Americans’ views on crime often don’t match reality — and a new report suggests those perceptions are shaped as much by personal experiences and economic conditions as by crime itself.

The analysis, released by the nonprofit think tank Council on Criminal Justice, draws on decades of Gallup survey data to examine how people perceive crime and what drives those beliefs. The report’s authors found that, since the 1960s, public perceptions of crime have frequently diverged from actual crime trends.

Even during periods when crime declined, most Americans continued to believe it was rising. From 2005 to 2024, about 69% of survey respondents on average said crime was higher than the year before, despite overall crime rates falling in most of those years, according to the report.

Fear of crime has remained relatively stable over time. In 2024, 35% of Americans said they were afraid to walk alone at night — the same share as in 1968.

The researchers found that public concern tends to track major shifts in homicide rates more closely than broader crime trends. But overall, people’s views about crime and their fear of it have not matched shifts in crime rates for most years, according to the report.

Instead, the analysis points to other factors that shape how Americans think about public safety.

Household victimization — whether someone in the home has been a victim of a crime — was one of the strongest predictors of both fear and the belief that crime is increasing. 

Property crimes, such as theft, and people’s own experiences with crime were more closely tied to concerns about the issue than actual violent crime rates.

Economic sentiment also played a role. People who said it was a good time to find a job or expected to spend the same or more on holiday shopping were less likely to say crime was rising and less likely to report fear of walking alone at night, according to the report.

Political views showed a more limited effect. While people with more conservative ideologies were somewhat more likely to perceive crime as increasing, political party affiliation itself was not a significant factor after accounting for economic conditions and other variables.

Higher presidential and congressional approval ratings were associated with a greater likelihood that respondents said crime was staying the same or declining, according to the report.

Local conditions, meanwhile, were more closely linked to personal fears than to perceptions of crime overall. The researchers found that neighborhood factors, such as poverty and youth population, were associated with whether people said they were afraid, but did not generally influence whether they believed crime was rising locally or nationally.

Stateline reporter Amanda Watford can be reached at awatford@stateline.org.

The high-profile beer brand owner and political fundraiser Kirk Bangstad is entering the race for Wisconsin governor — a move he hinted at last year before putting it off.

Bangstad, who has been an outspoken critic of President Donald Trump and state Republican politicians, announced his intention to seek the Democratic nomination over the weekend at a rally outside his Minocqua craft beer brewery.

In an email newsletter Sunday from a Substack account he operates, Bangstad told subscribers he was running “because I believe Wisconsin needs a battle-hardened fighter to join the rest of America to save our Democracy from Trump’s regime, and that person doesn’t exist in the crowded field of Democrats currently running in Wisconsin’s Gubernatorial primary.”

The newsletter included a screenshot from the Wisconsin Ethics Commission’s website showing an account registered for his campaign for governor. The account was not visible at the commission’s website Monday. Commission administrator Daniel Carlton Jr. said in an email message that campaign accounts do not become publicly visible until they have been reviewed by the commission’s staff.

Bangstad, who ran for Congress in 2016, has sold a variety of beers bearing politically themed names honoring Gov. Tony Evers, Sen. Tammy Baldwin and others. He’s also promoted a promise of free beer when Trump dies.

He operates a SuperPAC that has funded advertising promoting Democratic candidates and attacking Republicans, as well lawsuits against Wisconsin’s school choice program and accusing congressional Republicans of enabling the Jan. 6, 2021 U.S. Capitol attack that delayed certification of the 2020 presidential election that Joe Biden won. He also sued unsuccessfully to keep Trump off of the Wisconsin ballot in 2024.

Bangstad said in his newsletter that Democrats already running didn’t take seriously his demand for “an election protection plan, because I believed deep in my heart that Trump’s regime would unleash an ‘October surprise’ that would try to steal elections across the country and keep his goons in control of Congress.”

The Saturday rally was initially billed as a free speech event in response to Bangstad’s interview by Secret Service and FBI agents Thursday.

The interview followed a  social media post Bangstad made on April 25, shortly after the shooting upstairs from the White House correspondents dinner that Trump attended. Cole Tomas Allen, accused of crashing a security checkpoint with a shotgun, is being held on charges that included attempting to assassinate Trump. On Facebook that night, Bangstad declared, “Well, we almost got #freebeerday. Either a brother or sister in the Resistance needs to work on their marksmanship or he faked another assassination to get a positive news cycle.”

Republican campaigns jumped on the post, accusing Bangstad of calling for Trump’s assassination. The Democratic Party of Wisconsin issued a statement condemning the comment as well.

In a newsletter May 1 promoting his rally, Bangstad described the post as “satirical” and suggested federal authorities targeted him for “wondering publicly whether Trump’s assassination attempt was staged.”

In October, Bangstad floated the possibility of running for governor. He argued that “fascism is already here in America and must be stopped” in an Oct. 12 Substack post. “I’ve not heard a single candidate talk about what he or she will do to protect us.”

Bangstad wrote then that he was tempted to run on his history of battling conservative Republicans in court. “But that’s just narcissism rearing its ugly head,” he added. He vowed instead to compile a list of “most egregious votes” in Congress by U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, the expected Republican nominee in the governor’s race, and spend money from his Super PAC on ads about “all the lies he’s told in service to Trump, and the harm he’s done to Wisconsinites.”

Federal agencies say they have yet to take steps to implement President Donald Trump’s executive order restricting voting by mail, as the Department of Justice fights a Democrat-led lawsuit against it.

The Justice Department late Friday filed documents asking a federal judge to dismiss the lawsuit and to not block the executive order on a preliminary basis because the order hasn’t been implemented. The filings marked the Trump administration’s first effort to defend the order in court.

The March 31 order directs the creation of state citizenship lists and restricts how ballots can be sent through the mail, instructions that Democrats and election experts have called unconstitutional and illegal. It comes as Trump has seized on the specter of noncitizen voting, an extremely rare phenomenon, to demand sweeping voting restrictions.

