One of the main methods of obtaining abortion medication for those living in states with bans is now blocked nationwide, after a federal appeals court decision issued Friday afternoon.

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals blocked a U.S. Food and Drug Administration rule from 2023 that allowed mifepristone, one of two drugs used to terminate a pregnancy before 10 weeks and to treat miscarriages, to be dispensed without an in-person visit with a health provider. 

In the years since, states with abortion access have increased their telemedicine offerings to prescribe the medication remotely and send it through the mail. Many of those states also enacted shield laws to prevent officials from states with abortion bans from prosecuting or investigating their providers — meaning many patients have been able to receive the medication across state lines.

Louisiana judge preserves telehealth abortion access provision for now, puts case on hold

The block will remain in effect as the lower court case proceeds, but the FDA could file an emergency appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court in the coming weeks.

More than 27% of all abortions were provided through telehealth appointments in the first six months of 2025, according to the Society of Family Planning, a research and advocacy group that publishes a report called #WeCount. Nearly 15,000 abortions per month were provided under shield laws during that same time frame, according to the report.

Louisiana Republican Attorney General Liz Murrill sued the FDA in October, seeking to strike down the 2023 provision, and the lower court declined to do so in early April. U.S. District Judge David C. Joseph said then that the stay was premature while the FDA completed a safety review of mifepristone, but allowed state officials the opportunity to re-file the motion after that review was complete. The state appealed that decision to the 5th Circuit.

“Every abortion facilitated by FDA’s action cancels Louisiana’s ban on medical abortions and undermines its policy that ‘every unborn child is human being from the moment of conception and is, therefore, a legal person,’” Friday’s decision said.

There were no dissenting opinions among Judge Leslie Southwick, an appointee of former Republican President George H.W. Bush, and Judges Stuart Kyle Duncan and Kurt D. Engelhardt, both appointees of Republican President Donald Trump.

Without access to telemedicine and the opportunity to receive the medication through the mail, people in 13 states with near-total abortion bans may have to travel to another state to get an abortion.

There is a misoprostol-only abortion pill protocol that some providers can use, but it is slightly less effective and requires a higher dosage, which can increase side effects.

“Reinstating in-person dispensing requirements would force people to travel farther, take more time off work, and absorb costs that are simply too high. For people living in states already hostile to abortion access, many of which are home to Black women and families, this is not health care,” said Regina Davis-Moss, CEO of advocacy group In Our Own Voice: National Black Women’s Reproductive Justice Agenda, in a statement. 

Murrill said in a statement on Friday that former Democratic President Joe Biden’s administration facilitated “illegal mail-order abortion pills.”

Nearly 1 in 4 people seeking abortions out of state chose Illinois. Here’s why.

“Today, that nightmare is over, thanks to the hard work of my office and our friends at Alliance Defending Freedom. I look forward to continuing to defend women and babies as this case continues,” Murrill said, crediting the advocacy legal organization that helped in the case.

The court also found Friday that the 2023 rule injures Louisiana by causing it to spend Medicaid funds for emergency care for women harmed by using the drug. The state identified $92,000 paid by Medicaid for two women who needed emergency care in 2025 from complications “caused by out-of-state mifepristone.”

Numerous studies have shown mifepristone is safe to use, with very low complication rates. A combined review of 10 years’ worth of studies between 2005 and 2015 found that severe outcomes requiring blood transfusion and hospitalization occurred in less than 1% of cases.

“We are alarmed by this court’s decision to ignore the FDA’s rigorous science and decades of safe use of mifepristone in a case pursued by extremist abortion opponents. We are reviewing the court’s order in detail,” said Evan Masingill, CEO of GenBioPro, one of the main manufacturers of mifepristone, in a statement. “We remain committed to taking any actions necessary to make mifepristone available and accessible to as many people as possible in the country, regardless of anti-abortion special interests trying to undermine patients’ access.”

Stateline reporter Kelcie Moseley-Morris can be reached at kmoseley@stateline.org.

Hundreds of people marched in Milwaukee’s annual May Day protest on a chilly, cloudy Friday, joining thousands of other protests, walk-outs, and economic black-outs taking place nationwide. After first gathering outside of the offices of the immigrant rights group Voces de la Frontera on Mitchell Street, a crowd spanning multiple city blocks marched north towards the downtown Federal Building. 

The action aimed to draw attention to the contributions of working class people, including immigrants,  while condemning the policies of the Trump administration, and calling for the release of Wisconsinites who’ve been detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). 

“No hate, no fear, immigrants are welcome here,” the protesters chanted, marching down the roadway with traffic assistance from both their own volunteers and Milwaukee police officers. 

Marchers were greeted with a performance by a mariachi band playing  music as people cheered and danced. Christine Neumann-Ortiz, executive director of Voces de la Frontera, said that those at the protest were joining “over 3,000 actions across the country, and tens of thousands of people in more than 30 cities that are part of a national immigrant-rights network.” 

Backed by the occasional rhythms of parade drums and cheers Neumann-Ortiz declared, “We are May Day strong!” She said that those participating in May Day protests are “leading the way in the movement against authoritarianism, against white nationalism, against ICE gestapo terror.” She praised the immigrant workers who couldn’t be there, as well as the students who participated in the May Day protest. Neumann-Ortiz said that President Donald Trump and his allies “want us to believe that we are powerless, and we know that is a lie.”

People of all ages and ethnic backgrounds came from as far away as Racine and Green Bay to attend the Milwaukee protest. They carried signs calling for the abolition of ICE, an end to the war and humanitarian crisis in Gaza and occupation of Palestinian people, rolling back U.S. militarism, taxing billionaires, an end to local police cooperation with ICE, and generally denouncing Trump’s policies and character.

From the stage, speakers also demanded the reunification of immigrant families separated by ICE, investment in human needs, and the establishment of what Neumann-Ortiz called “a dignified immigration system with a path to citizenship for the undocumented,” as well as for recipients of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), and people  fleeing danger in their home countries. 

She also called for lawmakers to support granting state driver’s licenses for immigrants and praised members of Congress who withheld funding from  the Department of Homeland Security as they sought accountability and standards for ICE officers. 

Speakers’ remarks in English were  translated to Spanish for the crowd. 

José Ramirez, president of the Milwaukee Chapter of the Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, said he is both the  son of immigrants and an immigrant himself. Ramirez and his sister were born in Mexico and came to the U.S. in the early 2000s. Both of his parents worked in the meat packing industry. When he grew older, Ramirez became a first-generation union member, and worked jobs in concrete and demolition. 

Ramirez asked the crowd to look around at the different colors, flags, signs, and people. “I like to believe that everybody here truly believes in the same thing,” despite their differences, Ramirez said. “That women’s rights are human rights. That gay rights are human rights. That workers’ rights and immigrant rights are human rights.” 

Ramirez stressed that the victories working-class people have achieved have not come because of the sympathy of career politicians, whether Democrat or Republican, but from the sacrifice of working-class people.

Kareem Sarsour, the son of Salah Sarsour —  the president of the Milwaukee Islamic Society who was arrested by ICE in late March — also addressed the crowd. While he was born and raised in Milwaukee, Kareem said that his father was an immigrant who’d grown up as a Palestinian boy in the Israeli-occupied West Bank. Sarsour was a legal permanent resident for over 30 years when ICE officers ambushed him at a property he owned. Sarsour’s family and supporters believe that he was targeted because of his longtime advocacy for Palestinian liberation, and for sharing his experiences while in Israeli custody. Sarsour is being held in an immigration detention facility in Indiana.

Kareem recalled that on March 30, his wife called him at work and told him  that his father “was abducted and nowhere to be found.” Kareem Sarsour said that “no family should get that call.” He said of Salah Sarsour and other people he called “heroes”  “we believe God is with them, and with our unity we’re able to take a stand and say enough is enough! In sha’ Allah — God willing — justice will prevail, our heroes will come back home, Palestine will be free, and our families will be reunited.”

Ingrid Walker Henry, President of the Milwaukee Teacher Education Association (MTEA), said, “ Everywhere we turn, our rights are under attack. Our neighbors are being terrorized by a hostile administration, they are using every trick in the fascist playbook.” Walker Henry called Sarsour a “pillar of our community,” and denounced his detention. “I have three words — and I’m going to want you to repeat them — free Salah now!” 

Walker Henry said that her union members are getting organized “because we know that no one is coming to save us, except us.” MTEA members established school defense teams to protect schools and families this school year, “because no family should have to choose between taking their children to school and risking their family’s safety,” she said. “Across this city, MTEA members are stepping up to protect our children from this administration.” 

Walker Henry said  actions like May Day teach the next generation how to fight back against oppression. “MTEA members will not rest until every student, every public school, and every family has what they need to thrive.”

May Day protesters in Madison met Friday at noon at Library Mall on the University of Wisconsin-Madison campus and marched about a mile to the state Capitol. As hundreds of marchers made their way up State Street, they chanted phrases of support including “No hate! No fear! Immigrants are welcome here!” and “Sí, se puede!” Mariachi Sol de Madison played music as protesters assembled on the Capitol steps.

Rebe Silvey with Voces de la Frontera said that the organization has brought together labor, youth, faith leaders and essential workers for May Day — or “Day Without Immigrants” — actions for the last 20 years in Wisconsin. Madison police estimates that about 3,000 people marched.

Silvey noted protesters in Wisconsin this year are joined by hundreds of other May Day actions that had been organized across the country. According to a map on the May Day Strong website, there were actions planned in nearly 40 locations across Wisconsin. 

The nationwide day of action called for “No work. No school. No shopping.”

The march brought out thousands of Wisconsinites angry about increased federal immigration enforcement under President Donald Trump, similar to the No Kings protest in March and an anti-ICE protest held in January. 

Silvey said that school closings on Friday as teachers and students joined the May Day march  showed that “educators understand the urgency of this moment.” Madison Public Schools and the Sun Prairie School District canceled classes Friday due to anticipated absences of staff. Members of Madison Teachers Inc. (MTI), the union that represents teachers and staff, participated in the protests. MTI and the South Central Federation of Labor AFL-CIO officially endorsed the protests.

