A half dozen Republican governors are pushing alternative labels for June, which is widely recognized in the United States as Pride Month.

Without explicitly tying their efforts to a replacement of Pride Month — which celebrates the LGBTQ+ community — GOP governors in states including Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Nebraska, Tennessee and Utah have labeled June with conservative-friendly monikers that celebrate one type of family unit: a man and woman who are married with children.

The proclamations don’t carry the weight of law, but they are public statements about the kind of families that leadership in those states want to promote.

In Tennessee, GOP state lawmakers passed a resolution signed by Republican Gov. Bill Lee designating June as “Nuclear Family Month.” The resolution labels a ‘nuclear family’ as “one husband, one wife, and any biological, adopted or fostered children” and calls it “God’s design for familial structure.”

Indiana’s Republican Gov. Mike Braun also declared June “nuclear family month” in a proclamation with wording similar to Tennessee’s. Braun told reporters the proclamation wasn’t intended to send a message to other types of families, the Indiana Capital Chronicle reported.

In Alabama, Republican Gov. Kay Ivey declared June as “Strong Families Month.” Her official announcement of the designation highlighted the role of fathers as “head of the household.”

In Nebraska, Republican Gov. Jim Pillen designated June as “Marriage and Family Month,” with a proclamation saying “God’s design” for marriage is a family with one husband, one wife and children.

Pillen called it “the most important proclamation I’ve ever had the privilege to sign.”

The Republican governors of Arkansas and Utah declared June “Fidelity Month,” defining fidelity as dedication to faith, family and country. The proclamations don’t explicitly describe the composition of those families. The idea of a “Fidelity Month” was first proposed and promoted a few years ago by a conservative Christian legal scholar.

Arkansas Republican Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders posted about her declaration on X by sharing a link to an article calling such efforts “counter-programming” to Pride Month.

But the rebranding of June marks a departure for Utah Gov. Spencer Cox, who declared June as Pride Month during his first three years in office and has previously expressed remorse for his attitude about gay people.

Pride Month celebrates LGBTQ+ history and culture, and serves as a platform to increase visibility for queer communities that continue to fight for civil rights and equality. It’s marked by celebratory parades, concerts and festivals in every state.

LGBTQ+ advocates have called the rebranding efforts “disappointing” and a deliberate attempt to erase communities that are already vulnerable.

“Pride month is a celebration that uplifts marginalized folks and gives them resources to survive and spaces where they can thrive,” the Utah-based organization Project Rainbow posted in a statement about Cox’s choice to designate June as Fidelity Month.

Advocates say the month is not only about celebration, but also provides important opportunities to support queer people. In 2023, the most recent year for which data is available, the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that more than 3 in 5 LGBTQ+ high school students experienced “persistent feelings of sadness or hopelessness” in the previous year. One in 5 LGBTQ+ participants in the CDC’s Youth Risk Behavior Survey said they had attempted suicide.

While Republican governors have mostly shied away from directly mentioning Pride Month or tying their month-naming efforts to its erasure, some elected officials have been more explicit.

Tennessee Rep. Andy Ogles, a Republican, posted from his official X account, “Homosexuality has no place in America. Happy Nuclear Family Month” on June 1 but later deleted it.

Indiana Lt. Gov. Micah Beckwith, a Republican, shared an illustrated version of the proclamation on social media, titled “Take back the Rainbow!” and depicting a heterosexual white couple with children.

Stateline reporter Anna Claire Vollers can be reached at avollers@stateline.org

Nearly 200 residents at the St. Joseph’s Center nursing home in the affluent Connecticut suburb of Trumbull were evacuated last year after Legionella bacteria was found in the facility’s water system. Two months later, they were evacuated again over critical failures in the building’s fire safety systems.

Three years earlier, residents at another Connecticut nursing home, the Quinnipiac Valley Center, were relocated after two resident deaths triggered a state health investigation.

The nursing homes were both owned by private equity-backed Genesis HealthCare, among the largest skilled nursing operators in the nation. It’s already faced lawsuits or investigations in California, Georgia, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nevada and Vermont over allegations of patient neglect and abuse.

This year, Connecticut enacted what may be the strongest law in the country addressing transparency and accountability for private equity-owned nursing homes.

It is the latest in a string of states stepping into a regulatory vacuum created by limited federal laws and a presidential administration that’s proven friendly to private equity while showing little appetite for scrutinizing private equity’s role in the healthcare industry.