In its Friday filing, the Justice Department sought to persuade Judge Carl J. Nichols in U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia that a legal challenge is premature.

“If and when the Executive Branch takes some action to implement the Executive Order” then a lawsuit can be brought, Stephen Pezzi, a senior trial counsel in the Justice Department’s Civil Division, wrote in a court filing.

Nichols has scheduled a hearing for May 14.

No action taken, officials tell court

The DOJ’s argument relies on statements by key federal officials that the agencies affected by the order — the Department of Homeland Security, the Social Security Administration and the U.S. Postal Service — are still deliberating over how to carry out Trump’s directive. In declarations filed in court on Friday, officials at all three agencies say final decisions haven’t been made.

“As the Postal Service is still in the deliberation phase of determining how to implement the Executive Order, we have not yet published a proposed rule, nor have we reached any final decisions about the substance of a proposed rule,” Steven Monteith, the Postal Service’s chief customer and marketing officer, wrote.

The executive order directs the postmaster general, who leads the Postal Service, to propose a rule that would block states from sending ballots through the mail except to voters on lists provided by the state to the Postal Service. 

The order also instructs Homeland Security to compile lists of voting-age U.S. citizens in each state with the help of the Social Security Administration. Democrats allege the Trump administration is building an unauthorized national voter list, despite the U.S. Constitution giving states the responsibility of running federal elections.

Michael Mayhew, deputy associate director of the Immigration Records and Identity Services Directorate within U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, wrote in a declaration that the agency “has not yet begun preparation” of state citizenship lists. USCIS is a subsidiary of Homeland Security.

At the Social Security Administration, Jessica Burns MacBride, head of program policy and data exchange, wrote that the agency hasn’t made any final decisions “about its role” in implementing the executive order.

Focus on Postal Service

The order’s opponents are especially watching the Postal Service’s response, since it is an independent corporation overseen by its Board of Governors — not the White House.

Democrats and experts on postal law say Trump has no authority to order the postmaster general to take any action. The Board of Governors hires and fires the postmaster general, and board members serve seven-year terms, helping insulate them from political pressure.

Last month, 37 Democratic U.S. senators signed a letter to Postmaster General David Steiner and the Board of Governors urging the Postal Service to not implement the executive order. The senators pointed out the president has no authority to regulate federal elections or the Postal Service.

“Like the President, the Postal Service has no authority to regulate the manner of voting in federal elections, nor who is eligible to vote by mail in such elections,” the letter says.

The Postal Service is a named defendant in the lawsuit filed by Democratic groups and leaders in Congress. 

The Justice Department, which is representing the Postal Service, sidestepped questions about the president’s authority in Friday’s court filing. It called arguments about Trump’s authority over the Postal Service an “abstract legal question” that can’t be resolved before the agency takes action.

Still, Monteith appeared to nod to concerns within the Postal Service over the order’s legality while avoiding specifics.

“I am aware that deliberations are currently ongoing within the Postal Service regarding the implementation of the Executive Order,” Monteith wrote, adding that the deliberations include “legal considerations” regarding the order.

Unitary executive theory

The executive order faces at least five lawsuits, including a challenge brought by a coalition of Democratic state attorneys general led by California’s Rob Bonta. The Justice Department has not yet filed court documents defending the order in that case.

For their part, Republican attorneys general — led by Catherine Hanaway of Missouri — are defending the executive order. Their position, if adopted by courts, would give Trump sweeping control over the Postal Service.

In a May 1 court filing, the GOP attorneys general argue those challenging the executive order are unlikely to succeed in showing that Trump cannot direct the Postal Service to propose a rule. They say that federal law doesn’t specifically prohibit the president from ordering the postmaster general to put forward rules on mail ballots — and it’s unconstitutional if it does.

“The Constitution vests the entirety of the executive power in the President,” The Republican coalition says, articulating a view commonly called the unitary executive theory: the idea that Congress cannot constitutionally create agencies that exist outside of White House control.

The Republican states involved also include Alabama, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota and Texas.

Democrats and many constitutional law experts reject the unitary executive theory, though it has gained support among Trump-aligned Republicans as the White House seeks greater control over independent agencies.

If the U.S. Supreme Court eventually greenlights Trump’s efforts to control the Postal Service and other independent agencies, it would mark a “tremendous” change in how the federal government operates, James Campbell Jr., an attorney in the Washington, D.C., area who consults on postal law, said in an interview last month.

“What you’re basically talking about is redesigning the U.S. government,” Campbell said.

WASHINGTON — Americans saw prices at the pump sharply rise in recent days as the nationwide average cost for a gallon of regular gas shot up 38 cents over the past week, according to GasBuddy.

The motor club AAA clocked the average price of regular gas at $4.46 per gallon and diesel at $5.64, as Iran and the U.S. remain at a stalemate over opening the Strait of Hormuz, where one-fifth of the world’s petroleum passed through prior to the war.

“Gasoline prices rose in every state over the last week, with some of the most significant and fastest increases concentrated in the Great Lakes, where states like Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, and Illinois saw sharp spikes, while Wisconsin experienced more modest gains,” Patrick De Haan, head of petroleum analysis at GasBuddy, said in a statement Monday. 

“At the same time, diesel prices surged to new records in parts of the region, with some areas touching the $6-per-gallon mark,” he added.

De Haan said refinery outages drove prices up, but other factors like Middle East oil output and President Donald Trump’s plan to free oil tankers stuck in the Persian Gulf could help.

“However, with so many moving pieces, the outlook remains highly fluid, and while some localized relief may emerge, broader price volatility is likely to persist in the near term,” he said.

Trump’s approval ratings, particularly on everyday costs, are sinking. About two-thirds of Americans disapprove of Trump’s handling of the cost of living, and 66% disapprove of the president’s handling of the Iran war, according to a Washington Post/ABC News/Ipsos poll published Sunday. 

