95.1 The Bee

The U.S. Supreme Court appears poised to curb the use of race as a factor in creating voting districts, signaling a potential narrowing of how the Voting Rights Act is applied to race-based redistricting. On Wednesday, the court heard arguments in a closely watched case that could significantly weaken the Voting Rights Act of 1965, a landmark law protecting minority voters. The case, Louisiana v. Callais, centers on whether the state must maintain a second congressional district with a majority of Black voters.

The high court’s six conservative justices appeared inclined to overturn a majority-Black congressional district in Louisiana, suggesting it was drawn with an excessive focus on race. During arguments, attorneys representing both the state of Louisiana and the Trump administration urged the justices to eliminate the district altogether.

Just last year, the Court upheld Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act—the provision that prohibits voting practices that discriminate on the basis of race—in a similar Alabama case. That ruling forced Alabama to add an additional district where Black voters could elect a candidate of their choice. However, in an uncommon move, the justices requested in June that both sides return for a new round of arguments. This time, the Court broadened the scope of the case, instructing attorneys to address a more sweeping constitutional question.

Although the dispute specifically involves Louisiana’s congressional map, the implications of the decision could reach far beyond the state. Civil rights and voting advocacy groups warn that curbing these federal protections for minority representation could “erase decades of progress” and risk re-segregating political bodies such as state legislatures, school boards, and city councils across the country.

Attorneys representing Louisiana, supported by the Trump administration, are urging the justices to eliminate the state’s second majority-Black district. They argue that the Voting Rights Act’s current application gives too much weight to race in the redistricting process—making it difficult, if not impossible, to draw maps without considering racial demographics as a key factor. The plaintiffs contend that the creation of Louisiana’s second Black-majority district was unconstitutional, arguing that it was drawn primarily based on race rather than on traditional redistricting principles such as compactness and contiguity.

According to NPR, rhe results of the case before the high court could have wide-reaching effects beyond Louisiana. Should the U.S. Supreme Court rule in favor of the plaintiffs, Democrats could lose up to 19 congressional seats across the country. Depending on how the justices rule, the Court could send the case back to a lower court with instructions to draft a new map—or it could take a more sweeping step by declaring that Section 2’s reliance on race conflicts with the equal protection guarantees of the 14th and 15th Amendments. Such a ruling would threaten congressional districts nationwide that were established under the Voting Rights Act’s protections, potentially reshaping the political landscape for years to come.

The court is expected to rule by June (the traditional end of its term); however, the justices can issue rulings whenever they are complete.

Editorial credit: Tupungato / Shutterstock.com

The federal government shutdown entered its third week on Wednesday, after the Senate failed to advance a House-passed GOP bill to fund the government for the ninth time.

With no breakthrough in negotiations, House Speaker Mike Johnson cautioning that the impasse could become “one of the longest shutdowns in U.S. history unless Democrats drop their partisan demands.” (the longest shutdown lasted 35 days in December 2018, and January 2019).  Despite mounting pressure, Democrats and Republicans remain deadlocked over competing short-term funding plans. The stalemate in Congress has Republicans demanding passage of a “clean” continuing resolution that would reopen the government through at least November 21, free of additional spending provisions. Democrats, meanwhile, insist that any funding bill must include an extension of enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies, which are scheduled to expire at the end of the year — a measure estimated to cost roughly $1 trillion.

In light of the ongoing government shutdown, a federal judge on Wednesday temporarily blocked the Trump administration from firing federal workers, with the ruling coming five days after the administration issued reduction-in-force notifications to more than 4,000 federal workers. San Francisco U.S. District Court Judge Susan Yvonne Illston told lawyers for the administration on Wednesday at a hearing where she issued the temporary restraining order that “the activities that are being undertaken here are contrary to the laws .. you can’t do this in a nation of laws, and we have laws here, and the things that are being articulated here are not within the law.”

Office of Management and Budget director Russell Vought had said Wednesday that the Trump administration could slash more than 10,000 federal jobs during the government shutdown: “We want to be very aggressive where we can be in shuttering the bureaucracy, not just the funding. We now have an opportunity to do that, and that’s where we’re going to be looking for our opportunities.” Trump and  Vought have followed through on earlier threats to dismiss federal employees during the shutdown. According to sources cited by ABC News, workers from several major agencies — including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention — were among those terminated.