Private equity’s foray into healthcare over the past several years, particularly into hospital ownership, has drawn public outrage and legislative scrutiny.

It’s all happening as states are staring down steep federal cuts to Medicaid, the public health insurance for people with low incomes that is also the primary payer for long-term nursing home stays. Those cuts, experts fear, could ultimately direct more older Americans into nursing home care.

Last year, at least seven states (California, Indiana, Massachusetts, Maine, New Mexico, Oregon and Washington) passed legislation putting more guardrails around private equity’s involvement in healthcare.

Virginia is still considering a bill to curb predatory property financing practices that have been used by private equity in nursing homes.

Illinois lawmakers sent two measures to Democratic Gov. JB Pritzker that aim to strengthen oversight and transparency requirements of healthcare mergers or acquisitions, and place new restrictions on private equity ownership of disability service providers. The first bill was Democratic-sponsored, while the second had both Democratic and Republican sponsors.

Democratic Gov. Ned Lamont signed Connecticut’s measure last week. The new law requires nursing homes that are owned by private equity to disclose their financial dealings with the state and bans private equity from controlling day-to-day care decisions about nursing home residents. Lamont also signed a related bill to curb private equity’s influence over hospitals in the wake of financial moves by equity-owned health groups in his state that led to hospital closures.

Genesis HealthCare declined an interview with Stateline, but provided a statement saying it “remains focused on supporting our affiliated centers in delivering high-quality care to patients and residents.”

The nursing home industry argues that private equity controls a relatively small share of the nation’s facilities, and that reported problems have been the result of a few bad actors. The federal government estimated that about 5% of Medicare-enrolled nursing homes nationwide had private equity owners in 2022, but admitted that some nursing homes don’t always list all of their owners in the federal database. Some researchers have pegged the real share as high as 13%.

“Focusing on private equity in long term care has become a distraction from the real issues that impact the majority of providers, like chronic Medicaid underfunding and a growing caregiver shortage,” said John Kane, a senior vice president at the industry group American Health Care Association/National Center for Assisted Living, in a statement to Stateline.

“If we truly want to improve care throughout the health care system, we need policymakers to find a proper balance of oversight while still encouraging more investments.”

But a growing number of states are moving to regulate investment companies that draw heavily on Medicaid and Medicare dollars.

“The big question about private equity is not whether profit belongs in the nursing home; it’s whether public dollars meant for care are being converted into financial returns (for investors) without enough accountability,” said Gregory Orewa, an assistant professor at the University of Texas at San Antonio whose research has focused on private equity ownership in U.S. healthcare.

“Nursing homes exist to care for the most vulnerable who cannot care for themselves,” he said, “so we should be holding private equity or anybody to high standards on providing quality care.”

Quality and profits

Private equity firms use pooled investments from pension funds, sovereign wealth funds, endowments and wealthy individuals to buy a controlling stake in a company. Then they try to maximize the company’s value before selling it at a profit, usually within a few years.

Nursing homes and other long-term care facilities are attractive to investors because demand is always there; the share of Americans 65 and older has been steadily rising and is expected to continue.

Nursing home care is heavily subsidized by the government through Medicaid and to a lesser extent Medicare, the public insurance program for adults over 65 and some people with disabilities, offering investors a predictable revenue stream.

And it’s an industry where investors can scoop up struggling independent facilities and improve their margins through corporate consolidations, streamlining management, adjusting staffing or capitalizing on valuable real estate owned by the nursing homes.

Private equity’s defenders say it provides nursing homes with much-needed capital, disciplined management and operational improvements that help facilities scale up their services.

But the private equity model’s primary goal in any sector is to generate returns for shareholders, usually within a few years.

Critics say that priority conflicts with the kind of long-term investment that’s needed to provide quality healthcare, such as paying enough to hire sufficient staff or upgrading facilities.

“One of the biggest misunderstandings is that private equity ownership is only bad,” said Orewa, of the University of Texas at San Antonio. “The issue is more structural. Nursing homes operate on very thin margins, they depend heavily on public dollars and they care for the most vulnerable people who can’t easily exit when nursing home quality declines.”

Nursing home residents aren’t like other healthcare consumers. They may lack financial literacy, or their decision-making may be impaired by cognitive decline, which could lead to them making choices not in their best interests, researchers have noted. They’re a captive audience, often choosing a facility that’s nearby or near family, rather than shopping around for the best option.

