in half the number of Oregon National Guard troops on deployment there from 200 soldiers to 100, the official said.

About 200 Texas National Guard troops in Chicago also are being sent home and about 200 soldiers will be on standby at Fort Bliss, an Army base that stretches across parts of Texas and New Mexico, the official said.

About 300 Illinois National Guard troops will remain in the Chicago area, also doing training, but they currently are not legally allowed to conduct operations with the Department of Homeland Security, the official said.

The official said the upcoming holiday season may have played a role in the change in deployments.

Diana Crofts-Pelayo, a spokesperson for California Gov. Gavin Newsom, said Trump “never should have illegally deployed our troops in the first place.”

“We’re glad they’re finally coming home,” she wrote in an email. “It’s long overdue!”

Separately, the Trump administration has stepped up immigration enforcement in Charlotte, North Carolina, expanding an aggressive campaign that’s been spearheaded by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

National Guard deployments have been one of the most controversial initiatives of Trump’s second term, demonstrating an expanded willingness to use the military to accomplish domestic goals.

Troops, including active-duty Marines, were deployed to Los Angeles during immigration protests earlier this year.

The National Guard was also sent to Washington, D.C., where they were part of a broader federal intervention that Trump claimed was necessary because of crime problems.

The deployments later expanded to Portland and Chicago.

Although they don’t play a law enforcement role, members of the National Guard have been tasked with protecting federal facilities, particularly those run by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

About 100 troops who have been in Los Angeles will remain on deployment, the defense official said.

Watson writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Chris Megerian in Washington contributed to this report.

The Justice Department on Thursday sued to block new congressional district boundaries approved by California voters last week, joining a court battle that could help determine which party wins control of the U.S. House in 2026.

The complaint filed in California federal court targets the new congressional map pushed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in response to a similar Republican-led effort in Texas backed by President Trump. It sets the stage for a high-stakes legal and political fight between the Republican administration and the Democratic governor, who is seen as a likely 2028 presidential contender.

“California’s redistricting scheme is a brazen power grab that tramples on civil rights and mocks the democratic process,” Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi said in an emailed statement. “Governor Newsom’s attempt to entrench one-party rule and silence millions of Californians will not stand.”

California voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 50, a constitutional amendment that changes the state’s congressional boundaries to give Democrats a shot at winning five seats currentlyheld by Republicans in next year’s midterm elections.

The Justice Department is joining a case challenging the new map that was brought by the California Republican Party last week. The Trump administration accuses California of racial gerrymandering in violation of the Constitution by using race as a factor to favor Latino voters with the new map. It asks a judge to prohibit California from using the new map in any future elections.

“Race cannot be used as a proxy to advance political interests, but that is precisely what the California General Assembly did with Proposition 50 — the recent ballot initiative that junked California’s pre-existing electoral map in favor of a rush-job rejiggering of California’s congressional district lines,” the lawsuit says.

Proposition 50 was Newsom’s response to Trump’s maneuvers in Texas, where Republicans rejiggered districts in hopes of picking up five seats of their own ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, when House control will be on the line.

Democrats need to gain just a handful of seats next year to take control of the chamber, a win that would imperil Trump’s agenda for the remainder of his term and open the way for congressional investigations into his administration. Republicans currently hold 219 seats, to Democrats’ 214.

The showdown between the nation’s two most populous states has spread nationally, with Missouri, Ohio and a spray of other states either adopting new district lines to gain partisan advantage or considering doing so.

The national implications of California’s ballot measure were clear in both the money it attracted and the high-profile figures who became involved. Tens of millions of dollars flowed into the race, including a $5-million donation to opponents from the Congressional Leadership Fund, the super political action committee tied to House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.).

Former action movie star and Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger opposed the measure, while former President Obama, a Democrat, appeared in ads supporting it, calling it a “smart” approach to counter Republican moves aimed at safeguarding House control.

The contest provided Newsom with a national platform when he has confirmed he will consider a White House run in 2028.

Richer and Blood write for the Associated Press. Richer reported from Chicago.

A deputy for the Medina County Sheriff’s Office in Texas fatally shot California-based food influencer Michael Duarte last week, a police spokesperson confirmed to TMZ.