Silvey said 250 immigrant-led businesses across 17 cities in Wisconsin shut down for the day. During the event, Mayor Satya Rhodes-Conway and Dane County Executive Melissa Agard issued May Day proclamations. 

“That is power. That is solidarity. That is collective action,” Silvey said.

Students and teachers from Madison East and Madison West high schools walked from their schools to the Capitol. 

Silvia Gomez de Soriano, a bilingual resource specialist at Madison East and member of MTI, said families and the whole community are “under attack.” 

Andrea Missureli, president of MTI, said that the union stands in solidarity with families who are living in the shadow of ICE.

“This fear has been dangerously normalized, but we refuse to accept it. Every child deserves to walk into school, feeling welcome, safe and seen — not looking over their shoulders,” Missureli said.

Gomez de Soriano said she has seen the link between students’ feeling of safety and their ability to learn. 

“Students miss class and sacrifice their dreams because they are afraid their parents won’t return from an immigration appointment,” she said. “These racist operations are a brutal part of a broader assault on the working class.”

Missureli said the march was not the end of the fight. 

“We must carry this energy into the fall,” she said. Wisconsin has a large slate of state legislative races, congressional races and a gubernatorial election in November that will shape  the direction of the state. “We need to elect working-class people who actually want to fight for our families, leaders who want to stand with us to abolish ICE and ensure the safety of our community,” Missureli said.

A group of Madison East seniors spoke from the steps including Alyne Espinoza Mora, who is the daughter of immigrants. 

“I’m here because of them. I wouldn’t be here if they hadn’t risked their lives to come to the U.S. I’ve never seen anyone work as hard as my parents do. They work so hard every day only for the system to treat them as if they’re animals,” she said. “Why do my parents live in fear? Why can’t my mom go back to Mexico to see her dad? Why is my dad scared of dropping off my sister at the Chicago airport? Because of ICE… I’m tired of seeing immigrants being treated like less simply because of their status. We all deserve to live in a world where we feel safe and included.”

State Rep. Francesca Hong (D-Madison), who is running in the Democratic primary for governor and is the daughter of immigrants, said people need to send a message to “fascists” that immigrants belong in the country.

“The beautiful immigrant community, our community, we make this state stronger. I cannot imagine the depth of moral rot and dysfunction that would move a federal agency to abduct or disappear our neighbors without a sense of shame or an admittance of wrongdoing,” Hong said. “ICE is truly a cruel enforcer of fascism.”

She called for people to invest in mutual aid efforts, attend legal-observer and know-your-rights training and to help take care of their community.

“If we do not, I fear that we will not honor our shared humanity, because when we recognize our shared humanity, when we build community, when we share joy with one another, that is building resistance, and that is building a better world,” Hong said. 

A new effort to force states to affirm the Trump administration’s views on DEI, transgender athletes and immigration when signing contracts with the U.S. Forest Service is threatening millions of dollars in wildfire grant funding and fire reduction projects on federal lands.

Some liberal states can’t sign the documents because the policies clash with state law, forestry experts say.

Already, at least one state is reporting that the new rules have stalled work to reduce wildfire risk and assist with projects on national forest lands. Other states say the requirements are so vague that they don’t know how to follow them. And some timber industry leaders believe the standoff could cut into their revenues.

“We’re kind of at an impasse,” said Washington State Forester George Geissler. “It’s already starting to slow down or shut down work.”

The update to the requirements governing federal partnerships comes even as many Western states brace for a brutal wildfire season, following a winter that brought record high temperatures and a paltry snowpack.

On Dec. 31, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins with little fanfare issued new general terms and conditions governing partnerships for the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Spelled out in dozens of pages of fine print are new restrictions that require partner organizations to pledge compliance with President Donald Trump’s executive orders.

The new conditions apply to all USDA agencies, but the department hasn’t yet said whether it will enforce them for food assistance programs.

The agency, in a news release announcing the changes, framed the new terms as an effort to streamline regulations, protect national security and “eliminate radical left ideology.”

The Department of Agriculture and the Forest Service did not grant Stateline interview requests.

At the Forest Service, which is housed within USDA, the new policy applies to a wide range of grants and contracts aimed at reducing wildfire risk, restoring forest health and boosting timber production.

Forestry veterans say the new conditions have created an impasse with some Democratic-led states.

“It is significantly disruptive,” said Robert Bonnie, who served as undersecretary of agriculture for natural resources and environment during the Obama administration. “It’s clearly targeted at Democratic states and Democratic partners.”

A coalition of 20 states and the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit in March, claiming that the restrictions are unlawful. The lawsuit has largely focused on federal food assistance programs provided by the agency, such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and the Women, Infants, and Children Nutrition Program.

In an April court filing, Rollins said the new conditions had not yet been applied to food assistance programs, and that the agency had not made a “final decision” to cut off nutrition funding for states that don’t comply.

Forest Service programs

But the policy is already having an impact on some programs managed by the Forest Service.

Washington state has been unable to issue the latest round of Community Wildfire Defense Grants, a federal program that helps neighborhoods and towns reduce fuels and fortify homes in wildfire-prone areas.

Geissler, the state forester, said roughly 10 communities in Washington were set to receive large grants under the program, but the federal funding has been held up by the state’s refusal to sign the new terms and conditions.

“This is another example of the federal administration cutting off its nose to spite its face,” said David Perk, coordinator of the Washington State Lands Working Group, a coalition that weighs in on state forestry policies. “To add the additional layer of denying wildfire funding, that’s insult to injury.”

The stalemate also threatens work that the U.S. Forest Service increasingly relies on states and other partners to do in national forests. The agency has leaned heavily on tools, such as the Good Neighbor Authority, that enable state agencies to carry out wildfire mitigation, restoration and timber projects on federal lands. Many observers believe the recently announced Forest Service reorganization signals that states will play an even bigger role in the years ahead.

But now those partnerships are in jeopardy. According to Geissler, Washington state can’t sign new Good Neighbor Authority agreements due to the new conditions.

“We’re trying to sign off on agreements for another chunk of work, and we can’t get it signed,” he said. “If you are looking for work to be done by the state on federal lands, we’re not doing it. If we’re not able to sign, both sides lose.”

Washington state has spent millions of dollars on projects to reduce wildfire risk and improve forest health on national forest lands. With the new ideology requirements, the feds are essentially turning away free help, said Bonnie, the former natural resources official. That’s especially damaging, he noted, because Trump’s cuts to the Forest Service’s workforce and budget have further diminished what the agency can accomplish on its own.

The Trump administration is “damaging their own constituents,” he said. “There are a lot of conservative voters in rural Washington who want to see partnerships that reduce the probability of extreme wildfire. This will stop that. It makes absolutely no sense.”

Washington state is still working on Forest Service projects signed under previous agreements. But without new agreements, work on the ground could stall in six to eight months, Geissler said.

State responses

Nearly 20 state forestry officials contacted by Stateline did not respond or declined interview requests, citing the ongoing litigation and the need to maintain a working relationship with the Forest Service.

But one timber industry leader said Oregon was facing similar disruptions that prevented the state from signing new agreements with the Forest Service.

“This will lead to reduced revenues for (state forestry agencies),” Nick Smith, public affairs director with the American Forest Resource Council, a timber industry group, said in an email to Stateline. “As partners, our industry will be impacted if it disrupts or cancels current or future timber sales under these contracts.”

While most state forestry officials have been unwilling to publicly comment about the situation, several have filed legal declarations in support of the multistate lawsuit challenging the new terms and conditions.

Scott Bowen, director of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, wrote in a declaration that his agency has more than $87 million from active grants with the Forest Service. Those grants cover wildfire response, forest health, invasive species, urban tree canopy and revegetation, among other issues.

“If these funds were withheld, DNR would have to shut down critical capabilities to assist rural communities with fire preparedness and response,” Bowen wrote.

Bowen added that the Forest Service has already said one program, a grant to protect environmentally important forests from being converted to a nonforest use, will be subject to the new terms and conditions.

In the lawsuit, many state officials said that the new compliance requirements are so vague that they’re nearly impossible to follow. Several of the legal declarations note that the new conditions do not explain what it means to “promote gender ideology,” a practice the Department of Agriculture now seeks to ban.

Many states also objected to the agency’s requirement that no one in the country illegally obtain “taxpayer-funded benefits.” Josh Kurtz, secretary of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, noted in a declaration that it would be impossible to confirm that grants to reduce wildfire risk, expand urban tree canopy and improve forest health do not benefit Marylanders who lack legal immigration status.

Kevin Hood, executive director of Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics, a nonprofit that advocates for public employees, said the new terms are aimed at directing a greater share of federal funding to Trump’s political allies.

“You’re going to see a bifurcation where you’ll have red states getting grants and blue states won’t,” he said.

‘More questions than answers’

In March, the National Association of State Foresters sent a letter to Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz expressing concerns about the new terms and conditions. Jason Hartman, the group’s president and the state forester of Kansas, described a chaotic situation.

“To date, the (Forest Service) has not provided adequate guidance or interpretation of the new (terms and conditions),” he wrote. “National-level meetings between State Foresters and the Forest Service have resulted in more questions than answers. State Foresters around the country have been given differing instructions and interpretations in different geographic locations.”

Hartman noted at least one instance in which a timber sale totaling 80 million board feet was held up by the new conditions. (That’s enough to build roughly 5,000 homes.) He asked the Forest Service to delay the effective date of the new conditions until the agency could provide more clarity.

He also outlined another set of issues causing problems for states. One major complication, he said, is the requirement that states receive federal approval before issuing any subawards or contracts. That has created a massive bureaucratic hassle, he wrote, in “direct conflict” with the Forest Service’s reliance on state partnerships to cut red tape.

The new terms also require environmental reviews for projects to be completed before partnership agreements can be signed. But Hartman noted that states often assist in those very environmental reviews, which they won’t be able to do if they can’t sign the agreements first.

Wyoming State Forester Kelly Norris also noted that issue in an email to Stateline, saying she expected the Forest Service to update the environmental review section soon.

Stateline reporter Alex Brown can be reached at abrown@stateline.org.

Mukta Joshi is an investigative reporter at Mississippi Today. She is spending a year as a New York Times Local Investigations fellow examining immigration and criminal justice issues. She can be reached at mukta.joshi@nytimes.com.