Trump’s overall disapproval of 62% was the highest the survey recorded since he first took office in 2017.

The nationwide average for a gallon of regular gas was $4.10 one month ago. Last year at this time, it was $3.16, according to AAA.

Brent crude oil, the international standard, jumped to $114.90 a barrel Monday, the second-highest price jump since Russia attacked Ukraine in 2022.

During a small business summit at the White House on Monday, Trump said the war “is working out very nicely.”

“They thought that energy would be at $300 right, $300 a barrel. And it’s like at 100 and I think going down,” Trump said, incorrectly describing the current trend in prices. “And I see it going down very substantially when this is over.”

Navy escorts through strait

Trump on Sunday announced “Project Freedom,” an operation to guide cargo ships and oil tankers through the strait with the guidance of the U.S. Navy.

The “humanitarian gesture,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform, is “merely meant to free up people, companies, and Countries that have done absolutely nothing wrong — They are victims of circumstance.”

Some 20,000 merchant ship crew members have been stranded in the Persian Gulf during the ongoing war, according to United Nations estimates at the end of March.

Trump threatened that Iran would “be dealt with forcefully” if they interfered with the operation.

As of Monday, U.S. Central Command said two U.S.-flagged merchant ships had been escorted through the strait. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps disputed the claim as “baseless and completely false,” according to a statement reported by Iranian state media.

“Any other maritime movements that contradict the stated principles of the IRGC Navy will face serious risks, and any violating vessels will be forcefully stopped,” the statement read.

War continues

The IRGC also claimed to have hit two U.S. military vessels in the strait Monday, a claim categorically denied by U.S. Central Command.

U.S. Central Command’s Admiral Brad Cooper told reporters on a press call Monday that the IRGC launched multiple cruise missiles and drones at merchant ships that “we are protecting.” 

“We have defeated each and every one of those threats through the clinical application of defensive munitions,” he told reporters. 

U.S. Apache and Seahawk helicopters sank six small Iranian boats Monday, according to Cooper.

The United Arab Emirates defense ministry reported Monday it was intercepting Iranian missiles and drones over various parts of the country. Iran’s air strikes on its U.S. ally neighbors have largely quieted in recent weeks.

U.K. Maritime Trade Organization, which reports on security conditions, has kept the strait’s regional threat level as “critical.”

Trump said Saturday he was reviewing a new deal from Iran to end the war. Talks have failed since the U.S. and Iran announced a tenuous ceasefire on April 7.

The U.S. Supreme Court issued a temporary stay on an appeals court ruling from Friday that was blocking remote access to an abortion drug, restoring access until at least May 11.

The administrative stay, issued by Justice Samuel Alito, pauses Friday’s decision by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. That ruling blocked a 2023 rule adopted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration allowing mifepristone, one of two drugs used to terminate a pregnancy before 10 weeks and to treat miscarriages, to be prescribed without an in-person visit with a health care provider and also allowed it to be mailed to recipients in states with abortion bans.

“The administrative stay is temporary, and I am confident life and law will win in the end,” said Louisiana Republican Attorney General Liz Murrill in a statement. 

Thirteen states have near-total abortion bans, including Louisiana. Murrill sued the FDA in October, saying the rule undermines the state’s laws and causes financial harm because the state paid $92,000 in Medicaid bills for two women who needed emergency care in 2025 from complications related to mifepristone. 

In the years since the 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision allowing states to regulate abortion access, telehealth prescriptions of abortion medication have become increasingly popular, with more than 27% of all abortions provided that way in 2025, according to data from the Society of Family Planning.

“While this is a positive short-term development, no one can rest easy when our ability to get this safe, effective medication for abortion and miscarriage care still hangs in the balance,” said Julia Kaye, senior staff attorney for the Reproductive Freedom Project at the American Civil Liberties Union, in a statement. “The Supreme Court needs to put an end to this baseless attack on our reproductive freedom, once and for all.”

The case could follow a similar pattern to one that played out in 2023, after U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of Texas issued a ruling that would have revoked access to the abortion drug mifepristone altogether. 

The U.S. Supreme Court intervened shortly after that ruling and kept mifepristone available while the case proceeded in the 5th Circuit appeals court, which eventually decided that more restrictions were warranted, but not pulling the drug’s approval. The Supreme Court officially took the case several months later, and unanimously ruled in June 2024 that the plaintiffs suing the FDA did not have standing, keeping access to mifepristone intact.

Responses from the attorneys in the latest case are expected to be filed with the Supreme Court by Thursday, according to Alito’s order.

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

WASHINGTON — The State Department must spend the $600 million Congress approved for an international vaccine program, according to a letter sent Monday by a bipartisan group of U.S. senators.

The six senior members of the Appropriations Committee, three Republicans and three Democrats, called on Secretary of State Marco Rubio to fulfill the government’s “pledge” to GAVI, the Vaccine Alliance.

“GAVI plays a critical role in averting the spread of preventable diseases around the globe and helps protect public health in our country by stopping outbreaks before they reach our borders,” the senators wrote. “Congressional support for GAVI endures because of its proven success as a public-private partnership, immunizing more than 1.1 billion children – and in turn preventing 20.6 million deaths – since its inception in 2000.”

Senate Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Susan Collins, R-Maine; ranking member Patty Murray, D-Wash.; State-Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee ranking member Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii; Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.; Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska; and Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., all signed the letter.

South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, chairman of the State-Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee, didn’t sign the letter. 

A State Department spokesperson wrote in an email the department doesn’t “comment on congressional correspondence.” 

Senators wrote in the letter that GAVI “supports U.S. industry and jobs, purchasing more than $12.5 billion in U.S.-manufactured goods and vaccines.”

“It is the world’s leading purchaser of U.S.-produced vaccines and hosts the U.S.-founded global vaccine stockpile,” the senators wrote. “Additionally, vaccines funded through GAVI are approved through the same standards as used by the Food and Drug Administration.”