Research on how private equity ownership affects nursing homes has found few positive effects. One large 2023 study found it increases a nursing home’s death rate by 11%. Private equity-owned facilities tended to maintain care quality for sicker patients by adding registered nurses, but researchers found those gains were offset by staffing cuts to the frontline nursing assistants who handle most of the hands-on care. Other studies have linked private equity involvement to increases in emergency room visits and rising Medicare costs.

Orewa and his colleagues published a comprehensive review last year of a dozen major studies, linking private equity ownership to a higher number of deficiencies in nursing homes, increased hospitalization rates and higher mortality. They also found that private equity-owned facilities bill Medicare more than other nursing homes.

Facilities’ financial outlooks initially improved after a private equity buyout, Orewa said, but they later faced long-term challenges. The financial maneuvers that private equity uses to extract more revenue from nursing homes can hurt their stability long term.

Hidden disclosures

All nursing homes that receive federal funding are required to publicly disclose the names of any entities that exercise financial control over them. But companies can use complex methods to mask that ownership, meaning it’s difficult even for experts to find out who really owns a nursing home.

“A lot of nursing homes will not provide that information, and their information may not be audited,” said Michael Fenne, healthcare policy coordinator at the Private Equity Stakeholder Project, a research group that tracks the private equity industry.

For example: The private equity-backed Portopiccolo Group acquired more than 130 nursing homes across 9 states from 2016-2022 and yet didn’t appear in federal data as an owner of those facilities, according to the consumer advocacy nonprofit Public Citizen.

And ownership information matters to consumers looking for a safe place for their loved ones: The Portopiccolo Group’s nursing homes have faced heavy fines. A 2023 study by watchdog group Good Jobs First found Portopiccolo had an average fine per facility of more than $81,000, landing it on a list of parent companies with largest average penalties in the U.S.

Predatory tactics?

Virginia lawmakers are considering a Republican-sponsored bill that would cut funding to nursing homes that pay excessive rents to landlords. If passed, it could become a first-in-the nation effort to directly curb a financial maneuver known as sale-leaseback that state regulators have deemed predatory.

In sale-leaseback arrangements, a private equity-backed firm buys a healthcare company, such as a nursing home chain, and then sells its underlying real estate property to a separate investment trust. This sale generates quick returns for investors but saddles the nursing homes with monthly rent payments they may struggle to make, leaving less money available for patient care.

It’s a tactic that has contributed to healthcare bankruptcies across the nation, including for Genesis HealthCare and for Georgia-based nursing home chain LaVie Care Centers.

Increased need for nursing homes

By 2030, 1 in 5 Americans will be 65 or over, and most older adults say they would prefer to remain living in their homes for as long as possible.

For many, that’s possible because of services — such as home health aides or visiting nurses — that are funded through Medicaid.

But elder care experts worry those services will be the first on the chopping block for cash-strapped states facing $665 billion in Medicaid cuts over the next decade from President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act. This is because federal law requires state Medicaid programs to cover nursing home care, but home-based services are optional.

Most people who receive those home-based Medicaid services need the kind of care that would land them in a nursing home without such services, said Jason Resendez, president and CEO of the advocacy group National Alliance for Caregiving.

“When we take those benefits away, it doesn’t take away the need for that care,” he said. One of the impacts of cuts to home-based services “will certainly be more folks forced to make the hard choice of going into more institutional-based care.”

And cuts to Medicaid could financially weaken smaller, independent or safety-net nursing homes that serve lower-income patients who heavily rely on Medicaid.

“Those distressed facilities may become cheaper acquisition targets for private equity,” Orewa said. “That creates an opportunity for investors with capital to buy at a discount.”

Stateline reporter Anna Claire Vollers can be reached at avollers@stateline.org.

The federal government released new guidance this week on how states should roll out the Medicaid work requirements that will affect  healthcare coverage for millions of Americans.

The new interim rule, issued by the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, is intended to give states more details on how they’re supposed to verify the work status for about 20 million adults enrolled in Medicaid, the publicly funded health insurance program for people with low incomes.

The new details come as states are staring down the January 1, 2027, deadline to put the new work requirements in place, and have requested more clarity from the feds on how they’re supposed to implement them.

“States are being asked to carry out a complicated federal mandate without clear rules, without enough time, and with the risk that eligible people lose health care because of paperwork problems and system failures,” Oregon Democratic Gov. Tina Kotek said last week in a statement.