The number of detainees at Mississippi’s Adams County Correctional Center appears to have nosedived in the past few weeks, leaving several housing units vacant and prompting rumors that the facility was closing, according to many of the people being held there.

But a spokesperson for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Angelina Vicknair, said this week that the detention center outside Natchez will remain open. In a written statement, she said daily operations continue as normal and that population changes are routine. ICE officials declined to provide the number of people booked in and out in April, the current population of the facility or the number of units currently occupied. 

The Adams County facility first caught my attention because it was the second-largest ICE detention center in the country. On April 2, ICE reported that about 2,100 people were being held there, a number that has been more or less consistent over the past few years. In fact, it’s been on the higher end since the Trump administration began its crackdown on immigration.  

But Rep. Bennie Thompson, a Democrat from Mississippi, told me that, when he visited the center April 9, there were just 1,400 detainees. I had also been speaking to several detainees during this time who all told me that they had been moved out of their original units and consolidated into others. Their original units now lay completely empty, they said, and large groups of detainees were being processed out daily. 

A detainee whose friend works in the kitchen told me that they were required to prepare 1,247 meals on Tuesday – suggesting a drop of nearly 1,000 detainees in three weeks. 

The number of people booked into ICE detention nationally hasn’t gone down, and the number of deportations in this time period hasn’t increased to a level that would naturally explain such a drastic shift in Adams. The federal government’s continued effort to procure industrial warehouses to hold its increasing number of detainees also suggests the administration still expects to detain large numbers of immigrants, a move several lawmakers have opposed. 

Two members of the board of supervisors for Adams County, which is a party to the ICE contract involving the facility, said they hadn’t heard of any changes at Adams. The county administrator, Mitzi Conn, said she was unable to provide any insight because the facility was privately owned. 

On Monday, I filed a public records request with the Mississippi Department of Employment Security. Under federal labor law, an employer like CoreCivic, the private prison company that owns and operates the Adams County facility, would be required to submit a written notice if it intends to shut down and lay off its employees. A representative of the department said no such notices had been submitted. In the meantime, I have also been hearing that groups of detainees, albeit small, are still being booked in every day. 

As always, please contact me if you have tips or information on the Adams County Correctional Center. I’m continuing to report on it, but you can expect to see fewer stories from me moving forward, as I dig into some topics that will take longer to report. If there are any developments, I’ll be sure to post an update. 

Note to our readers: In addition to the population dip, if you know something about the detention center, if you know someone who works there or is detained there, or want me to find out something about it for readers, please get in touch.

I will not use your name or any part of your submission without contacting you first. If you prefer to get in touch with me anonymously, send me a message on Signal @mmj.2178. Or you can contact me via email at mukta.joshi@nytimes.com. 

Our mailing address is P.O. Box 12267, Jackson, MS 39236.

After the U.S. Supreme Court severely weakened the federal Voting Rights Act in an April 29 decision, a furious U.S. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries condemned what he called an “illegitimate” conservative majority on the court.

“This isn’t even the Roberts Court,” Jeffries said, referring to Chief Justice John Roberts. “It’s the Trump Court.”

Democrats are renewing their calls to overhaul the Supreme Court in the wake of the court’s decision, which empowers states to gerrymander congressional maps in ways that will break apart districts where a majority of residents are Black, Hispanic or belong to other minority groups. 

The momentous opinion overturned the reasoning behind decades of court cases that relied on the 1965 Voting Rights Act, a law born of efforts to stamp out Jim Crow voting laws in the South, to protect these majority-minority districts.

For years, critics of the court, where conservatives enjoy a 6-3 majority, have pushed for changes. Those efforts often center on expanding the size of the court to dilute the influence of the majority or imposing term limits on the justices, though other ideas, like narrowing the kinds of cases the court can consider, have also been discussed.

But the April 29 decision seems to be the last straw for some Democrats and progressives, though they are unlikely to be able to force any of the changes on their wishlist — at least for a long time. 

After rulings in recent years that ended the federal right to an abortion and handed President Donald Trump sweeping immunity from criminal prosecution while in office, they are fed up with a court they view as unmoored from the law and ruling based on politics.

“We cannot protect voting rights, civil rights or the environment as long as we have a Supreme Court majority that is captured by MAGA authoritarians,” Doug Lindner, senior director of judiciary and democracy at the League of Conservation Voters, an environmental advocacy group, told reporters on Thursday. “We need to take back our Supreme Court.”

Any effort to impose significant changes at the court will encounter stiff Republican opposition. GOP lawmakers have praised the court’s latest decision and some see long-serving Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito as conservative icons. Unless Democrats win 60 seats in the Senate or eliminate the filibuster, Congress is highly unlikely to pass a major overhaul.

Republicans have denounced past proposals to change the court. After President Joe Biden proposed 18-year terms for justices and other changes in July 2024, U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson said the plan “would tilt the balance of power and erode not only the rule of law, but the American people’s faith in our system of justice.”

No action under Biden

Supreme Court reform has long percolated as an issue among Democrats and progressives, but picked up steam during the 2020 presidential primary campaign. 

The court’s ideological makeup had already moved toward conservatives after Justice Anthony Kennedy, often a swing vote on key decisions, retired in 2018 and was replaced by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a conservative. Republicans then cemented a firm 6-3 majority on the court in the fall of 2020 after Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal, died and was replaced by conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

Campaigning for president, then-candidate Biden voiced support for a presidential commission that would study court reform. After winning election, Biden named a blue ribbon panel of law professors, former judges and other lawyers, which issued a final report in December 2021.

The commission’s report stopped short of endorsing structural changes. It took no position on expanding the size of the court from nine members, citing “profound disagreement” among commission members over the idea. The commission also adopted no stance on term limits for justices.

The report was essentially put on a shelf — Biden made no serious effort to advance a court overhaul, though he later proposed some reforms after ending his campaign for reelection.

Public opinion dropping

Americans’ view of the Supreme Court has been falling. An August 2025 Pew Research Center survey found 48% of Americans hold a favorable view of the court, a 22-percentage point drop from August 2020.

A survey released in September 2025 by the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania found 69% support for term limits but only 31% support for expanding the size of the court.

Eric J. Segall, a law professor at Georgia State University and the executive director of the Emmet J. Bondurant Center for Constitutional Law, Practice and Democracy, said past courts would have been responsive to the prospect of legislation, but the current court isn’t swayed by public opinion.

In some cases the court tries to preserve its legitimacy by giving the other side a win, Segall said, but in general the court’s decisions since 2018, when Kennedy retired, can be explained by viewing the court as a subset of the Republican Party.

“This court is defined by the Republican Party,” he said.

Segall has called for dividing the court evenly between conservative and liberal appointees. An evenly-split court would encourage greater compromise among the justices, he contends. He also supports expanding the court and term limits if possible. But he bluntly predicted court reform wouldn’t happen in his lifetime.

“If Democrats have the power to do it, they won’t do it,” Segall said.

Action unlikely, at least in short term

Jeffries, who will likely become U.S. House speaker if Democrats retake the chamber in the November midterm elections, said this week that “everything was on the table” in terms of the Supreme Court.

“In the new Congress, we’re going to have to do something about this Supreme Court,” Jeffries told the MeidasTouch Network.

Rep. John Rose, a Tennessee Republican, said on social media that Jeffries’ comments show that Democrats are preparing to “nuke the filibuster and pack the Supreme Court the second they’re back in power.”

Trump and some Republicans in Congress, convinced Democrats will end the filibuster to pass priorities like Supreme Court reform, want Republicans to end the filibuster first and enact a host of conservative priorities before the party potentially loses control of the Senate following the November elections.

But even if Democrats end the filibuster, the party faces a steep climb to changing the court unless it retakes control of Congress and the White House. That means any major overhaul almost certainly wouldn’t become law until at least 2029.

Trump’s response

Trump has had a turbulent relationship with the court but would be virtually certain to veto legislation remaking it while he remains in office.

While the justices have protected Trump and future presidents from criminal prosecution for actions taken as part of their presidential duties, they struck down his sweeping worldwide tariffs as illegal, dealing a major blow to one of his signature policies. They also refused to hear legal challenges that sought to overturn Trump’s 2020 election loss.

Still, Trump scoffed on Thursday at Democratic hopes to remake the court in the future. He accused the party of wanting 21 justices on the court (Democratic-sponsored plans in recent years have called for 13 or 15 justices). He also called Jeffries’ comments a “dangerous statement.”

“Hakeem Jeffries said the Supreme Court is illegitimate,” Trump said Thursday. “That’s a rough statement.”

By Zara Norman/Medill News Service

WASHINGTON — John Bailey said he’s saved tens of thousands of dollars over the last decade by relying on a generic prescription to lower his cholesterol.

The 68-year-old from central Texas was able to get a generic because the patent on a brand-name medication expired. He and many other Americans worried that a case the U.S. Supreme Court heard April 29 could restrict access to generic drugs more broadly.

“It’s probably going to make a difference in how much we pay,” Bailey said while sightseeing near the court.

The case, Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc., will decide whether generic drug manufacturer Hikma infringed on a cardiovascular medication patented by Amarin when it marketed an unpatented use.

That practice, known as “skinny labeling,” is a key pathway that brings cheaper generic drugs to market sooner. The Journal of the American Medical Association found skinny labels were used by 43% of generics from 2015 to 2019. 

Should justices affirm the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s 2024 ruling for Amarin, experts warned it could have a chilling effect on the generic industry writ large, which would seriously hike up drug costs.

“It would mean that the monopoly prices of prescription drugs that are currently being paid right now have no end to them,” Charles Duan, a patent lawyer who wrote a “friend-of-the-court” brief in favor of Hikma, told Medill News Service in an interview ahead of oral arguments.

For consumers, higher prices would be untenable. Six in 10 US adults are already worried about the affordability of their prescription drugs, per a March Kaiser Family Foundation poll. Drug prices fall with an increasing number of generic competitors, according to the Department of Health and Human Services.

Issue is narrow, drugmaker says

The case deals with an issue that policymakers have debated for decades: whether federal policy should encourage drug companies to develop new products by giving them monopoly control for a certain number of years, or seek to make drugs more affordable by shortening the monopoly window.