In the contest for the Democratic nomination for governor, “affordability” might be the most frequently used campaign watchword. Side-by-side with it is another word: Healthcare.

Healthcare “is one of the most broken systems in the whole of government,” says former Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes. It’s “working as it was designed to,” says state Rep. Francesca Hong — in what is decidedly not a compliment to the system.

Among voters, it is “a top issue if not the top issue,” says Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley. Former Wisconsin Economic Development Corp. CEO Missy Hughes calls healthcare one of the “foundational pieces of our economy” — but one that is under strain and not working well.

For Lt. Gov. Sara Rodriguez, it’s “a complicated system” in which she made a career as an  emergency room nurse, a CDC infectious disease officer and finally a health system executive — “which means that I know the levers that we can pull to try to reduce costs across the state of Wisconsin.”

Former Department of Administration Secretary Joel Brennan considers healthcare a leading Wisconsin asset, innovator and employer, but one that’s been hobbled by “the healthcare management that we are allowing to go on in this county — and it’s not helping.”

State Sen. Kelda Roys describes the healthcare system  as imbued with “the worst aspects of capitalism in that we’ve injected profits before patients at every step, but none of the benefits of capitalism — there’s no free market, there’s no real competition.”

Those remarks come from three forums in April at which the seven leading Democratic hopefuls fielded questions about their healthcare policies and priorities.

Four of them — Rodriguez, Barnes, Roys and Hong — took part in a forum hosted by HealthWatch Wisconsin that focused entirely on healthcare issues. (All seven were invited, according to HealthWatch, which is affiliated with the nonprofit public interest law firm ABC for Health).

All seven joined a Wisconsin Health News event focused entirely on healthcare as well as a Wisconsin Citizen Action online forum, where healthcare led off a discussion that covered a cross-section of other issues as well.

Many of the Democratic Party rivals’ policies and priorities overlap. They all agree that healthcare costs and access are among the most important priorities for the state.

All of them say they favor a public option for health insurance — a plan that would be available for people to purchase health coverage on the Affordable Care Act health insurance marketplace if they don’t have coverage through work and their incomes are too high to qualify them for Medicaid.

All but one of the seven propose to expand Medicaid, referred to as BadgerCare in Wisconsin, under the Affordable Care Act. Expansion would open the health insurance plan for low-income Wisconsinites with incomes above the current limit (100% of the federal poverty guideline) up to 138% of the guideline.

Roys is the exception, arguing that Medicaid expansion is no longer feasible in Wisconsin because of federal changes enacted after President Donald Trump took office.

Instead, Roys proposes a public option that would allow the public to buy into the state health insurance plan for public employees. Brennan also proposes using the public employees’ plan as a public option, but he favors Medicaid expansion as well.

The other five Democrats would tie the public option to Medicaid expansion, making it possible for people whose incomes don’t qualify them for BadgerCare to pay a monthly health insurance premium for BadgerCare coverage.

Four years after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a national right to abortion, all seven Democrats have vowed to protect reproductive healthcare and to firmly back abortion rights in Wisconsin.

All of them speak of the importance of ensuring that mental health is treated on a par with physical health. And all of them at least nod to the need to improve healthcare access in rural Wisconsin.

At the same time, each candidate’s proposals differ, sometimes in fine details, sometimes in broad priorities, and sometimes mostly rhetorically.

Federal relations

Another point of general agreement is on the need for stronger support for public health measures. All of the Democratic candidates have criticized the Trump administration and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for undermining longstanding support for vaccination against communicable diseases.

But they take different directions in their expectations for federal-state relations in healthcare. Roys, for example, writes off federal assistance during the current administration, which is why she considers expanding Medicaid a dead issue for now. Crowley’s Medicaid expansion proposal explicitly refers to federal matching funds to cover some of the costs.

None have laid out the level of detail that will be required for turning their ideas into legislation or incorporating them into the next state budget.

In the gallery below, click on the caption of each candidate’s picture to read a summary of what that candidate has said and published about their approach to healthcare policy and links to relevant pages on the candidate’s campaign website. 

Early voting for the May 16 election began Saturday with confusion over whether all the races listed on the ballot are still taking place. 

Even motivated voters who showed up within the first few hours said they weren’t quite sure whether the U.S. House elections were still happening. 

“I went ahead and voted for who I wanted to vote for. If they don’t count it, that’s their problem,” said Betty Powers, who has participated in every election since 1968, outside an East Baton Rouge Parish polling location. 

Republican Gov. Jeff Landry suspended the U.S. House races Thursday, a day after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Louisiana’s House district map unconstitutional. 

Republican Secretary of State Nancy Landry, who is not related to the governor, has said votes cast in Louisiana’s U.S. House races won’t be counted. But that didn’t deter several early voters from picking a House candidate on their ballot anyway. 

“Something is delayed … but I don’t know if it affects East Baton Rouge Parish or not,” said Valerie Amato, who wore a shirt with the picture of President Donald Trump and the slogan ‘I’m still here’ to her polling location. She said she voted for a U.S. House candidate out of habit. 

Mail-in ballots with U.S. House races listed had already been sent out by the time the governor declared the election was off. Nancy Landry’s office also didn’t have enough notice to remove the affected candidates’ names from the ballots before in-person voting started. 

“[The House race] was still on there, so we voted for it,” said Evan Delahaye, a Baton Rouge resident who voted early with his brother.

“I am worried we’re going to have to vote twice,” he added. 

Pressure from the president

Gov. Landry’s move to postpone an election for a reason other than a natural disaster or health crisis is highly unusual, if not unprecedented, in Louisiana. 

The state has proceeded with U.S. House races after federal courts declared the voting districts unconstitutional in the past, most recently in 2022. Previously, officials agreed it was too close to the elections to change the map, and that new districts could wait until the following cycle two years later. 

But Landry and other Republican officials insist the Supreme Court decision from Wednesday is so sweeping in nature that it demands the aggressive action of calling off an election, even when absentee voting was already underway.