Kotek led a six-state coalition of Democratic governors in asking the Trump administration last week to slow the rollout of the new work requirements, calling the timeline unworkable.

Congress built the new work requirements into last year’s so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Under the measure, states that have expanded Medicaid eligibility to more adults under the Affordable Care Act — 40 states plus the District of Columbia and another two that have partially expanded — will have to require those adults to prove they’re working, going to school or serving their communities for at least 80 hours a month to receive Medicaid.

The rules released this week are intended to clarify key parts of the new law, including exemptions for people who are considered “medically frail,” how to reach out to Medicaid beneficiaries, and methods for verifying Medicaid eligibility.

“This rule helps Americans build skills and independence through work, education, job training, or community service, creating new opportunities for themselves and their families,” said Dr. Mehmet Oz, director for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, in a statement announcing the new guidance.

But critics of work requirements point to evidence that it kicks people off Medicaid who are otherwise entitled to it without meaningfully increasing the share of adults who are working.

For example, Arkansas tried instituting work requirements for Medicaid recipients during Trump’s first term in 2018. By the time a federal judge halted the policy less than a year later, 18,000 adults had already lost coverage and reported problems paying off medical debt, delaying healthcare and delaying medications due to cost. Studies later found that Arkansas’ work requirements didn’t increase employment. And data shows that most adults on Medicaid under age 65 are already working.

Supporters say the new requirements are flexible. They say the feds have created a broad category of “medically frail” people who are exempt from the work requirements, and they’re permitting states to allow people to self-attest that they’re exempt one time before documentation is required.

The new work requirements will apply to about 20 million people who are eligible for Medicaid through expansion, according to estimates from health research organization KFF. These expansion enrollees make up about 30% of all Medicaid enrollees.

A recent analysis from the Urban Institute projects that 3-7 million people could lose coverage because of the new work requirements.

Stateline reporter Anna Claire Vollers can be reached at avollers@stateline.org.

In the heart of the Bible Belt, a small Methodist college graduated its final class in May 2024, shutting its doors after 168 years.

Birmingham-Southern College in Birmingham, Alabama, was a Christian private liberal arts school that counted among its graduates members of Congress, famous musicians, Pulitzer Prize winners and the former executive editor of The New York Times. Yet it had been unable to endure years of financial losses.

About 15 minutes southeast, toward the Birmingham suburbs, the inaugural freshman class at Highlands College was finishing its first year that same spring. The private Christian school, which has just gotten permission from the state to award bachelor’s degrees, was born out of the nondenominational Church of the Highlands, the biggest religious congregation in the state and one of the largest in the nation. It claims a weekly attendance of 60,000 across more than two dozen campuses in Alabama and Georgia.

Long-established, religiously affiliated small colleges such as Birmingham-Southern are battling the same existential pressures weighing on non-religious liberal arts colleges nationwide: declining enrollment, rising operational costs and a deepening skepticism of higher education among families who fear ideological influence on their children or question whether steep tuition and fees are worth it.

But a different model of Christian education is on the upswing: Some of the nation’s biggest megachurches are getting into the college business, prioritizing job training and church culture over traditional liberal arts. A franchise-style model from a Christian university in Florida has made it easier than ever for them to launch.

The new schools are attracting big donors and growing their enrollment through a built-in base of believers — and some are pushing to access public funding.

States including Florida, Georgia and Minnesota have opened their state financial assistance programs to religious colleges in recent years. The change mirrors a broader push already underway in K-12 education, where states have funneled billions to religious schools.

Many of these new colleges eschew the regional accrediting that’s standard for more established universities. Some pursue alternative accreditation from religious nonprofits that may or may not be recognized by the U.S. Department of Education.

That means students’ college credits may not transfer to other schools or to graduate programs. And the costs of non-accredited coursework aren’t eligible for federal financial assistance offered through the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, or FAFSA.

Supporters of the megachurch-affiliated schools say they’re a good option for students who want practical training for specific jobs, generally in ministry or business. They say students benefit from being closely connected to their local faith community.

But some experts question whether the schools’ lack of traditional accreditation could limit students’ options after graduation, or whether their close ties to one church could have an outsized impact on the school’s accountability and transparency.

“Public funding is something that everybody should be concerned about, no matter your politics, no matter your religion,” said Adam Laats, a professor of education and history at Binghamton University in upstate New York who has written books on the history of Christian education in America.