The outlet reported on Wednesday that Duarte, who amassed a following on social media as “FoodWithBearHands,” died Nov. 8 after deputies responded to a disturbance call in Castroville, Texas. Law enforcement reported to a “male subject with a knife acting erratically.” The spokesperson alleges that Duarte threatened and approached the responding deputy, and did not follow numerous “verbal commands” to get on the ground.

“Duarte charged toward the deputy while yelling, ‘I’m going to kill you,’” the spokesperson told TMZ. The spokesperson added that the deputy fired two rounds from her “duty weapon” and struck Duarte. He was reportedly given medical aid at the scene and transferred to a nearby hospital, where he died. He was 39.

Neither representatives for the Medina County Sheriff’s Office or Duarte immediately responded to requests for confirmation on Wednesday.

Barbecue pellet company Bear Mountain BBQ announced Duarte’s death on Tuesday in a joint statement shared to his Instagram page. A GoFundMe fundraiser created to benefit his family confirms that Duarte died “in a horrible accident on Saturday” while he was traveling in Texas, three days after he and his wife celebrated their ninth wedding anniversary.

“The world may know him as ‘FoodwithBearHands,’ but to us, he was a loving husband, father, brother, and a great friend to many,” reads the fundraiser description. “We ask that you lift Michael’s family up in prayer during this extremely difficult time, especially for his 6 year old daughter Oakley, and his wife Jessica.”

The GoFundMe seeks to raise $100,000 to support Duarte’s family in covering funeral expenses and “bringing him back home to California.” Donors have raised more than $65,000 as of Wednesday afternoon.

Duarte, raised in the desert town of Calipatria, began his professional culinary career working in several restaurants in San Diego, he said in October. He began posting videos on social media during the COVID-19 pandemic. After a “mental health crisis that led me to rehab,” Duarte continued to post cooking videos during his time off, including his first video, which featured his daughter, he said.

“That’s when I realized how happy creating content made me,” he wrote. “Over time, I began to see it wasn’t just a hobby — it could be a business, something bigger than myself.”

Over the years, he shared cooking recipes for alligator, iguana, frog legs, smoked duck and a variety of other dishes. His YouTube channel boasts a following of more than 260,000 subscribers and his Instagram page touts even more, with 845,000-plus followers.

“He had a rare gift for capturing the true spirit of BBQ: the smoke, the stories, the laughter, and the love for good food that brings people together,” Bear Mountain BBQ continued its statement.

The statement added: “But beyond the work, Michael was so much more. A proud dad who lit up every time he spoke about his daughter. A devoted husband whose love for his family was the center of everything he did. A good man with a generous heart, whose warmth and kindness touched everyone he met.”

WASHINGTON — Time was — not that long ago — that after a mass shooting, gun rights advocates would nod to the possibility of compromise before waiting for memories to fade and opposing any new legislation to regulate firearms.

This time, they skipped the preliminaries and jumped directly to opposition.

“The most effective tool for keeping kids safe is armed law enforcement on the campus,” Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz said to MSNBC a few hours after a shooter killed at least 21 people in Uvalde, Texas. “Inevitably, when there’s a murder of this kind, you see politicians try to politicize it. You see Democrats and a lot of folks in the media whose immediate solution is to try to restrict the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens. That doesn’t work.”

The speed of that negative reaction provides the latest example of how, on one issue after another, the gap between blue America and red America has widened so much that even the idea of national agreement appears far-fetched. Many political figures no longer bother pretending to look for it.

Broad agreement on some steps

And yet, significant agreement does exist.

Poll after poll has shown for years that large majorities of the public agree on at least some, limited steps to further regulate firearms.

A survey last year by the Pew Research Center, for example, showed that by 87% to 12%, Americans supported “preventing people with mental illnesses from purchasing guns.” By 81% to 18% they backed “making private gun sales and sales at gun shows subject to background checks.” And by a smaller but still healthy 64% to 36% they favored “banning high-capacity ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.”

The gunman in Uvalde appears to have carried seven 30-round magazines, authorities in Texas have said.

So why, in the face of such large majorities, does Congress repeatedly do nothing?

One powerful factor is the belief among many Americans that nothing lawmakers do will help the problem.

Asked in that same Pew survey if mass shootings would decline if guns were harder to obtain, about half of Americans said they would go down, but 42% said it would make no difference. Other surveys have found much the same feeling among a large swath of Americans.