Trump is also putting pressure on GOP elected officials across the country to create as many Republican-leaning districts in Congress as possible before the end of the year to ensure the party maintains its advantage in the House.

The Supreme Court declared Louisiana’s current House map unconstitutional because it said state officials relied too heavily on the race of voters to draw its district boundaries. As a result, Landry and Republican legislators are expected to create a new map that would eliminate one, or both, of the state’s majority-Black districts. 

Calling off the current elections allows the governor and Republican state lawmakers to draw up new, more conservative U.S. House districts sooner.

A flurry of lawsuits have been filed in federal and state court attempting to stop the governor’s actions and keep Louisiana’s House races moving forward. So far, none have been successful, but more court decisions could be handed down in the next few days. 

In light of that uncertainty, U.S. Sen. Bill Cassidy, a Republican whose contentious reelection campaign is on the same ballot, was among those who chose to still pick a candidate in a House race when he went to early vote this week. 

Cassidy said he wasn’t convinced a court would uphold Landry’s decision to call off the election and wanted to vote just in case.

The senator said he agreed with the Supreme Court ruling on the U.S. House districts, but he was uncomfortable with the decision to cancel those races less than 48 hours before early voting began.

“The way that the election has transpired, that has almost treated the voter with disrespect,” Cassidy said in an interview with reporters. “That’s confusing to voters … We should be serving the voter, not politicians.”

Louisiana is not experiencing ordinary political turbulence. We are watching democratic instability unfold in real time.

Within a matter of days, voters across this state have been forced to absorb three major disruptions at once: the dismantling of Black voting representation through the ruling in Louisiana v. Callais; the suspension of congressional primary elections already in progress; and a statewide constitutional amendment that could fundamentally reshape public education in East Baton Rouge Parish and beyond.

The timing could not be more critical. Election Day is May 16. Early voting began Saturday. Absentee ballots have already been distributed. Yet Gov. Jeff Landry’s executive order suspended Louisiana’s closed party congressional primaries after the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated the state’s congressional map. 

Voters are now left in a vacuum of information, told that congressional races will still appear on their ballots, but that their votes in these contests won’t count.

That should alarm every person in this state, regardless of party affiliation.

A democracy cannot function when election rules shift after the machinery of voting has already begun moving. This creates confusion and distrust precisely when public confidence is most fragile. 

Black communities, in particular, understand the historical weight of sudden procedural changes in elections. Louisiana does not get to separate this moment from that history.

This erosion of collective representation is not limited to the ballot box. It is also manifesting in the very structure of our local institutions. 

On the May 16 ballot voters are being asked to decide on Constitutional Amendment 2, which would formally recognize the St. George Community School System with independent authority to receive state funding and raise local revenues though taxes.

When coupled with its implementing legislation, the amendment mandates the transfer of public school lands, facilities and assets from the East Baton Rouge Parish School System to the new St. George system by June 30, 2027. Reports indicate that East Baton Rouge schools could lose roughly $100 million if this separation proceeds.

This is bigger than one city, one amendment or one election cycle. This is about fragmentation: the fragmentation of voting rights, public education and, ultimately, public trust. The people most harmed by this fracturing are always the communities with the fewest resources to absorb the blow: Black families, working-class families, disabled residents and children already navigating underfunded schools.

Supporters of these measures frame them as issues of local control or administrative necessity. But language matters less than outcomes. When systems repeatedly reorganize power away from collective accountability and toward isolated control structures, inequity expands. History has shown us this repeatedly.

The most dangerous part is how normalized this chaos is becoming. Louisianans are being conditioned to accept government by disruption. Maps change overnight, elections pause midstream, public assets become bargaining chips. 

That is not healthy governance. That is democratic erosion dressed in procedural language.

The people of Louisiana deserve clarity before elections begin, not after. They deserve stable representation and public institutions designed to serve communities rather than divide them into competing islands of power. Because once citizens begin believing their vote is conditional, their schools are negotiable, and their representation is disposable, democracy itself begins to fracture.

And fractured systems rarely fail equally.

Responding to President Donald Trump’s pressure, Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee has called a special session to redraw the state’s U.S. House map as the party tries to eliminate the only Democratic-held seat in Memphis.

Lee is calling on state lawmakers to return to the state Capitol on May 5 to pass a new Tennessee U.S. congressional district map, less than two weeks after the state legislature wrapped its annual session.

On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act that no longer requires Tennessee and other southern states to create majority-minority districts in their U.S. House and state legislature district maps.

Tennessee, with a Black population of around 16%, was previously required by the Voting Rights Act to draw at least one of its nine congressional districts as majority-minority, effectively helping Democrats hold on to a Memphis-based seat.

“We owe it to Tennesseans to ensure our congressional districts accurately reflect the will of Tennessee voters,” said Lee in a news release. “After consultation with the Lt. Governor, Speaker of the House, Attorney General, and Secretary of State, I believe the General Assembly has a responsibility to review the map and ensure it remains fair, legal, and defensible.”

Lawmakers need to move fast to change the maps before the 2026 midterm elections, as Tennessee’s Congressional primaries will be held on Aug. 6. The qualifying deadline to run in those elections has already passed, and campaigns are in full swing

Republicans currently hold an 8-1 advantage in congressional seats over Democrats. Tennessee is a Republican stronghold that Trump won with around 64% of the vote in 2024. But if party representation were equally distributed without gerrymandering, Democrats would likely hold two or three of the state’s U.S. House seats.

The Republican advantage is even stronger in the state legislature. Republicans control 75% of the state House seats and 81% of the state Senate.

Tennessee Republicans in 2022 were legally able to eliminate a Democratic-held seat in Nashville by splitting it across three congressional districts. This led Democrats to lose the 5th district seat, which the party had held since the end of the 1870s Reconstruction era.

Tennessee U.S. Sen. Marsha Blackburn, a Republican running for governor this year, shared a photo on social media of a map showing the GOP winning all nine congressional districts by large margins.