“And I think it’s everyone’s business if there are schools that are restricting the chances of students in a way that students aren’t aware of what they’re getting into.”

Financial aid

Schools such as Highlands College are growing their physical footprints with big donations from heavy hitters. A $20 million donation from the Green family, whose patriarch David Green founded the Hobby Lobby craft store chain, funded Highlands’ first two residence halls.

In March, 3-year-old Austin Christian University — born out of Texas-based Celebration Church, which has more than 23,000 members — broke ground on a $50 million complex thanks to a donation of the same size from Roger Bringmann, a vice president at California-based tech giant Nvidia.

The schools’ focus more closely aligns with many conservatives’ educational goals. Republicans in statehouses across the country have pushed to increase Christianity’s influence and presence in education, while President Donald Trump’s administration has proposed relaxing accreditation rules.

In Florida last month, Republican state Attorney General James Uthmeier declared the state won’t enforce its constitutional ban on funding religious institutions, opening the door for state-funded scholarships for Christian colleges.

The newer Christian schools also may benefit from battles fought by their older counterparts.

Last year, Georgia agreed to allow religious colleges to participate in state-funded financial aid programs after a 64-year-old Christian college sued the state over its law that barred theological schools from public tuition assistance.

And after two century-old colleges filed suit in Minnesota last year, a federal judge struck down a 2023 state law that barred religious colleges from a state-funded dual enrollment program that lets high school students enroll in college credit courses tuition-free.

“We’ve done lobbying at the state level, working with the state legislators to get access to things like in-state, need-based grants,” said Patrick Fitzgerald, a spokesperson for Southeastern University, in Lakeland, Florida, which has partnered with more than 200 churches across the country to help them launch colleges. “Depending on the need in each state and the availability of state funding, we try to access every scholarship dollar that we can for students.”

Many megachurch schools offer financial aid. But tuition and fees at more established church-affiliated schools can run into the mid-five figures — on par with their private college counterparts, but far above in-state tuition at big public universities.

At Highlands College, tuition, housing and fees total about $42,000 per year. The school, which focuses on training for the ministry, says 100% of its students receive scholarships. In-state tuition, housing and fees at the University of Alabama cost $28,196 per year. At Birmingham-Southern, the year it closed, those same costs totaled about $36,500.

But costs vary. At Elevation College, which plans to welcome its first class this fall and was launched by North Carolina megachurch Elevation Church, the tuition, housing and fees are about $19,936 per year. VOUS College of Ministry in Miami, based at one of the fastest-growing megachurches in Florida, charges $12,136 per year in tuition and fees, though that doesn’t include housing.

Single-church affiliations

Unlike more traditional schools that are affiliated with an entire denomination, these newer schools are often deeply entwined with the leadership at just one megachurch.

At Austin Christian, for example, the college president is Connor Champion, the son of Celebration Church’s founding pastors, Joe and Lori Champion.

Last year, Church of the Highlands founding pastor Chris Hodges stepped down from his role there to focus on being chancellor at Highlands College, and tapped the college’s president to become the church’s new head pastor.

Some critics say that when schools are closely tied to one church, rather than to an entire denomination, the church’s leadership and finances have an outsized impact on the school.

“You can end up with this insular, sometimes authoritarian power structure, which I don’t mean to say is unique to religious schools, but it is one of the hazards of this kind of institutional structure,” said Laats.

But having a college tied to a local church also can boost its credibility and accountability within that faith community, said Rick Ostrander, a longtime Christian college administrator who is currently the executive director for the Michigan Christian Study Center at the University of Michigan.

“There’s always the danger with new markets and new models that develop some bad actors or just some unhealthy situations,” Ostrander said, “but I think that’s less likely in this area than some other quote-unquote professional areas.”

Church franchise models

The Highlands model — practical, church-based job training paired with academic courses offered through an accredited partner university — is spreading, in part, thanks to a franchise-style approach from a Florida university that has made launching a church-based college easier than ever.

Southeastern University in central Florida is a private school affiliated with Assemblies of God, one of the world’s largest Pentecostal Christian denominations. Southeastern is accredited by a federally recognized regional accreditation body, and it’s one of the fastest-growing private nonprofit colleges in the country, according to the Chronicle of Higher Education.

One reason for that growth is it has partnered with more than 200 churches, including some of the nation’s largest, to offer accredited Southeastern degrees through local startup colleges. Some of these church colleges, such as Highlands, have hundreds of students; some just a handful. Southeastern provides the academics while the church provides the practicum classes.