The argument about futility is one that opponents of change quickly turn to after a catastrophe. It’s a powerful rhetorical weapon against action.

Esmeralda Bravo, 63, holds a photo of her granddaughter, Nevaeh, one of the Robb Elementary School shooting victims, during a prayer vigil in Uvalde, Texas, on Wednesday.

(Jae C. Hong / Associated Press)

“It wouldn’t prevent these shootings,” Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said on CNN on Wednesday when asked about banning the sort of semiautomatic weapons used by the killer in Uvalde and by a gunman who killed 10 at a Buffalo, N.Y., supermarket 10 days earlier. “The truth of the matter is these people are going to commit these horrifying crimes — whether they have to use another weapon to do it, they’re going to figure out a way to do it.”

Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott made a similar claim at his news conference on Wednesday: “People who think that, ‘well, maybe we can just implement tougher gun laws, it’s gonna solve it’ — Chicago and L.A. and New York disprove that thesis.”

The facts powerfully suggest that’s not true.

Go back roughly 15 years: In 2005, California had almost the same rate of deaths from guns as Florida or Texas. California had 9.5 firearms deaths per 100,000 people that year, Florida had 10 and Texas 11, according to data from the National Center for Health Statistics.

Since then, California repeatedly has tightened its gun laws, while Florida and Texas have moved in the opposite direction.

California’s rate of gun deaths has declined by 10% since 2005, even as the national rate has climbed in recent years. And Texas and Florida? Their rates of gun deaths have climbed 28% and 37% respectively. California now has one of the 10 lowest rates of gun deaths in the nation. Texas and Florida are headed in the wrong direction.

Obviously, factors beyond a state’s laws can affect the rate of firearms deaths. The national health statistics take into account differences in the age distribution of state populations, but they don’t control for every factor that might affect gun deaths.

Equally clearly, no law stops all shootings.

California’s strict laws didn’t stop the shooting at a Taiwanese church in Laguna Woods earlier this month, and there’s no question that Chicago suffers from a large number of gun-related homicides despite strict gun control laws in Illinois. A large percentage of the guns used in those crimes come across the border from neighboring states with loose gun laws, research has shown.

The overall pattern is clear, nonetheless, and it reinforces the lesson from other countries, including Canada, Britain and Australia, which have tightened gun laws after horrific mass shootings: The states with America’s lowest rates of gun-related deaths all have strict gun laws; in states that allow easy availability of guns, more people die from them.

Fear of futility isn’t the only barrier to passage of national gun legislation.

Hardcore opponents of gun regulation have become more entrenched in their positions over the last decade.

Mostly conservative and Republican and especially prevalent in rural parts of the U.S., staunch opponents of any new legislation restricting firearms generally don’t see gun violence as a major problem but do see the weapons as a major part of their identity. In the Pew survey last year, just 18% of Republicans rated gun violence as one of the top problems facing the country, compared with 73% of Democrats. Other surveys have found much the same.

Strong opponents of gun control turn out in large numbers in Republican primaries, and they make any vote in favor of new restrictions politically toxic for Republican officeholders. In American politics today, where most congressional districts are gerrymandered to be safe for one party and only a few states swing back and forth politically, primaries matter far more to most lawmakers than do general elections.

Even in general elections, gun issues aren’t the top priority for most voters. Background checks and similar measures have wide support, but not necessarily urgent support.

Finally, in an era defined by “negative partisanship” — suspicion and fear of the other side — it’s easy to convince voters that a modest gun control proposal is just an opening wedge designed to lead to something more dramatic.

That leads to a common pattern when gun measures appear on ballots: They do less well than polling would suggest.

The same thing happens to measures in Congress. Nine years ago, for example, supporters of gun control made their last big push for legislation, after the slayings of 26 people, including 20 children, at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.

Then, as now, polls showed strong support for requiring background checks for sales that currently evade them. But support for the legislation was sharply lower than support for the general idea, Pew found.

Almost 8 in 10 Republican gun owners favored background checks in general, they found, but when asked about the specific bill, only slightly more than 4 in 10 wanted it to pass. When asked why they backed the general idea but opposed the specific one, most of those polled cited concerns that the bill would set up a “slippery slope” to more regulation or contained provisions that would go further than advertised.