Amarin argued to the court  that the case hinges on a narrow regulatory matter that would have neither a bearing on skinny labels, nor on the 1984 law that established a framework for cheaper drug manufacturing.

Tegan Berry, a spokesperson for Amarin, said in an email drugmakers would lose their business purpose for research if the company loses the case.

“The broad safe harbor Hikma seeks for skinny labels will eviscerate financial incentives for research into new uses for existing drug treatments,” Berry wrote. 

Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Ketanji Brown Jackson seemed wary of how a finding for Amarin could impact the industry writ large. Kavanaugh in particular emphasized that the 1984 law balanced innovation with affordability, and ensured the skinny label pathway was codified.

Kavanaugh cited a brief written for Hikma by former U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman, a California Democrat who was one of that statute’s principal authors, saying the Federal Circuit’s decision threatened to “undermine” the generic pharmaceutical industry.

The brief “points out, you know, generics have saved $3.4 trillion over the past 10 years, but the Federal Circuit’s decision leaves generic drug companies in the dark about what might expose them to liability,” Kavanaugh said while questioning Michael Huston, the attorney representing Amarin. “That’s going to have some serious implications market-wide.”

Generics expand access

The concern for generic manufacturers is the threat of infringement lawsuits will force them to wait until patents expire to bring drugs to market, rather than trying sooner with one unpatented use.

“Generic companies won’t choose that pathway if, at best, it means paying millions in legal fees and, at worst, a massive damages award,” Charles Klein, the attorney representing Hikma, said during arguments.

“The risk of liability and what it could do to a generic, I would think, would be pretty significant,” Jackson said while questioning Deputy U.S. Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart.

Some experts were concerned that a decision for Amarin could impact other generic products, not just pharmaceuticals.

“Drugs are obviously sort of the poster child here, because they’re so expensive and people are very concerned about drug prices,” Duan said. “But this is not a case that’s specific about drugs. In that sense, it’s really a case about whether or not generic products can exist.”

Generic products can seriously save consumers. Store-brand foods cost up to 40% less than name brand items at Wegman’s and Stop & Shop, a 2022 CNET study found. Any savings go a long way — food prices rose 2.7% from March 2025 to 2026, according to the Bureau of Labor.

Justices are not expected to issue a decision in the case until near the of their term in early July, either to dismiss Amarin’s complaint or send it back to trial court in Delaware. 

Already, Stewart warned the court, generic manufacturers will have a “substantial disincentive” for entering the market and are holding off now pending the court’s decision.

“This is a real test for how we want to balance innovation versus affordability in this country,” John Murphy, CEO of the advocacy group Association for Accessible Medicines, said. “We need to make sure that balance is more appropriately favored for consumers.”

The fate of most of the beagles held at Ridglan Farms took a turn Thursday, when animal welfare groups Center for a Humane Economy and Big Dog Ranch Rescue announced they had reached an agreement with the Dane County dog breeder and research facility to buy 1,500 of the beagles. The dogs will be transferred to the groups  for rehabilitation and adoption. Ridglan Farms, which both breeds beagles for testing and maintains its own biomedical research facility, has been embroiled in controversy following multiple recent attempts by animal rights activists to breach the facility and free the beagles held inside. 

“This is a moment to celebrate that 1,500 dogs will soon know only the kindness of the most caring people and will be treated for the rest of their lives like little kings and queens,” said Wayne Pacelle, president of the Center for a Humane Economy, at a press conference Thursday. “This life-saving project comes as we also charge ahead with our work to wind down the archaic and inhumane era of animal testing and embrace innovative 21st century strategies that do not harm and deliver more palliatives and cures to people.” 

Amy Good of the Dane County Humane Society said during the press conference that the Humane Society will stage 500 of the dogs. At least 50 of the dogs will be up for adoption in Dane County in the coming weeks, Good said. Another 300 dogs will go to Big Dog Ranch Rescue in Florida and Alabama. A nationwide network of partner organizations will help take in the remaining dogs.

During the press conference, Pacelle said that “Ridglan, to my vantage point, looks like it’s winding down operations.” In order to comply with a deal with prosecutors to avoid penalties for violations of Wisconsin animal cruelty laws, Ridglan is required to discontinue its beagle breeding program by July 1. The deal was established last year, after a judge found that probable cause existed that animal cruelty violations had occurred at Ridglan, and appointed a special prosecutor to oversee the case. 

Animal rights activists have accused Ridglan of housing the beagles under inhumane conditions, and of subjecting them to painful experiments and procedures — including the removal of eyelids — without anesthesia. In March, a group of activists arrived at Ridglan and, using tools, breached its perimeter fence, and managed to enter one of the buildings housing beagles. The group managed to get 22 beagles out of the facility, eight of which were seized by law enforcement and returned to the farm. The activists argued that because Ridglan was in violation of animal cruelty laws, they had a right to rescue the beagles. 

About a month after the first action, a larger group numbering hundreds of people returned to Ridglan Farms but were confronted by law enforcement using rubber bullets and tear gas. Several people were injured and one man lost teeth during a beating by police, activists said. Activists filed a civil lawsuit over the use of force against the Dane County Sheriff’s Office. A lead organizer of the rescue operation, Wayne Hsiung of California, and three others were arrested and charged with felony burglary stemming from  the first break-in. 

While the recent dramatic actions and clashes with police garnered  national media attention, tensions over Ridglan had been brewing for years. 

Shannon Keith, founder and president of the Beagle Freedom Project, said that negotiations to get the 1,500 beagles out of Ridglan and into safe homes had been in the works for a long time. “We have built the infrastructure to not only rescue these dogs, but to give them full lives beyond the laboratory system,” Keith said in a statement Thursday. “Every one of these dogs will be treated as an individual deserving of care, healing, and a home.”

Eilene Ribbens, executive director of the Wisconsin Puppy Mill Project, and Pam McCloud Smith, executive director of the Dane County Humane Society, praised the deal to rehome the dogs. “We are proud to stand with the national organizations to help bring these dogs to safety,” said Ribbens. 

“This effort reflects the strength of collaboration across the animal welfare community,” said McCloud Smith. “Our focus is on ensuring these dogs receive the care, stability, and support they need to begin their new lives.” 

The dogs being taken from Ridglan have never been outdoors or seen grass, the animal welfare groups said. People who adopt the dogs will need to be patient with them and understand that each dog will need time to adjust. 

Pacelle said that the effectiveness of animal testing for human medicine and products is being increasingly questioned in the scientific community, and said that Ridglan’s practices are outdated. Pacelle said that, “the only way that we’re going to solve this problem is if the United States takes the next set of steps to defund grant-making to research institutions and others that are using beagles, and primates, and other animals.” 

On Wednesday, Congressman Mark Pocan added language to an amendment in the House Appropriations Committee markup of the agricultural funding bill for the 2027 fiscal year. The language would require the U.S. Department of Agriculture to review federal licenses of breeders that have lost their equivalent state-level breeding license, and to take action if it becomes clear that they are no longer eligible for a federal license. The amendment was directly inspired by Ridglan, which maintained a relationship with the federal government despite the controversy surrounding its facility, and its violations of state law. 

“If a breeder is turning in their state license due to code violations, the USDA should at least take a look to see if they should be allowed to continue to have this privilege,” said Pocan. “And this situation is so nonpartisan that even Lara Trump and Laura Loomer have spoken out against what’s happening at Ridglan Farms.”

Lead animal rights organizer appears in court

A day before the announcement that 1,500 of the approximately 2,000 beagles housed at Ridglan would be released, Hsiung appeared in Dane County Circuit Court in Madison. “They have threatened these dogs with violence,” said Hsiung, standing outside the courthouse surrounded by supporters and press on Wednesday. “This should’ve been resolved more than 10 years ago.” 

Hsiung and others who were involved in the actions at Ridglan have repeatedly condemned local and state government in Wisconsin for allowing the facility to operate despite years of reported concerns. “It shouldn’t be private citizens who have to step up,” said Hsiung, who claimed that the families involved in Ridglan’s operation are well connected to local politicians. “It makes a big difference that the story is getting out.”

A judge found enough evidence to continue a criminal case against Hsiung during the  preliminary hearing on charges related to the March break-in. He was represented by attorneys Benjamin Carraway and Kristin Schrank. Prosecutor Mattew Moeser sat at the opposite table, calling only a single Dane County Sheriff detective — Leslie Keith —  to the stand as a witness. Court Commissioner Brian Asmus presided over the hearing. 

Keith recalled that early on the morning of March 15, dispatchers began receiving 911 calls both from Ridglan employees saying people were entering the facility, and from the activists themselves calling to report animal abuse. Officers arrived from Mt. Horeb, not far from Blue Mounds where the beagle breeding facility is located, and began questioning people and telling them to stop. Several activists were walking around the facility, carrying beagles or attempting to get into more of the buildings. 

Moeser played body camera footage from the officers, which Carraway objected to, saying that they’d only been given the video a few seconds before the hearing began and hadn’t been able to review it. The court commissioner allowed the video to be played. “I will put you in handcuffs right now,” an officer yelled at some of the activists. “Everbody stop!” Many of the activists were dressed in white biohazard suits. Hsiung was filmed talking to the officers, describing himself as “a lawyer on site” with a “judicial opinion” regarding Ridglan. “Why are you stopping people from seeing what’s happening?” one person yelled in the body camera footage. 

Moeser also played social media videos posted by Hsiung and drone footage showing the activists entering Ridglan. The prosecutor emphasized that the group was breaking into and burglarizing the facility, and ultimately stole more than 20 dogs worth $2,000 each. 

Carraway’s attempts to question Detective Keith were repeatedly interrupted by objections by Moeser, which were sustained by the court commissioner. Carraway wasn’t allowed to ask whether law enforcement were already aware of animal cruelty reports at Ridglan. His mention of the surgical removal of beagles’ eyelids was struck down. Carraway also wasn’t allowed to ask why the activists chose to wear the biohazard suits, as well as other questions. “Any defense is not relevant at a preliminary hearing,” the commissioner told Carraway from the bench.