The Lookout, using the nonpartisan Dave’s Redistricting, was able to replicate a similar map to the one Blackburn proposed, but not with the same margins she posted. Based on the 2024 Presidential election, Republicans could achieve a 9-0 outcome, essentially cracking Nashville and Memphis, but would shrink their margins in almost every district.

The map created by the Lookout shows nine districts where Republicans won 60% of the vote based on the 2024 Presidential election. But now six districts would have Republican advantages of less than 12 percentage points, compared to the current two.

Blackburn’s map appears to be based on the 2024 presidential election margin, not the Republican percentage of the vote over 50%, which is how nonpartisan organizations like Cook Political Report rate districts.

Tennessee Lookout is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Tennessee Lookout maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Holly McCall for questions: info@tennesseelookout.com.

Massachusetts and Rhode Island are considering dropping GLP-1 drugs for obesity treatment from their Medicaid programs, continuing a trend of states that have stopped coverage of these expensive medications. 

Thirteen state Medicaid programs are covering GLP-1 drugs for the treatment of obesity this year, down from 16 last year. 

Medicaid programs in California, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and South Carolina have eliminated coverage of the drugs for weight loss, because the expense strained state budgets. 

In Massachusetts, the governor’s proposed fiscal 2028 budget would not fund the state’s Medicaid program, MassHealth, to cover GLP-1 medications for weight loss alone, though the state would continue covering the drugs for diabetes and other conditions. The legislature is still debating the state budget. 

Rhode Island’s governor also has proposed removing GLP-1 coverage from the state’s Medicaid program for weight loss treatment. 

North Carolina reinstated such coverage in mid-December after having dropped it in October. 

Medicaid programs in Delaware, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin also cover the drugs for obesity treatment, according to KFF, a health policy research group. 

But some states, such as Michigan, have restricted eligibility for these medications to morbidly obesity patients rather than those who are overweight or obese. The move is expected to save the state an estimated $240 million. 

Meanwhile, lawmakers in Louisiana are debating whether to allow Medicaid to cover GLP-1s for obesity treatment if enrollees have another chronic condition, or comorbidity, such as prediabetes, hypertension or cardiovascular disease.  

The medications generally have been too expensive for people without insurance. In February, one of the largest producers of these drugs, Novo Nordisk, announced it would reduce their list prices to $675 per month in 2027. 

Gross spending on Medicaid prescriptions for GLP-1s — for diabetes as well as for weight loss — has increased from around $1 billion in 2019 to almost $9 billion in 2024 as demand for these drugs has risen, according to KFF. 

At the same time almost 40% of adults and a quarter of children with Medicaid have obesity and may benefit from having access to the drugs, according to KFF. 

Stateline reporter Shalina Chatlani can be reached at schatlani@stateline.org.

While the idea of a special tax on millionaires is hotly debated across the country, Maine state Rep. Cheryl Golek characterized her state’s new tax as a modest and reasonable step toward fairness.

That’s because, she said, working- and middle-class households in Maine — including teachers, firefighters and nurses — are paying effective state income tax rates similar to or higher than those of the highest earners.

“Those who benefit the most from our economy do so because of the people, infrastructure and communities that support that success,” said Golek, a Democrat. “Asking for a small additional contribution from the wealthiest in our state is a reasonable and widely supported step toward a fairer system.”

The legislation signed by Democratic Gov. Janet Mills this month will add a 2% tax to households whose income exceeds $1 million per year.

Maine and Washington, which enacted its own law last month, are among the latest Democratic-led states to ask for more tax dollars from the rich as national wealth inequality widens and states face heightened budget pressures. They follow the lead of other states including New Jersey and Massachusetts that have implemented specific taxes for the rich.

The idea is gaining traction as lawmakers in at least a dozen states, including Illinois, Minnesota, Rhode Island and Virginia, have proposed new taxes for the wealthiest taxpayers. In California, advocates this week announced they gathered enough signatures for a ballot initiative that would impose a one-time tax on billionaires. But these proposals often stir yearslong battles.

The taxes can take different forms — taxing annual incomes above a certain threshold or taxing capital assets, including high-value stocks and real estate. Earlier this month, New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani and Gov. Kathy Hochul, both Democrats, proposed a new pied-à-terre tax for homes valued above $5 million when owners have a separate primary residence outside of New York City.

In neighboring New Jersey, those earning over $1 million per year face an income tax top rate of 10.75% in addition to a so-called mansion tax on the sales of high-value homes.

Proponents say these moves can help balance state tax structures that are tilted against lower earners. The left-leaning Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy says the tax systems of 40 states favor the wealthiest earners. But opponents argue that these measures levy new taxes on business owners, dissuading local investment and encouraging rich residents to move away — especially risky during a time when many other states are slashing taxes.

“When the outlook of our population growth is stagnant and we should be attracting people to Maine, it puts a disincentive to people to call Maine home,” Patrick Woodcock, president and CEO of the Maine State Chamber of Commerce, said during a news conference ahead of the state House vote on the tax.

The rising push to tax the wealthy in liberal states comes as some red states are moving to more regressive tax systems, which put a higher burden on lower earners.

“You increasingly have two poles where you have a larger number of states with fairly low income taxes and a smaller but still significant number of states that have doubled down on high rates, particularly high rates on high earners,” said Jared Walczak, senior fellow at the conservative-leaning Tax Foundation.

He said increasing income taxes pushes wealthy people and employers to low-tax states. Even if individuals don’t directly move because of taxes, they follow businesses to other states, he said.

And some progressives are wary of going too far: California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom is opposing the ballot initiative that would impose a one-time 5% tax on those whose net worth exceeds $1 billion. Hochul, who pushed for the new tax on second homes in New York City, has warned that more tax increases on the millionaires and billionaires could hollow out a crucial portion of the state’s tax base.

Walczak said only a handful of in-demand places can afford to impose higher taxes for the same reason that people pay higher rents.