Faced with that sort of skepticism from voters, Republican senators who had flirted with supporting the bill mostly walked away, and it failed.

Then-Vice President Joe Biden led the unsuccessful effort to pass that bill. Nearly a decade later, the political factors impeding action have only grown more powerful.

Texas school shooting

The recent string of devastating shootings has renewed calls for tighter gun restrictions. But as Kevin Rector reported, a loosening of gun laws is almost certainly coming instead, largely because of an expected decision from the Supreme Court, which is likely to strike down a broad law in New York that doesn’t allow individuals to carry guns in public without first demonstrating a “special need” for self-defense.

For all the impassioned speeches and angry tweets, for all the memes and viral videos of gun control proponents quaking with rage, most of the energy and political intensity has been on the side of those who favor greater gun laxity, Mark Barabak wrote.

The shooting has generated a lot of questions from parents about what their own schools are doing for safety. Howard Blume looked at what California officials say about school security.

The latest from Washington

Biden marked the second anniversary of George Floyd’s murder by a Minneapolis police officer by signing an executive order aimed at reforming policing at the federal level. As Eli Stokols reported, Wednesday’s order falls short of what Biden had hoped to achieve through legislation. It directs all federal agencies to revise their use-of-force policies, creates a national registry of officers fired for misconduct and provides grants to incentivize state and local police departments to strengthen restrictions on chokeholds and no-knock warrants.

Sluggish response and questionable decisions by the Food and Drug Administration worsened the nation’s infant formula shortage, agency officials told lawmakers at a congressional hearing. “You’re right to be concerned, and the public should be concerned,” said FDA Commissioner Robert Califf. The agency’s response “was too slow and there were decisions that were suboptimal along the way,” Anumita Kaur reported.

Only a couple of months ago, U.S. and European officials said a renewal of the Iran nuclear deal was “imminent.” But with little progress since then, and a shifting global geopolitical scene, the top U.S. envoy for the Iran negotiations testified Wednesday that prospects for reviving the Iran deal are “at best, tenuous,” Tracy Wilkinson reported. “We do not have a deal,” the Biden administration’s special envoy for Iran, Robert Malley, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Cuba will not attend next month’s Summit of the Americas, a major conference to take place in Los Angeles, after the U.S. refused to extend a proper invitation, the country’s president, Miguel Díaz-Canel, announced Wednesday. As Wilkinson reported, the decision throws the summit, which is crucial to the U.S.’ ability to demonstrate its influence in the Western Hemisphere, into further disarray.

The latest from California

GOP Rep. Young Kim would seem to have a relatively easy path to reelection in November — the national mood favors her party, she has a lot of money and the newly drawn boundaries for her Orange County district give her more Republican constituents. But Kim is suddenly campaigning with a sense of urgency, Melanie Mason and Seema Mehta report. She’s unleashed $1.3 million in advertising, and outside allies are coming to her aid with more spending. Most of it is aimed at fending off Greg Raths, an underfunded GOP opponent who has been a staple on the political scene in Mission Viejo, the district’s largest city.

Gov. Gavin Newsom and top legislative Democrats pledged Wednesday to expedite gun legislation. Among the bills are measures that would require school officials to investigate credible threats of a mass shooting, allow private citizens to sue firearm manufacturers and distributors, and enact more than a dozen other policies intended to reduce gun violence in California, Taryn Luna and Hannah Wiley reported. “We’re going to control the controllable, the things we have control of,” Newsom said during an event at the state Capitol. “California leads this national conversation. When California moves, other states move in the same direction.”

The Los Angeles mayor’s race has seemingly devolved in recent days into a rhetorical brawl between two of the city’s richest men, Benjamin Oreskes wrote. Hollywood mogul Jeffrey Katzenberg, who supports Rep. Karen Bass, says Rick Caruso’s history of supporting Republican candidates and being registered as a Republican a decade ago disqualifies him from being mayor. That came after Variety published an interview with Caruso in which he attacked the former Walt Disney Studios chairman for “lying” about him in ads by a pro-Bass independent expenditure committee predominantly funded by Katzenberg.