About a third of the 13,600 students at Southeastern are at schools affiliated with their network partner churches, said Fitzgerald, who is chief of staff for Kent Ingle, the president of Southeastern.

The university helps the church colleges line up curriculum and instructors, he said, and helps secure the necessary state approvals.

“We make sure that their courses are up to accreditation standards,” Fitzgerald said. “We make sure that the faculty they have are well-qualified, and we’re able to provide a stamp of approval on pretty much what they’re already doing, and so it’s a match made in heaven, if you will.”

By offering educational degrees, a church can create a pipeline of future staffers who are steeped in its culture, a priority for megachurches intent on preserving their brand.

And it gives churches additional workers who run conferences, staff events or manage social media, all for college credit rather than wages. That can be a boon for high-revenue megachurches that rely on an army of volunteers.

Fitzgerald said he’s not aware that Southeastern has ever said no to a church that approached it about becoming a partner site. Revenue from student tuition and fees is split between Southeastern and the church college.

Coming changes

One of Southeastern University’s biggest success stories has been Highlands College in Birmingham. The school began offering unaccredited ministry courses in 2011 before joining the Southeastern network in 2017.

In 2023, Highlands was awarded its own accreditation by the Association for Higher Education, a network of Christian schools that has been recognized by the U.S. Department of Education and the Council for Higher Education Accreditation. It now offers more than half a dozen bachelor’s degree programs.

This fall, the college will launch a new business school and a bachelor’s degree in business leadership. The Dunn School of Business is named in honor of the former CEO of a faith-based investment group that has invested millions in a church-planting network co-founded by Chris Hodges, the chancellor of Highlands College.

In Texas, Austin Christian University is focused entirely on business education, offering a bachelor’s of business administration degree through its partnership with Southeastern. Tuition, fees and housing are $35,000 per year. In addition to academic classes, students attend weekly sessions with Christian business executives and can work with Christian entrepreneurs on business projects in a “startup accelerator” program.

The business focus could help protect the school from coming changes at the federal level.

The Trump administration has been working to overhaul higher education, including proposing a new rule that would require undergraduate programs to show their graduates earn more than the median earnings of similarly aged adults with only a high school diploma, or risk losing access to federal student loans and grants.

Some Christian higher ed organizations, such as the Association for Biblical Higher Education and the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities, worry these provisions would have a disproportionately negative effect on Christian institutions, particularly those that train for traditionally lower-paying ministry or church roles.

Fitzgerald of Southeastern said he isn’t concerned that the federal overhaul will harm the newest crop of church colleges.

“We believe that as students begin to really reevaluate the return on investment of higher education, we think that unique models for education like this one are the ones that are going to thrive and succeed,” Fitzgerald said.

Stateline reporter Robbie Sequiera contributed to this story. Stateline reporter Anna Claire Vollers can be reached at avollers@stateline.org.

In the past two years, a dozen states have either approved new U.S. House maps or are moving toward doing so — a highly unusual mid-decade revamp prompted by President Donald Trump and a U.S. Supreme Court ruling late last month. And the situation isn’t settled yet — even as ballots are being printed and early voting is already underway in some places. Pending litigation could scramble the situation even further.

Redistricting, the process of redrawing the geographic boundaries of U.S. House and state legislative districts, usually takes place every 10 years following the census.

Trump upended that schedule early last year, when he began pressuring state GOP officials to redraw their maps to help Republicans hold onto a slim, five-seat majority in the U.S. House ahead of potentially grim 2026 midterm elections for his party.

The Supreme Court recast the redistricting fight with its ruling in Louisiana v. Callais. That decision all but nullified a provision of the federal Voting Rights Act that required states to draw electoral maps to give racial minority voters the opportunity to elect their chosen candidates.

A total of nine states — Alabama, California, Florida, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas and Utah — have redrawn their maps since last year. At least three other states — Georgia, Louisiana and South Carolina — appear likely to follow suit, though Georgia’s new maps would not be in effect for the upcoming midterm elections.

As things currently stand, Republicans are likely to gain up to 17 seats, while Democrats are likely to gain up to six seats.

In the aftermath of the Callais decision, hundreds of protesters have gathered at statehouses in recent weeks, particularly in the South, to decry what they say is a concerted effort to dilute Black voting and governing power. Republicans argue that maps should be “colorblind.” Gerrymandering to benefit one political party over another is legal at the federal level, though some states have their own laws restricting it.