The hearing ended in a debate about bail conditions which had been set by the same court commissioner. Among other things, Hsiung is prohibited from contacting other co-defendants who were charged in the March break-in. Carraway argued that this was unreasonable because Hsiung intends to represent himself at some point, and would need to be able to communicate with co-defendants as witnesses. 

Hsiung was also banished from all of Dane County, which Carraway said was a First Amendment violation and could be satisfied with a simple banishment from Blue Mounds and Ridglan. Hsiung is an organizer and is regularly involved in protests and demonstrations in Wisconsin and Dane County, Carraway said. The commissioner opted to keep the no-contact for co-defendants, but loosened the banishment from Dane County, conceding that it was overly broad.

This article has been edited to clarify that Congressman Mark Pocan added language to an  amendment to the agricultural funding bill for the 2027 fiscal year. 

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision gutting the federal Voting Rights Act could upend American politics and trigger a new rush to redraw congressional districts.

The opinion released on Wednesday, in a case called Louisiana v. Callais, holds sweeping consequences for how states and local governments draw district lines at all levels of government, from Congress to school boards. 

Louisiana, whose congressional map is at the center of the case, may even suspend an upcoming primary election so state lawmakers can pass a new map. Other states are also weighing new gerrymanders, either this year or before the 2028 election. 

Gerrymandering refers to drawing political maps for the purpose of gaining some form of unfair advantage — whether partisan or racial or to help or hurt an incumbent or candidate.

Following the decision, Democrats are calling for Congress to pass new federal voting rights legislation, but President Donald Trump would likely veto it. Others are urging more radical changes, including expanding the size of the Supreme Court.

As the nation responds to the decision, here’s a States Newsroom look at the decision, what it means and what could happen next.

What is Louisiana v. Callais?

After the 2020 census, the Louisiana Legislature passed a congressional map that included one district where a majority of residents are Black. About a third of the state’s population is Black.

States typically draw new congressional lines once a decade following the census, though several states have pushed through new maps this year after Trump called on Republicans to maximize their political advantage heading into the midterm elections this November.

Black voters challenged the Louisiana map and an appeals court ordered lawmakers to pass a new map. The legislature in 2024 approved a map that includes a second district where a majority of residents are Black, also called a majority-minority district.

In response, a group of white voters sued over the new map, claiming it violated the U.S. Constitution and was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The Constitution’s 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law and the 15th Amendment prohibits denying the right to vote on the basis of race.

The lead plaintiff in the case is Phillip Callais, hence the case’s name. The New York Times reported last year that Callais is a veteran who lives near Baton Rouge. 

The Supreme Court held its first oral argument on the case in March 2025. But instead of issuing a decision later that spring, the court held a second round of oral argument in October. 

At that time, comments by the conservative justices strongly suggested the court was interested in weakening the federal Voting Rights Act.

What is the Voting Rights Act and what role did it play in redistricting?

The Voting Rights Act, or VRA, is a 1965 federal law passed by Congress and signed by President Lyndon Johnson.

The law was designed to stop racial discrimination in voting and combat Jim Crow laws like literacy tests that Southern states used to prevent Black people from voting.

It contains several sections but the Supreme Court decision in Callais dealt with Section 2. That section prohibits voting practices or procedures that discriminate on the basis of race and other characteristics. In 1982, Congress expanded Section 2 to ban voting practices that have a discriminatory effect, whether or not the law was intended to discriminate.

Section 2 has acted as a ban on racial gerrymandering, or the practice of drawing districts to minimize the political influence of minority voters. Over time, that’s led to the creation of numerous majority-minority congressional districts.

Many of these majority-minority districts are located in Republican-controlled Southern states  but are held by Democrats. In the past, if states drew new maps to spread minority voters across several districts, they could face challenges in federal court under Section 2.

What did the Supreme Court decide?

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that Louisiana’s congressional map was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. 

The court found that because the Voting Rights Act didn’t require Louisiana to create a second majority-minority district, the state didn’t have a compelling reason to consider race when drawing its map.

Under the court’s reasoning, Section 2 only applies when evidence supports a strong inference that intentional discrimination occurred. In other words, lawmakers only violate Section 2 when they draw districts with the purpose of affording minority voters less opportunity because of their race.

The court’s majority opinion says “none of the historical evidence presented by plaintiffs came close to showing an objective likelihood that the State’s challenged map was the result of intentional racial discrimination.”

Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion, which was joined by all of the court’s conservatives: Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Neal Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.

The court’s three liberal justices — Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson — dissented.

Why is the decision a big deal?

The decision empowers states to gerrymander in ways that break apart districts where a majority of residents are Black, Hispanic or belong to another minority group.

In 2019 the Supreme Court ruled that federal courts would no longer take cases about partisan gerrymandering. That’s where states draw maps to help a political party.

Because many majority-minority districts in the South are held by Democrats, the Callais decision gives Republican states the power to break apart these districts if they can show they are doing so for a partisan purpose.

“Under the Court’s new view of Section 2, a State can, without legal consequence, systematically dilute minority citizens’ voting power,” Kagan wrote in a dissent.

In the short term, the decision means several Black Democrats in the U.S. House may lose their seats if states pass new maps either this year before the November midterm elections or before the 2028 election. At least one projection has pegged the potential losses as high as 19 seats.

The loss of even a few Black representatives would constitute the largest drop in Black representation in Congress since Reconstruction following the Civil War, according to an NPR analysis. 

In the long term, minority voters will have a more difficult time electing their preferred candidates if they are moved into majority-white districts. The decision also applies to state legislative districts, meaning the number of Black state lawmakers may drop as well.

What impact does the Voting Rights Act have after the ruling?

Not nearly as much.

The Supreme Court’s decision didn’t strike down Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. But Kagan and other critics of the opinion say the protections once extended by Section 2 are effectively dead.

To block a map under Section 2, challengers will now have to show states intentionally discriminated against minority voters, a very difficult standard when states can say they drew maps for partisan advantage.

In a series of decisions during the past 13 years, the Supreme Court has also weakened other elements of the Voting Rights Act.

In 2013, the court effectively blocked preclearance, another major portion of the law contained in Section 5. Preclearance required states and local governments with a history of discrimination to obtain federal permission before making voting changes.

Preclearance applied to most Southern states and a handful of others. The justices didn’t strike down preclearance, but ruled that the criteria used to determine whether governments should be subject to preclearance was unconstitutional.

The law required districts that had voting tests in place in 1964 and had less than 50% turnout in the 1964 presidential election as eligible for preclearance. The court found that the criteria no longer made sense and were outdated. 

In theory, Congress could pass new criteria that would restore preclearance.

How are Republicans responding?

Republicans in Southern states are pushing for new maps that could hand their party more seats in the November elections — but also oust Black Democratic members of Congress.

Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry, a Republican, announced on Thursday that the state’s primary election, set for mid-May, would be paused. The suspension will give time for state lawmakers to redraw the state’s congressional map to eliminate the state’s second majority-minority district.

“We are working together with the Legislature and the Secretary of State’s office to develop a path forward,” Landry said in a statement.

Florida lawmakers passed a new map hours after the court’s decision that could provide Republicans with up to four additional seats. Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis had introduced the map earlier in the week and had cited Callais in urging lawmakers to act.

In Tennessee, Sen. Marsha Blackburn, a Republican running for governor, called on state lawmakers to pass a new map. Prominent Republicans in Georgia said the state should pass a new map.

Not all Republicans are pushing for immediate action. Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey said that while she supports the Supreme Court’s decision, the state wasn’t in a position to hold a special session to redistrict.

How are Democrats responding?

Democrats have condemned the Supreme Court’s opinion and say lawmakers and the public should fight back.

Many Democrats say Congress should pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, named after civil rights activist and Georgia Democratic Rep. John Lewis, who died in 2020. The legislation would set new criteria for preclearance, seeking to restore the practice after the Supreme Court stopped it in 2013.

The U.S. House passed the measure in 2021, but it didn’t advance through the Senate. 

Enacting the measure remains extremely difficult. If Democrats retake control of Congress in the November elections, Trump would almost certainly veto the measure. Republicans in the U.S. Senate would also likely block the bill, unless Democrats eliminate the filibuster.

Democrats are also weighing a new round of gerrymanders in blue states. While most attention has focused on Southern Republican states, Democrats can now also engage in racial vote dilution in states like California to secure additional U.S. House seats.

Some Democrats and opponents of the Supreme Court’s decision are pushing for other responses. 

They include expanding the size of the court from nine justices to dilute its conservative majority, implementing term limits for justices, banning mid-decade redistricting or requiring states to use independent commissions to draw congressional maps.

“We must continue to fight for a democracy in which every vote counts, and in which every vote holds equal power, starting by banning mid-decade gerrymanders nationwide and establishing fair redistricting criteria,” Sen. Alex Padilla, a California Democrat, said in a statement.

But those changes would require federal legislation, giving Republicans the opportunity to stop the proposals through filibusters in the Senate or by Trump’s veto.

May Day protests for immigrant and workers’ rights are planned for Friday in Wisconsin. 

Voces de la Frontera is organizing the “Day Without Immigrants” actions in Madison and Milwaukee. The marches are part of the May Day Strong nationwide day of action. Organizers are calling for “No work. No school. No shopping.” 

In Milwaukee, protesters will meet at the Voces offices in Milwaukee at 10 a.m. and march to the Federal Building. Protesters in Madison plan to meet at Library Mall on the University of Wisconsin-Madison campus at noon and march to the state Capitol.

Madison Public Schools has canceled classes Friday due to anticipated absences. Members of Madison Teachers Inc., the union that represents teachers and staff, are participating in the walkout which their union officially endorsed, as did the South Central Federation of Labor AFL-CIO. 

In a statement, MTI said on its website that it is “aligning with Voces de la Frontera’s demands .. . while calling attention to the state’s failure to live up to its obligations to Wisconsin public school students.”

“MTI members voted overwhelmingly to take this action because our country is in crisis, and our vulnerable communities are paying the price.” The statement said, adding, “Our students are experiencing heightened anxiety, leading to absences and trouble concentrating at school. They are afraid that ICE agents will come for them, their parents, or their friends—a heavy burden no child should have to bear.”

Christine Neumann-Ortiz, executive director of Voces de la Frontera, the Milwaukee-based immigrant workers’ rights group, said during a press conference last week in the Wisconsin State Capitol that this year’s May Day is unique.