The growing corruption scandal in Anaheim has cost the city’s mayor his job, endangered the city’s planned $320-million sale of Angel Stadium to the team and provided a rare, unvarnished look at how business is done behind closed doors in the city of 350,000. Read our full coverage of the FBI probe into how the city does business.

Sign up for our California Politics newsletter to get the best of The Times’ state politics reporting.

Nov. 12 (UPI) — Cryptocurrency firm Coinbase said its planning to leave Delaware and reincorporate its business in Texas.

The move to reincorporate in the Lone Star state was unanimously approved and recommended by the Coinbase board of directors.

A rough 78% majority of Coinbase shareholders approved the action.

“Delaware’s legal framework once provided companies with consistency. But no more,” Paul Grewal, Coinbase’s chief legal officer, wrote in a Wall Street Journal Journal op-ed.

Coinbase now follows Elon Musk-owned Tesla in exiting Delaware to move its new base to Texas.

The crypto giant’s Texas legal counsel pointed to a state law signed by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, in May that “strengthens” the state’s corporate legal framework, and supposedly “creates certainty and predictability” that served as the vehicle that helped create the business environment for Coinbase to make the move.

In February, Musk wrote on his X platform that he recommended Delaware-incorporated companies move “to another state as soon as possible.”

Texas’ Senate bill 29 aimed to make the state a “preferred jurisdiction for legal domestication, by creating an environment where ambitious, innovative companies can thrive,” Chris Converse, a partner at international law firm Foley and Lardner’s Dallas office who helped draft and push the law, told UPI in a statement.

It arrived after a Delaware court ruled against Tesla paying the ex-White House DOGE adviser a $56 billion pay package.

Grawal claimed Delaware’s Chancery Court provided “unpredictable outcomes” for the digital currency platform.

Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong, like Musk, was a significant backer of U.S. President Donald Trump and his 2024 presidential campaign.

Nov. 11 (UPI) — Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has sued Harris County for allocating $1.35 million to help fund legal defense of those facing immigration deportation hearings.

Harris County, which includes Houston and forms the core of the Greater Houston Area, has historically ranked among the top U.S. counties for Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainers, according to reporting by The Texas Tribune.

Paxton accused the Harris County Commissioners Court of illegally allocating more than $1.35 million in taxpayer funds to “radical-left organizations” that use the money to “oppose the lawful deportations of illegal aliens.”

He called the fund “blatantly unconstitutional” and “evil and wicked” in a news release announcing the lawsuit Tuesday.

“We must stop the left-wing radicals who are robbing Texans to prevent illegals from being deported by the Trump administration,” Paxton said Tuesday in a news release.

“Millions upon millions of illegals invaded America during the last administration,” Paxton said. “They must be sent back to where they came from.”

He said the Harris County Commissioners Court recently voted 4-1 to allocate $1.35 million to several non-governmental organizations that are “dedicated to fighting the deportation of illegal aliens.”

Recipients include the Galveston-Houston Immigrant Representation Project, Justice for All Immigrants, Kids in Need of Defense, Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services, and BakerRipley.

The allocations serve no public purpose and amount to illegal grants of taxpayer dollars to pay for the legal defense of those who should not be in the country, Paxton said.

He said the Texas Constitution prohibits allocating taxpayer funds to individuals or groups that do not serve the public interest and filed the lawsuit in the Harris County Judicial District Court on Monday.

Harris County Attorney Christian Menefee said the county will oppose the state’s lawsuit in court, The Texas Tribune reported.

“This lawsuit is a cheap political stunt,” Menefee said in a prepared statement.

“At a time when the president has unleashed ICE agents to terrorist immigrant neighborhoods, deport U.S. citizens and trample the law, it’s shameful that Republican state officials are joining in instead of standing up for Texans.”

Although Menafee accused the Trump administration of deporting U.S. citizens, the Department of Homeland Security said that is a false accusation and no U.S. citizens have been deported.

“We have said it a million times: ICE does not arrest or deport U.S. citizens,” DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said Oct. 1 in response to a New York Times article accusing ICE of deporting citizens.

Before becoming the Harris County attorney, Menafee’s biography says his private practice “focused heavily on pro bono work, including advising the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, advising immigrants and their families at Bush Intercontinental Airport during the ‘Muslim ban’ and working with Texas Appleseed on expanding alternatives to involuntary commitment for the mentally ill.”