“It’s worth it to a lot of people,” he said. “People are willing to pay very high rent, but there’s a limit. In the same way, they’re willing to pay higher taxes to live in New York, but there is a limit.”

Rising wealth inequality

The gap between the rich and poor has been widening for decades.

Wealth for the bottom fifth of American households has barely moved in recent decades, while the top 0.1% have seen their wealth increase by nearly $40 million each, according to an analysis by the anti-poverty nonprofit Oxfam America.

Between 1980 and 2022, the share of national income going to the top 1% doubled, while the share going to the bottom 50% fell by a third, Oxfam reported.

Recent federal policy changes have only exacerbated the need for progressive state tax changes, said Amber Wallin, executive director of the State Revenue Alliance, which is lobbying for higher taxes for the wealthy across multiple states.

President Donald Trump’s major tax and spending bill, often called the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, slashed funds for safety net programs including food stamps and Medicaid. At the same time, it provided tax cuts that largely benefit the wealthy.

“So we know millions will lose access to healthcare, millions will lose food assistance, and states all across the country will see funding cuts for key programs,” she said. “We know that people power a strong economy, not tax cuts for the wealthy, and when the rich pay their fair share of taxes, we all benefit.”

Since Massachusetts voters in 2022 approved a 4% surtax on annual incomes above $1 million, that Fair Share Amendment has provided the commonwealth with $6 billion in transportation and education funding.

But Jim Stergios, executive director at the libertarian-leaning Pioneer Institute, said it’s not just the ultra-wealthy who are paying that tax. People who record a one-time sale of a business or a home can face the tax even if they’re not earning over $1 million every year, he said.

He said the tax is pushing residents out of the state and dampening business investment. Federal data from the U.S. Census Bureau shows Massachusetts lost more than 33,000 residents to other states last year, though Democratic Gov. Maura Healy noted the overall population did increase because of foreign immigration. Stergios noted lawmakers are still facing challenges balancing the state budget even with the new revenue.

“So over the long term, it’s not going to have a salutary effect,” he said. “We’re going to continue to have budget problems. We do have budget problems even with this.”

Proponents and opponents of the state’s millionaire’s tax have touted recent IRS data in their arguments: Residents leaving Massachusetts took a total of $4.2 billion in adjusted gross income with them in 2023, the first year of the new tax, Bloomberg reported. Yet the number of residents moving out of Massachusetts who reported income of $200,000 or more fell after the tax was implemented.

“There’s no real evidence of millionaire out-migration. I’m sure there’s some isolated anecdotes, but the actual data don’t show it,” said Phineas Baxandall, director of research and policy analysis at the left-leaning Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center.

He said one piece of evidence that the wealthy remain in Massachusetts are the proceeds of the tax itself, which are funding major priorities including free community college and expanding childcare subsidies for thousands.

“Massachusetts is rightfully fearful of the federal cuts that are happening,” Baxandall said, “but we’ve been able to still move forward with real, transformational investments.”

Multiyear efforts

Though interest in raising taxes on the rich is growing across the country, the idea faces considerable skepticism and often requires years of organizing.

In March, Michigan advocates announced they would suspend their campaign to put on the statewide ballot a 5% tax on individual incomes over $500,000 and joint incomes over $1 million.

“We always knew that we were going to face strong headwinds from billionaires who don’t want to pay their fair share,” Rachelle Crow-Hercher, president of the Invest in MI Kids steering committee, said in a statement to Michigan Advance. That coalition plans to eye the 2028 election cycle instead, she said.

Last week, Illinois House Speaker Emanuel “Chris” Welch announced he would drop a push for a new millionaire’s tax as Democrats came up short of the necessary supermajority needed to put the issue on this fall’s ballot.

Welch believes the issue will come before lawmakers again, but after missing a key legislative deadline it won’t be eligible for a statewide vote until 2028. He said it remains popular among voters. Lawmakers proposed using proceeds of a new tax for schools and property tax relief.

“I believe that we should tax the rich and the rich should pay more,” he said. “To those who much is given, much is required.”

Meanwhile, the newly enacted Washington tax faces a lengthy, though expected, court challenge.

The legislation signed last month by Democratic Gov. Bob Ferguson imposes a 9.9% tax on household income above $1 million a year. Opponents argue that income is property and thus must be taxed uniformly because of state constitutional requirements.

In addition to the constitutional concerns, Republican state Rep. Jim Walsh said the new law opens the door for lawmakers to eventually expand income taxes to more households — not just the rich. Instead of raising revenue, he said Democratic lawmakers should focus on cutting spending, noting the state operations budget has more than doubled in the past decade.

“The problem is not the financing mechanism of the state’s operations,” he said. “It’s the rate at which far-left advocates in the legislature have been increasing state government spending in the state. It’s ridiculous.”

To Democratic state Sen. Noel Frame, the legislation brings the state’s regressive tax code more in line with Washington’s progressive politics. With no statewide income tax, sales and property taxes leave lower income earners to cover more of the cost of state services, making Washington’s one of the nation’s most regressive tax systems.

“For all the things that we do that are good, big, bold economic policy — to have the tax code that we have is just an embarrassment, and it’s completely out of line with our values as a state,” Frame said.

Like the push for a $15 minimum wage started in liberal cities and states, Frame expects the millionaire tax movement will spread into more conservative areas.

Already, some conservative states, including Idaho, Indiana and Florida, have made moves to reject some of last year’s federal tax changes that benefit corporations and the wealthy.

“The people are demanding better,” Frame said. “And the more that people understand the deep connection of tax policy to income and wealth inequality, the more engaged they become.”

Stateline reporter Kevin Hardy can be reached at khardy@stateline.org. 

A quarter of immigration arrests since August were labeled by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement as “collateral,” a type of arrest and detention that’s been challenged in court as an end run around civil rights.

Public outrage and lawsuits over the arrests may be tamping down the large-scale sweeps that foster them, but tens of thousands were arrested this way between August and early March.