“It represents a very important national escalation of resistance against the growing inequality between the ultra rich and working people,” Neumann said. “It lifts up the national demands of abolish ICE, citizenship for all, an economy for all, and it includes the state demands of abolishing 287g” — agreements with local law enforcement agencies to aid federal immigration enforcement —  “which has been aggressively growing like a cancer in our state, and the closing of the ICE processing facility in Milwaukee.” 

Neumann added that it is a day of “solidarity with immigrant workers and their families who are being terrorized by militarized operations, the use of physical violence, racial profiling, warrantless arrests, and deadly conditions and detention centers” and “to defend our basic constitutional rights that are being challenged, regardless of immigration status.” 

According to a map on the May Day Strong website, there are actions planned in nearly 40 locations across Wisconsin.

WASHINGTON — Members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus raised serious concerns Thursday about the impact of a recent Department of Justice decision that will make it easier to deport hundreds of thousands of people brought into the country unlawfully as children, referred to as Dreamers. 

Texas Democratic Rep. Joaquin Castro said the April 24 decision from the Department of Justice’s Board of Immigration Appeals, “put a target for deportation on every single Dreamer in this country.”

The decision from the BIA found that having Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, status is not enough to prevent a deportation, making it easier for Dreamers to be removed from the U.S. There are roughly 500,000 DACA recipients. 

The case before the three-judge panel stemmed from an appeal from immigration attorneys from the Department of Homeland Security after an immigration judge terminated removal proceedings for a DACA recipient, Catalina “Xóchitl” Santiago that cited her status as reason she could not be deported.  

While the decision does not mean Santiago will be immediately deported, it does set precedent for similar cases. 

Separately, immigration advocates have warned that DACA recipients have been swept up in President Donald Trump’s mass deportation drive and have been detained despite their legal status. 

Congressional Hispanic Caucus Chair Adriano Espaillat said the decision will allow immigration judges to remove DACA recipients first without terminating their status.

“Before, you had to terminate their DACA status, before they got deported,” the New York Democrat said. “Now they could go straight ahead and do this egregious action by the Board of Immigration Appeals. This is a serious escalation (of) the assault against DACA recipients.”

Spokespeople for the Justice Department did not return a message seeking comment Thursday.

Trump ‘crusade’ against DACA

Democratic Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada said the recent decision “is the Trump administration’s latest move to attack Dreamers.” She criticized Trump for going back on his comments that he would “work with the Democrats on a plan,” to keep DACA recipients in the country. 

“That is just an indefensible decision,” she said. “Their ruling on DACA is a clear escalation in President Trump’s crusade to strip protections from DACA recipients. He is attacking the program from every angle.”

DACA was created by President Barack Obama’s administration in 2012 to protect eligible residents from deportation and allow them to obtain temporary work permits,  driver’s licenses and to qualify for in-state tuition for higher education.

In Trump’s first term, he tried to rescind the program in 2017 by halting new applications and sending hundreds of thousands of recipients across the country into limbo. The Supreme Court eventually ruled against the Trump administration.

Some Republican-led states have challenged the legality of DACA and an appeals court allowed for work permits to expire in Texas, but kept deportation protections. 

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump signed a bill Thursday that will fund almost every agency in the Department of Homeland Security for the next five months, ending the shutdown that began in mid-February. 

The House approved the bill, which doesn’t include additional spending on Immigration and Customs Enforcement or the Border Patrol, on a voice vote earlier in the day.

The DHS shutdown, the third funding lapse in the last year, stalled paychecks for federal employees throughout much of the department, including those at the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Transportation Security Administration. 

Trump enacting the DHS appropriations bill finally marks an end to the annual government funding process that was supposed to be wrapped up before the end of September. 

Connecticut Democratic Rep. Rosa DeLauro, ranking member on the Appropriations Committee, said during brief floor debate it was “about damn time” Republican leaders brought the bill to the floor. 

DeLauro said that “from the outset” Democrats wanted to negotiate with Republicans to address “armed, masked agents marauding our streets and terrorizing people in our communities.”

“It has been the Republicans (who) have been intransigent and not willing to do that,” she said. “But there we go. Today we’re going to do it. It could have been done 76 days ago. I’ll take it today.” 

Texas Republican Rep. Chip Roy said separating out funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol from the DHS funding bill “is offensive to the men and women who serve” in those agencies. 

“While we are all unified in funding the rest of DHS, we are absolutely horrified that we are blowing up the appropriations process to target those brave men and women who are doing the Lord’s work to keep us safe from cartels, from dangerous actors and from illegal aliens across the streets of America that have been endangering the American people,” he said. 

Republicans plan to use the complex budget reconciliation process to fund ICE and the Border Patrol for the rest of Trump’s term without negotiating any new guardrails on immigration agents. 

One shutdown after another

Instead of completing the dozen annual government funding bills before their Oct. 1 deadline, lawmakers’ stark differences over funding and policy led to a trio of shutdowns that stalled paychecks for federal employees and wreaked havoc on hundreds of programs. 

The first shutdown, which affected much of the federal government, lasted 43 days as Democrats tried unsuccessfully to extend the enhanced tax credits for people who purchase their health insurance from the Affordable Care Act marketplace. 

A partial shutdown lasting four days ended in early February when lawmakers approved a stopgap spending bill for the Department of Homeland Security alongside the remaining full-year appropriations bills for other departments. 

But lawmakers failed to reach a bipartisan agreement to place constraints on federal immigration agents before the temporary funding bill for DHS expired on Feb. 14, leading to a third shutdown for the department.  

Senate Democrats demanded several restrictions on immigration agents after federal officers shot and killed two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis in January. While Republicans control both chambers of Congress, most bills cannot move through the Senate without the support of at least 60 lawmakers. 

After nearly six weeks, Senate Republican leaders agreed to remove funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol from the DHS appropriations bill, unanimously sending it to the House for approval in late March.

House hangup

Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said at the time a plan to use the complex budget reconciliation process to provide three years of funding for ICE and Border Patrol wasn’t acceptable. He refused to put the Senate-passed bill on the House floor for a vote. 

The Senate tried again in early April, sending an identical bill to the House, which Johnson declined to schedule a vote on until Thursday. 

The House vote on the DHS appropriations bill happened less than a day after Republicans in that chamber voted to adopt the budget resolution that unlocks the reconciliation process. Republican senators approved the tax and spending blueprint earlier this month. 

Congress’ budget resolution isn’t a bill and doesn’t need to go to the president for his signature in order to take effect. It doesn’t actually fund anything, but is designed to help lawmakers plan tax and spending policy for the next decade. 

GOP lawmakers intend to use the reconciliation process the budget resolution provides to approve a bill in the coming weeks that will provide up to $140 billion for ICE and Border Patrol. That avoids the need to place any new constraints on federal immigration officers in order to get Democrats’ votes to limit Senate debate. 

Members of Congress will, however, still need to find agreement on funding for the rest of government ahead of the next fiscal year, which will begin on Oct. 1. 

Another impasse will mean another shutdown, just weeks before the November midterm elections. 

President Donald Trump on Thursday moved to capitalize on a U.S. Supreme Court decision weakening the federal Voting Rights Act as he urged one governor to gerrymander his state and praised another for suspending an approaching primary.

The court’s decision on Wednesday struck down Louisiana’s congressional map as unconstitutional and empowered other Republican states to break apart districts where most residents are Black for a partisan advantage.

The opinion could reinvigorate Trump’s push for states to redraw their maps to give Republicans an edge in the November midterm elections. The president’s party typically performs poorly in the midterms and Trump’s approval has fallen in polls, making Democrats hopeful they can retake the U.S. House.

Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry and state Attorney General Liz Murrill announced on Thursday that the state’s congressional primary election, set for mid-May, would be suspended. The pause gives state lawmakers time to draw a new map aimed at ousting at least one, if not two, Black Democrats.

Trump thanked Landry on his social media platform, Truth Social, for “moving so quickly to fix the Unconstitutionality” of the state’s map. In a separate post, Trump wrote that he had spoken with Tennessee Republican Gov. Bill Lee, who faces calls to immediately gerrymander the state.

“I had a very good conversation with Governor Bill Lee, of Tennessee, this morning, wherein he stated that he would work hard to correct the unconstitutional flaw in the Congressional Maps of the Great State of Tennessee,” Trump wrote.

A spokesperson for Lee didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

The redistricting rush 

Historically, states draw new maps once a decade after each census but eight states have now broken that norm after Trump urged Republicans to gerrymander. 

Texas, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio and Utah have drawn fresh GOP-leaning maps, as well as Florida, whose legislature approved a gerrymander hours after the Supreme Court’s decision. California and Virginia have enacted new maps favorable to Democrats. 

Before Wednesday, the redistricting war was essentially a wash. But the court’s decision gives Republicans more options to gain the upper hand this year, if states can move quickly. 

Alabama, Georgia, Missouri and Tennessee are among the red states with upcoming primaries where lawmakers could theoretically still act. In some states — like Georgia and Tennessee — top Republicans haven’t ruled out action. In others, like Alabama and Georgia, GOP leaders have ruled out or played down the possibility of action this year.

U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, urged states to gerrymander their maps before the midterm elections.

“I think all states that have unconstitutional maps should look at that very carefully and I think they should do it before the midterms,” Johnson told CNN on Thursday. 

Dems also talk gerrymandering

Democrats have also floated the possibility of additional gerrymanders — whether this year or ahead of the 2028 election. 

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul said on social media after the court’s decision that she would work with the legislature to change the state’s redistricting process. New York currently uses a commission system to draw maps, limiting opportunities for partisan gerrymandering.

At a news conference hosted by the Congressional Black Caucus on Wednesday, Rep. Terri Sewell, an Alabama Democrat, suggested she would support additional Democratic gerrymanders.

“It values partisan politics over discrimination,” Sewell said of the court’s decision. “It’s really, really, really — I mean, it takes us back. So to the extent it’s urging, it’s inviting red states to totally take away all of the Democratic seats and be totally red, it also encourages blue states to do exactly the same.”