The latest redistricting efforts are changing elections that have already begun. Some candidates must now pivot to races in brand-new districts with just a few weeks until their primaries. They’ve spent money and time reaching people who can no longer vote for them, fighting opponents different from the ones they now face. At least one Tennessee Democratic candidate no longer lives within the new boundaries of the district he’s seeking to represent.

Voters in states such as Alabama will now be asked to turn out for primary elections in both May and August, in addition to the November general election.

Here’s where things stand now.

Nine states already have redrawn their maps

Alabama

Republicans could gain 1 seat.*

A 2023 court order required Alabama to draw a congressional map with a second majority-Black district. But after the Callais decision last month, Alabama’s Republican state officials asked the U.S. Supreme Court to let them reinstate the old map, which has just one majority-Black, majority-Democratic district and which the court had previously ruled racially discriminatory. The high court quickly agreed.

Republican Gov. Kay Ivey has announced new primary elections in August for the affected districts. These will be held in addition to next Tuesday’s statewide primaries for other federal and state offices.

Alabama is also appealing a separate ruling requiring it to redraw two state Senate districts. That case is still ongoing.

California

Democrats likely to gain 3-5 seats.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom last year led the Democratic response to Trump’s call for Republican-led states to redraw their congressional maps.

In November 2025, California voters approved Newsom’s proposal to temporarily override the state’s independent redistricting commission and instead to allow the Democratic-dominated legislature to redraw the maps to create districts more favorable to Democrats. The new map is valid through 2030.

Florida

Republicans likely to gain 1-4 seats.

Last month, the Republican-majority Florida Legislature approved Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis’ new congressional map that could net the GOP up to four new congressional seats.

Both DeSantis and the voting rights organizations suing to block the new map agree it violates parts of the state constitution. But DeSantis argues the constitution’s anti-gerrymandering amendments, which were overwhelmingly adopted by Florida voters in 2010, are invalid, partly due to the Callais ruling.

Missouri

Republicans likely to gain 1 seat.

Earlier this week, the Missouri Supreme Court upheld the state’s gerrymandered 2025 congressional map, handing Republicans a victory. Last summer, Trump pressured Missouri Republicans to help maintain the GOP majority in the U.S. House, so lawmakers met in a special session to draw a map that likely will give them an additional seat by carving off parts of Kansas City into surrounding rural districts.

The new map will be used in Missouri’s August primary, the state Supreme Court ruled this week, because it’s uncertain whether a referendum petition seeking to repeal the map will succeed.

North Carolina

Republicans likely to gain 1 seat.

At Trump’s behest, North Carolina’s Republican-controlled legislature redrew the state’s congressional map last fall. It was an effort to make the state’s only competitive district solidly Republican. The maps passed strictly along party lines. The state’s congressional delegation is now likely to be 11 Republicans and three Democrats. North Carolina Gov. Josh Stein is a Democrat, but redistricting isn’t subject to the governor’s veto.

Ohio

Republicans likely to gain up to 2 seats.

Last fall, Ohio Republican House Speaker Matt Huffman publicly rebuffed Trump’s national push to gain more seats in Congress, while state Democrats proposed their own maps. An Ohio redistricting commission eventually approved a new map last October that is likely to yield 12 Republicans and three Democrats, compared with the current 10-5 split. GOP and Democratic lawmakers called it a “compromise.”

That map will be in place for the next six years. But political operatives told the Ohio Capital Journal they expect to see more redistricting efforts in 2030.

Tennessee

Republicans likely to gain 1 seat.

In a chaotic special session earlier this month, Republican lawmakers in Tennessee redrew congressional maps to shatter the state’s only majority-Black, majority-Democratic district. The newly passed map now favors Republicans in all nine Tennessee districts. Hundreds protested at the Tennessee statehouse as House Republicans voted on the new map and House Democrats gathered at the front of the chamber, locking arms in a show of solidarity.

This week, Tennessee House Speaker Cameron Sexton, a Republican, punished his Democratic colleagues for their protests by stripping them of committee and subcommittee appointments. On Friday morning, longtime Democratic U.S. Rep. Steve Cohen announced he would not seek reelection after his district was carved up in the redrawing of the maps.

Texas

Republicans likely to gain 3-5 seats.