Immigration arrests are usually based on warrants obtained ahead of time, showing either a removal order from immigration court or evidence of a crime or charge that makes the person subject to deportation.

But collateral arrests can result from street sweeps and raids in which a person is singled out for questioning based on appearance or proximity to someone wanted on a warrant. That person could be taken into custody if agents think they may be subject to deportation and also likely to flee if released.

Labeled for the first time ever, the collateral arrests are reported from August to early March in ICE arrest data obtained by the Deportation Data Project and analyzed by Stateline. In that time there were about 64,000 collateral arrests, a quarter of the 253,000 total arrests by ICE.

About 70% of the collateral arrests were for people with immigration-related crimes or violations alone, compared with 41% for arrests with warrants. Less than 2% of those with collateral arrests were convicted of a violent crime, one-third the rate of other arrests, and only 18% were convicted of any crime, compared with 33% for other arrests.

The collateral arrests contributed to an overall pattern of lower and lower shares of arrests for serious crimes, and more for immigration offenses alone.

Arrests climbed from about 12,000 in January 2025 to more than 40,000 in December, but fell back to 30,000 this February. The share of people with only immigration-related crimes and violations rose to more than half in December and January, the peak months for collateral arrests, and the share of violent criminals fell from 10% to 4% of arrests in that time.

New policy

ICE announced a new policy in January to issue warrants in real time if agents think an immigrant is deportable and “likely to escape,” though that policy faces a court challenge.

Total arrests and collateral arrests have been falling since December, whether because of the new policy or because of cutbacks in the large-scale street sweeps that tend to produce them.

One factor is public outrage over raids sweeping up noncriminals in places like Minneapolis and Chicago, said Colleen Putzel-Kavanaugh, an associate policy analyst for the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute.

“The sort of large operations within big cities, as they were occurring, seems to have subsided somewhat,” Putzel-Kavanaugh said. “After the kind of public outcry following Minneapolis, it seems as though, at least for now, that tactic has kind of been paused.”

The Trump administration’s focus on mass deportation opened the way for more collateral street arrests with less investigation, she added.

“If it’s a more targeted arrest, they would take the time to sort of essentially have an investigation. It’s a pretty resource-intensive way that just would not yield the kind of numbers ICE was being told to produce,” she said.

The new policy was filed in court papers in February as a response to a lawsuit over ICE sweeps in the District of Columbia last year, alleging ICE agents “have flooded the streets of the nation’s capital, indiscriminately arresting without warrants and without probable cause District residents whom the agents perceive to be Latino.”

The case resulted in a preliminary injunction in December requiring a halt to warrantless arrests without establishing probable cause that the person is living here illegally and is a flight risk.

One plaintiff in the class-action case, José Escobar Molina, said in the lawsuit that agents in two cars pulled up to him as he approached his work truck on Aug. 21, grabbing him by the arms and legs and handcuffing him without asking any questions. Escobar, 47, said in the court papers that he’s lived in the district for 25 years and has had temporary protected status as a Salvadoran native the whole time. He was held overnight in Virginia before being released.

Other lawsuits are also challenging collateral arrests, such as an incident in Idaho in which agents with warrants for five people ended up arresting 105 immigrants at a Latino community event in October.

In North Carolina, four U.S. citizens and a visa holder sued in February, saying they were arrested in the Charlotte’s Web immigration crackdown in November without warrants, as is typical of collateral arrests.

“I have a lot of fear that this will happen to me again. I was essentially kidnapped based only on the color of my skin. That really weighs on me,” said Yoshi Cuenca Villamar, one of the citizens and a North Carolina native, in a statement announcing the lawsuit. He said he was doing landscaping work Nov. 15 when agents pushed him to the ground and handcuffed him, then held him in a car before releasing him.

One Illinois case that started in the first Trump administration challenged warrantless arrests and traffic stops used as a pretext for immigration arrests. A 2022 settlement required ICE to document “reasonable suspicion” of illegal status before arresting somebody. The case continues since a judge found in February that the new ICE policy of issuing warrants in real time after a detention violates the consent decree.

Shares of collateral arrests

In the months since August where collateral arrests are now labeled, the District of Columbia and Illinois stand out with high shares of collateral arrests. More than half the arrests in the district were collateral, as were 41% of those in Illinois. There were eight states in which at least 30% of arrests were collateral: Alabama, Maryland, West Virginia, Arizona, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Maine and Minnesota.

West Virginia, where there was a “statewide surge” of immigration enforcement in January with state and local cooperation, stands out for its high rate of total arrests as well as a large share of collateral arrests.

ICE labeled 1,300 arrests during Operation Metro Surge as ‘collateral’

For the eight months between August and early March, West Virginia had 1,831 arrests, or 1 in 10 of the state’s noncitizen population as of 2024, the latest data available. That’s by far the largest share in the country, followed by 7% in Wyoming (where truck drivers were targeted for immigration arrests in February) and 4% in Mississippi.

West Virginia Republican Gov. Patrick Morrisey, in a statement, cited the cooperation of state and local agencies with ICE through the 287(g) program that assists with immigration enforcement. He praised ICE, saying “they have removed dangerous illegal immigrants from our communities and made our state safer for families and law-abiding citizens.”

Few of those arrested in the surge were violent criminals, however. More than half of those arrested during the surge were collateral arrests, and only 1% — nine immigrants — had a violent crime conviction, according to the Stateline analysis. More than three-quarters, about 500 people, had only an immigration-related violation or crime.

Judges didn’t always agree that collateral arrests and detentions in the West Virginia surge were legal under the U.S. Constitution. U.S. District Judge Joseph Goodwin, a Clinton appointee, ordered two detainees released in January. He noted that “similar seizures and detentions are occurring frequently across the country” without any evidence they’re necessary as required by the Constitution.

Stateline reporter Tim Henderson can be reached at thenderson@stateline.org.

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.”