Wisconsin’s economic growth is continuing to slow down, with job numbers down from a year ago and unemployment up slightly, the state labor department reported Thursday.

“The Wisconsin labor market has cooled a bit along with the national economy,” said Scott Hodek, section chief in the office of economic advisors at the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development. “But unemployment remains historically low.”

Jobs and employment data are collected through two separate surveys conducted by the federal government.

The number of jobs reported each month is projected based on a federal survey of employers’ payrolls. The number of people listed as employed or unemployed is projected based on a survey of U.S. households each month.

With the release of data for March on Thursday, Wisconsin now has the jobs and employment picture for the full first quarter of 2026. The release of January and February data was delayed until earlier in April while DWD adjusted its data calculations in comparison with unemployment insurance tax collections. That annual benchmarking process was delayed further due to the October 2025 federal government shutdown.

“Through 2025 and now into ‘26, we are seeing continued growth still, but it does seem to be decelerating some,” Hodek said.

The number of jobs reported each month is projected based on a federal survey of employers’ payrolls. The number of people listed as employed or unemployed is projected based on a survey of U.S. households each month.

The household survey results projected 109,500 people were unemployed in March, an increase of 2,200 from February  and an increase of 8,400 from March 2025. The unemployment rate — the percentage of people who report they are actively seeking work — went up to 3.5% in March. It has increased by a tenth of a percentage point each month for the last three months.

Wisconsin had a projected 3,021,600 jobs in March, about 1,200 more than February of this year but  a loss of more than 17,000 since March 2025. Hodek said that echoed an increase in the number of jobs nationally from February to March.

The construction industry, which has been doing well in Wisconsin, showed a projected 151,800 jobs in March, 1,800 fewer than in February, but a gain of 6,600 jobs from March 2025.

“There are a lot of jobs there still, and if anything, the employment trend over the last year has likely accelerated,” Hodek said.

A challenge has been a continued shortage of workers. “What we’re seeing is demand still outstripping supply,” Hodek said. “There’s not enough crews to go around.”

The number of jobs in manufacturing was projected at 453,600 in March, 1,800 more than in February but a loss of 5,200 jobs from March 2025.

There were a projected 437,500 jobs in healthcare and social assistance in March, a gain of 300 from February and a gain of 4,900 from March 2025.

Sen. André Jacque (R-New Franken) announced Monday he’ll retire from office at the end of his term. 

Jacque’s decision means a third of the Republican Senate caucus is not seeking reelection, including Sen. Rob Hutton (R-Brookfield) and Sen. Van Wanggaard (R-Racine), who both represent key districts that will determine control of the body in November, as well as Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu (R-Oostburg).

“My passion for serving our community has not waned, but after much discussion with family and friends I have decided that I will not be seeking re-election to the State Senate this fall,” Jacque, 45, said in a statement.

The wave of retirements comes in an election year where odd-numbered Senate seats will be up for election for the first time under the legislative maps that were adopted in 2024. There are also eight Republicans who have so far announced their retirements. 

Jacque has represented Senate District 1 since 2019. The solidly-red district under the maps adopted in 2024 encompasses Door and Kewaunee counties as well as parts of Calumet, Brown, Manitowoc and Outagamie counties. After the new maps were adopted, Jacque ran in the GOP primary for Wisconsin’s 8th Congressional District, losing to U.S. Rep. Tony Wied, who received the endorsement of President Donald Trump in the three-way primary.

Jacque said he is not sure what he will do after leaving the Legislature, but “this is not farewell — there is still much to be done and I will always work for a brighter future for our state and the advancement of those worthy ideas that never quite made it all the way through the legislative process.” He added  that he has been “greatly blessed, and God’s not done with me yet.” 

Democrats will have the chance to win control of the Senate for the first time since the 2009-11 legislative session. State Senate Democratic Campaign Committee spokesperson Will Karcz said in a statement that the Republican caucus was “retiring en masse to avoid losing at the ballot box in November.” 

“While Republicans jump off their sinking ship, Senate Democrats are focused on the issues that Wisconsinites care about and are making it clear they have a plan to deliver results when they win a majority in November,” Karcz said. 

Jacob VandenPlas, a combat veteran, farmer and former leader of DC Farm for Vets, a veterans nonprofit, announced his campaign for Jacque’s seat on April 17.

Independent Mark Becker is also running for the seat. Becker, a small business owner, was formerly the chair of the Brown County Republican Party. He has hosted a podcast on Civic Media called “Rational Revolution” since 2024, though he has stepped away from that to campaign.

Four Republican members of Congress, including gubernatorial frontrunner Tom Tiffany, have introduced a bill that would exempt vehicles in southeast Wisconsin from federally mandated emissions testing. 

The bill was introduced by U.S. Rep. Bryan Steil (R-Janesville) and co-sponsored by Reps. Glenn Grothman, Scott Fitzgerald and Tiffany. Tiffany, the only member whose district does not include the affected area of Milwaukee, Kenosha, Ozaukee, Racine, Sheboygan, Washington and Waukesha counties, also brought the issue up on the campaign trail late last month. 

Seven Wisconsin counties, including Milwaukee, are designated ozone nonattainment areas by the EPA under the Clean Air Act, which subjects vehicle owners in the area to additional regulations such as biennial emissions testing. Federal law allows a state to apply for the waiver if it can prove air pollution originates from out-of-state. 

The bill authors point to a Department of Natural Resources report that showed 10% of the ozone measured in the area comes from Wisconsin while more than a third of it comes across Lake Michigan from Illinois and Indiana. 

“Because of outdated federal rules, hundreds of thousands of Wisconsin drivers in seven counties are forced to complete emissions tests every two years just to renew their registration,” Tiffany said in a statement. “Wisconsin families should not be punished with costly and time-consuming mandates because of pollution drifting in from Illinois and Indiana.”

Studies have shown the highest sources of ozone in the region come from the urban centers of Chicago and Milwaukee.

U.S. Sens. Tammy Baldwin and Ron Johnson sent a letter to the White House Wednesday recommending their nominees for U.S. Attorney in Wisconsin’s two federal court districts. 

The appointment process for the two jobs has become more politically fraught than in the past after the commission was unable to agree on a nominee for the state’s Eastern District. The administration of President Donald Trump named former Republican attorney general and failed state Supreme Court candidate Brad Schimel as the interim U.S. Attorney in Milwaukee last year, which allowed him to serve for a limited time. The district’s judges ruled earlier this year that Schimel could no longer serve in his interim role, but former U.S. Attorney General gave him a new title that allowed him to continue working in the office. 

“I appreciate the hard work and dedication of Brad Schimel, who continues to serve the people of Wisconsin and remains fully committed to his role as first assistant U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Wisconsin,” Johnson said in a statement. “My bipartisan nominating commission with Sen. Baldwin submitted two well-qualified U.S. attorneys for the President’s consideration. Peter Smyczek and Chadwick Elgersma will apply the rule of law and serve the people of Wisconsin’s Eastern and Western districts well.”

Historically, the two senators from a state each appoint people to a bipartisan nominating commission which selects candidates to be recommended to the president. Presidents usually adhere to the recommendations of a state’s senators. The Wisconsin nominating commission had broken down but was restarted after Democrats objected to Schimel’s appointment. 

Baldwin and Johnson named Peter Smyczek and Chadwick Elgersma to be the state’s top federal prosecutors. Smyczek has been an assistant U.S. attorney in the Milwaukee office while Elgersma was named to the job in January after working as an assistant prosecutor in the Madison office. 

“This is proof that the hard work of this commission and finding common ground can work,” Baldwin said. “The candidates that the commission put forward appear well qualified, to have relevant experience, and committed to delivering justice impartially, and I support them moving through the next stage of the nomination process. Wisconsinites want these top law enforcement officials to work for them and uphold the constitution without fear or favor, and I will vet these candidates to ensure they meet that criteria and do right by Wisconsin families.”

WASHINGTON — The man who allegedly targeted President Donald Trump at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner agreed in federal court Thursday to remain jailed as the Department of Justice continues its investigation, including examining ballistics to prove a single shot fired at a Secret Service agent came from the defendant’s weapon.

Cole Tomas Allen, 31, of California, appeared before U.S. District Magistrate Judge Moxila A. Upadhyaya in Washington, D.C., five days after he allegedly charged security one level above the Washington Hilton ballroom where Trump, Vice President JD Vance and several Cabinet officials were attending the annual black-tie event that dates back a century.

Allen is charged with attempting to assassinate the president, interstate transportation of a firearm with intent to commit a felony and discharge of a firearm during a crime of violence.

He faces up to life in prison if convicted of attempting to kill the president. Trump, first lady Melania Trump and Cabinet members all safely evacuated the ballroom. A Secret Service agent was hit by gun fire, but was protected by his bulletproof vest. 

Government prosecutors argued Wednesday in a court filing Allen prepared for a mass casualty event. Allen was allegedly armed with a 12-gauge pump-action shotgun with one spent cartridge in the barrel and eight unfired rounds in the magazine. 

The defendant also had on him 16 unfired cartridges, attached to his body with Velcro and in a small bag, plus a .38 caliber pistol loaded with 10 rounds, and two other handgun magazines, each with nine rounds, according to the government.

The filing also alleges Allen carried “two knives, four daggers, multiple sheaths, multiple holsters, needle nose pliers, (and) wire cutters.” 

Detention argument

Despite Allen conceding to remain jailed, Assistant U.S. Attorney Charles R. Jones requested to present the government’s reasoning in court to keep him detained.

Upadhyaya denied the request, calling it “a completely inefficient way of proceeding,” given DOJ had already won its motion.

“I guarantee you that if the defendant challenges his detention in the future, you would be doing your exact same presentation all over again,” Upadhyaya said.

She asked: “What audience is your supplemental information for?”

Defense attorney Teriza Abe said she wasn’t contesting the government met its argument for detention.

Abe asked the judge to intervene in Allen’s detention conditions. He is being held at the D.C. jail in a “safe cell” that is monitored 24 hours a day meant to prevent him from endangering others or self-harm.

“He’s not a danger to anyone in the jail,” Abe said.

Upadhyaya instructed her to file a motion to allow the government’s response. 

“I don’t have the authority, nor would I presume I can override the judgement of the jail,” Upadhyaya said.