Trump had said he plans to release a list Friday of “Democratic” programs he’s eliminated, stating: “We are closing up Democrat programs that we disagree with, and they’re never going to open up again.. We’re able to do things that we’ve never been able to do before. The Democrats are getting killed.”

Though Trump has made funding available for military service members to get their next paychecks, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La., said it’s a temporary fix: “If the Democrats continue to vote to keep the government closed as they have done now so many times, then we know that U.S. troops are going to risk missing a full paycheck at the end of this month.”

Editorial credit: lazyllama / Shutterstock.com

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected an appeal from right-wing commentator and conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, effectively upholding a $1.4 billion defamation judgment against him for spreading false claims that the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting was a hoax. The Superme Cout did not provide an explanation for its decision.

By rejecting the appeal, the high court allowed the judgment—originally imposed after Jones was found liable in 2021—to stand. The lawsuits, brought by the families of victims of the Sandy Hook massacre, accused Jones of defamation and emotional harm stemming from his repeated false statements about the tragedy.

Last week, Jones had asked the Supreme Court to temporarily block the enforcement of the judgment while justices considered whether to review his case. Jones’ legal team argued that the staggering amount was impossible to pay, calling it a “financial death penalty” imposed on a media figure whose broadcasts reached millions. Justice Sonia Sotomayor denied that request on Monday, following the Court’s broader decision not to take up the appeal.

In 2022, a six-member Connecticut jury ordered Jones to pay $965 million in damages to 15 plaintiffs- the families of the victims – citing defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violations of state law. A month later, a judge added an additional $474 million in punitive damages, bringing the total to more than $1.4 billion. Jones’ legal team argued in court filings that the amount was “impossible to pay.”

Jones, who founded the media outlet InfoWars, spent years repeatedly promoting the false narrative that the Sandy Hook shooting wasn’t real, and the events were staged by “crisis actors.” to push for stricter gun control.  In reality, 20 first-graders, six educators, the shooter Adam Lanza and his mother died in the 2012 school shooting. During the defamation trial, relatives of victims and an FBI agent testified that they were subjected to threats and harassment from Jones’ followers who believed his conspiracy theories. In a separate Texas case, Jones acknowledged under oath that the Sandy Hook shooting was “100% real.” Nonetheless, he continued to criticize the Connecticut proceedings, labeling them a “kangaroo court” and claiming his First Amendment rights had been violated.

Following the judgments, Jones and his company, Free Speech Systems, filed for bankruptcy. In a bizarre twist, the satirical outlet The Onion attempted to purchase InfoWars during bankruptcy proceedings, but a judge blocked the sale last December. According to Jones’ attorneys, efforts to sell InfoWars are still ongoing.

Editorial credit: Vic Hinterlang / Shutterstock.com

President Donald Trump met with Argentine President Javier Milei on Tuesday, just days after Washington approved a major financial support package aimed at stabilizing Argentina’s struggling economy.

As Milei arrived, reporters asked Trump if he had a message for the people of Argentina, in which he responded: “We love them. We’ll be here for them. They have a great leader.”

Trump said on Tuesday, however, that support from the U.S. for Argentina hinges on the ruling party of President Milei succeeding in this month’s midterm legislative elections, adding that “we’re not going to waste our time” if Milei’s party doesn’t win.  Trump added: “I’m with this man because his philosophy is correct, and he may win it … He may not win, but I think he’s going to win. And if he wins, we’re staying with him. And if he doesn’t win, we’re gone.”

The meeting comes just days after the U.S. agreed to provide a major financial lifeline to the South American nation. Earlier this month, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced that the U.S. would back a $20 billion currency swap with Argentina’s central bank—an agreement that allows the exchange of U.S. dollars for Argentine pesos in an effort to provide financial stability.

As a result of Trump’s remarks after the meeting, Argentina’s main stock market reversed earlier gains, and was down about 2% following the President’s comments. Treasury Secretary Bessent said the package (full details of which have not been announced) is predicated on the continuance of economic policies favored by the Trump administration. Bessent said: “Going back to Peronist policies would cause a rethink,” however he added that the aid package was not dependent on Argentina ending a separate swap line arrangement with China: “American assistance to Argentina is not predicated on ending the swap with China.”

Although specific terms of the financial package have not been made public, the aid could offer Milei an important political boost as he confronts a worsening economic crisis and declining public support. His party suffered a notable defeat in a provincial election last month and now faces a pivotal midterm contest later this month.

Editorial credit: lev radin / Shutterstock.com