A preliminary hearing is scheduled for May 11. Abe requested prosecutors provide evidence for the defense’s review by May 8.

Shot at Secret Service agent

Allen’s attorneys requested Thursday that prosecutors provide evidence ahead of the detention hearing, including any information and video showing Allen did not fire a shot at the Secret Service agent, referred to by the government in court filings as V.G.

U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro responded that the government’s preliminary investigation shows Allen fired one shot in the direction of the Secret Service agent.

“With respect to your specific requests for information, the government’s investigation is ongoing and its analysis of the crime scene evidence and recovered ballistics evidence is not yet complete,” Pirro responded.

However, Pirro also wrote that Allen has not been charged with crimes against any other individual, except the president.

Allen’s lawyers protest jail communications setup

Allen’s attorneys said in a filing Wednesday the D.C. jail personnel had not permitted the defendant to meet separately with counsel.

“Despite the guarantees of the Sixth Amendment, DOC staff have refused Mr. Allen the opportunity to communicate with counsel in a way that protects the confidentiality owed to him,” they wrote. 

The public defenders said they had to speak to Allen via a phone booth where he was restrained.

“Counsel were forced to sit in an open, lobby area with jail staff and other attorneys standing nearby who could overhear the entirety of counsel’s side of the conversation,” according to the filing. 

U.S. Magistrate Judge Matthew J. Sharbaugh ordered D.C. Department of Corrections staff Thursday to permit unrestricted visits.

Abe said counsel was then able to meet with the defendant prior to Thursday’s hearing.

‘I don’t think about it’

Trump said Thursday afternoon that he doesn’t think about the risk of assassination.

“I don’t think about it. If I did, I wouldn’t be effective,” he said while speaking to reporters in the Oval Office.

When asked if there’s been any consideration for him to wear a bulletproof vest, Trump said, “I don’t know if I can handle looking 20 pounds heavier.”

On the topic of whose bullet hit the Secret Service agent’s protective vest Saturday night, Trump insisted, “It wasn’t friendly fire.”

A signed DOJ affidavit filed in federal court Monday does not specify who shot the agent.

Jennifer Shutt contributed to this report.

The U.S. House approved, 224-200, a five-year farm bill Thursday as members of Congress attempt to update major agriculture and nutrition policy after three years of extensions.

The bill would authorize subsidy and nutrition assistance programs through fiscal 2031. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated an earlier version of the bill would not meaningfully affect discretionary federal spending over an 11-year window, and would add $162 million in mandatory spending over the next six years.

Most Democrats opposed the bill, but 14 voted in favor. Three Republicans voted against. Six members did not vote.

The Democrats in favor were: Sanford Bishop of Georgia, Jim Costa and Adam Gray of California, Henry Cuellar and Vicente Gonzalez of Texas, Sharice Davids of Kansas, Donald Davis of North Carolina, Marcy Kaptur of Ohio, Kristen McDonald Rivet of Michigan, Marie Gluesenkamp Perez and Kim Schrier of Washington, Josh Riley of New York, Darren Soto of Florida and Gabe Vasquez of New Mexico.

The Republicans who voted against were: Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Andrew Garbarino of New York and Harriet Hageman of Wyoming.

Few policy changes

Because Republicans’ massive spending and tax cuts law last year made major changes to some U.S. Department of Agriculture programs, mainly the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program that helped about 1 in 8 Americans afford groceries in 2024, the farm bill passed Thursday was a “skinny” version and relatively short on major policy updates.

The bill would still have to pass the Senate, which has not yet introduced its version. 

Arkansas Republican Sen. John Boozman, who chairs the Senate Agriculture Committee, cheered House passage Thursday and said a Senate text would be released “in the coming weeks.”

“This is an important step toward updating long-overdue policies that support our farm families and strengthen rural communities,” he said of the House vote in a statement. “We’ve put more farm in the farm bill through the Working Families Tax Cuts (the GOP spending and tax cuts bill), and this legislation builds on that success.”

New authorizations needed 

Farm bills are typically written to last five years. But Congress last approved a version in 2018. Extensions of the 2018 version were enacted in 2023, 2024 and 2025.

House Agriculture Chairman Glenn “GT” Thompson, a Pennsylvania Republican, said the measure would still meaningfully update farm and food programs.

“It is more evident than ever that rural America needs a new farm bill now, not next year or next Congress,” he said. “Producers are operating under the third consecutive farm bill extension and the simple truth is the policies of 2018 are no match for the challenges of 2026.”

Agriculture Committee ranking Democrat Angie Craig of Minnesota opposed the bill, saying it did not address any of the pressing issues that farmers and SNAP recipients face. The bill does not help alleviate the rising costs farmers face from President Donald Trump’s tariffs and “locks in the $187 billion cut” to SNAP in last year’s spending law, Craig said.

“It doesn’t fix any of the underlying policy choices by Republicans and this administration that caused the problems in the first place,” she said, adding that  continuing the SNAP cuts put “more pressure on struggling Americans at a time when the cost of groceries and healthcare continues to grow.  

Craig said Thursday morning that the measure could have helped corn farmers by including a provision to allow gasoline made with 15% ethanol available all year. The product, known as E15, increases demand for corn, but has been limited in summer months because of the pollution it can cause in high temperatures. 

Thompson responded that the committee would consider a separate measure on year-round E15 in mid-May.

Local food, foreign food aid oversight

The bill does include some new provisions.

It would authorize $200 million for a new local food procurement program, to be used largely by food banks. 

It would move authority for foreign food assistance programs under USDA from the now-defunct U.S. Agency for International Development. 

It would raise the limit that individual farmers could borrow from USDA and expand rural development programs that fund substance abuse and mental health services.

Members voted Thursday morning for an amendment that removed a controversial provision to shield pesticide producers from legal liability to warn users of a risk of cancer. If it became law, the provision would have mooted a case argued before the U.S. Supreme Court this week related to a Missouri jury’s award to a user of Monsanto’s popular Roundup weedkiller who developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

“Going to make hunger worse”

Several Democrats slammed the bill, but seemed to take more issue with the “big beautiful” law Trump signed last July 4. The farm bill, Massachusetts Democrat Jim McGovern said, would not counteract the changes in that law.

“We are considering on the floor a five-year farm bill that, quite frankly, does nothing for our farmers and screws over poor people and maintains the nearly $200 billion in cuts to SNAP,” the top House Rules Committee Democrat said on the House floor Thursday. “It is going to make hunger worse in this country.”

Thompson said Democrats were too focused on what was not in the bill, rather than the provisions that enjoy bipartisan support.

“Today, you will hear some opposing comments made that this is a partisan bill and even more on what’s not in the bill,” he said at the outset of floor debate. “This bill is filled with good policy that is also overwhelmingly bipartisan.

WASHINGTON — U.S. House Republicans adopted their budget resolution Wednesday night, clearing the way for the party to pass a bill in the coming weeks that will provide tens of billions in additional funding for immigration enforcement. 

The 215-211 party-line vote unlocks the complicated budget reconciliation process that will allow the GOP to fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol for the rest of President Donald Trump’s term in office. California independent Rep. Kevin Kiley, formerly a Republican, voted “present.”

The budget resolution was approved by the Senate earlier this month and does not need Trump’s signature.

When combined with a separate Senate-passed bill, which Speaker Mike Johnson has so far refused to put on the House floor for a vote, the two measures are expected to eventually end the shutdown at the Department of Homeland Security that began in mid-February. 

House Budget Committee ranking member Rep. Brendan Boyle, D-Pa., said during floor debate that lawmakers should place constraints on immigration agents after they shot and killed two U.S. citizens earlier this year in Minneapolis. 

“I think the vast majority of the American people agree with me that we need to have a secure border, but that we cannot have any agency of our government carrying out killings on our streets,” he said. 

Republicans removed ICE and Border Patrol funding from the annual DHS appropriations bill after negotiators were unable to broker agreement with Democrats to place new guardrails on immigration activities.

Placing funding for those two agencies in a reconciliation bill allows Republicans to move the measure through the Senate without securing 60 votes to end debate, which would require bipartisanship. 

Immigration enforcement debated

House Budget Committee Chairman Jodey Arrington, R-Texas, said the shutdown isn’t “just about the inconvenience of long lines at airports.” 

“This is an unprecedented national security and public safety crisis. And this is the moment we take the keys from the kids and we say no more of this nonsense,” he added.  

DHS includes the Coast Guard, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Secret Service and Transportation Security Administration. 

Arrington used his debate time to criticize Democrats for demanding constraints on immigration agents, arguing federal officers shouldn’t have to secure a judicial warrant to enter someone’s home to detain a person in the country without proper documentation.

“There is not a Democrat or Republican former commander-in-chief that would ever find that acceptable,” he said. 

Democrats also called for federal immigration agents to: 

• Wear body cameras.
• Only wear masks to conceal their identities in “extraordinary and unusual circumstances.”
• Not undertake roving patrols.
• Not detain people in certain locations, like houses of worship, schools, or polling places.
• Not engage in racial profiling.
• Not detain or deport American citizens. 

Up to $140 billion

The GOP used the reconciliation process last year to enact its “big, beautiful” law, which included an additional $170 billion for immigration and deportation enforcement. 

The reconciliation bill Republicans hope to approve in the next month can cost up to $140 billion, according to the instructions in the budget resolution. But GOP lawmakers expect the price tag to come in around $70 billion.

The additional funding is significantly higher than the $10 billion allocation for ICE and the $18.3 billion for Customs and Border Protection that Congress was on track to approve earlier this year. About $550 million of the CBP total was for the Border Patrol. 

White House officials have repeatedly urged lawmakers to quickly approve the reconciliation bill that has yet to be released and for House Republicans to clear the Senate-passed DHS appropriations bill for Trump’s signature. 

The Office of Management and Budget sent a memo to lawmakers this week notifying them the administration is running out of money to pay DHS employees during the shutdown. 

“If this funding is exhausted, the Administration will be unable to pay all DHS personnel beginning in May, which will once again unleash havoc on air travel, leave critical law enforcement officers—including our brave Secret Service agents—and the Coast Guard without paychecks, and jeopardize national security,” it says.