The nation’s redistricting battle kicked off in Texas last summer, after Trump pressured the Texas GOP to redraw the state’s congressional map to add up to five more Republican seats. State House Democrats pushed back, fleeing the state temporarily in August to halt the vote. But the map eventually passed after they returned. Civil rights groups sued, saying the new map was racially discriminatory.

In April, the U.S. Supreme Court permanently upheld the new map, ensuring it remains in place for the 2026 midterms.

Utah

Democrats likely to gain 1 seat.

In 2018, Utah voters approved an anti-gerrymandering ballot measure that created an independent redistricting process, but Utah’s Republican-dominated legislature repealed and replaced it in 2021. Voters rights groups sued, arguing the resulting new map was a partisan gerrymander.

Eventually, after a multi-year legal battle, a new court-ordered map in 2025 gives Democrats a chance to win one of the state’s four congressional districts. The Utah GOP proposed a ballot initiative this year to ask Utah voters to officially repeal the 2018 anti-gerrymandering law, but it failed last month after thousands of petition signers removed their signatures.

Three states are in the process of redrawing their maps

Georgia

Georgia Republican Gov. Brian Kemp has refused to pursue redistricting ahead of this year’s elections, which are already underway. But Kemp announced Wednesday that he will call a special session to redraw the state’s political maps for the 2028 elections. Georgia’s congressional delegation currently has nine Republicans and five Democrats.

Louisiana

Republicans could gain 1 seat.

The day after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Louisiana’s existing congressional districts as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander, Republican Gov. Jeff Landry suspended the state’s congressional primaries to give lawmakers enough time to pass new maps.

This week, in a nearly 10-hour overnight committee hearing, Louisiana lawmakers advanced a bill that would eliminate one of the state’s two majority-Black districts. The new map, if it passes, likely would give Republicans another seat in Congress.

The new map must win approval from both chambers by June 1. Litigation over the decision to delay primaries is ongoing.

South Carolina

Republicans could gain 1 seat.

South Carolina legislators will gather Friday for a special session to redraw the state’s congressional lines just 12 days before early voting opens. Lawmakers have set a deadline of May 26 to pass a new map. Republican Gov. Henry McMaster, who previously said the matter was for the legislature to decide, called for the special session under pressure from the White House and state GOP.

The South Carolina GOP’s goal is to pass a bill that would delay U.S. House race primaries until August while keeping other primaries on schedule for June. One proposed map would cut South Carolina’s lone congressional Democrat, U.S. Rep. Jim Clyburn, out of the seat he’s represented since 1992 and create all seven Republican seats.

At least a half dozen other states are interested in redrawing their maps

Mississippi

This week, Mississippi Republican Gov. Tate Reeves canceled a special legislative session he’d called to redraw districts for the state’s Supreme Court. Some GOP officials had hoped he’d add congressional redistricting to the agenda. Instead, he said this week, he’s working with Trump and the White House on a plan to redraw Mississippi’s congressional districts and legislative districts in the future. Reeves wants a map that would boot the lone Democrat in Mississippi’s U.S. House delegation, Rep. Bennie Thompson, from his seat.

If that happens, Republicans would likely gain one congressional seat.

Virginia

The Virginia Supreme Court earlier this month struck down a voter-approved redistricting amendment that could have given Democrats a 10-1 advantage in the state’s U.S. House delegation. Virginia voters last month had approved a referendum that would have netted Democrats three or four additional seats. Earlier this week, Virginia Democrats asked the U.S. Supreme Court to revive the amendment, in a case that’s ongoing.

Arizona, New Jersey, New York, Washington 

Officials in Arizona, New Jersey, New York and Washington all have suggested drawing new maps following the Callais decision, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

The Colorado Voting Rights Act, passed last year by the state’s Democratic-majority legislature, will likely prevent the state from embarking on a redistricting effort. The state’s congressional delegation is currently split 4-4 between Democrats and Republicans. But a Democratic-led group is gathering signatures for ballot measures that would allow the state to change its maps ahead of the 2028 election.

*Seat gain predictions from The Cook Political Report.

This story was updated to include the Friday morning announcement by Tennessee Democratic U.S. Rep. Steve Cohen that he will not seek reelection. Stateline reporter Anna Claire Vollers can be reached at avollers@stateline.org.

Charlotte Cravins’ son Landry turned 2 in January. He’s a smiley little boy who loves singing “Itsy Bitsy Spider” and recently got his first pair of glasses.

Landry was born with Down syndrome and has impaired vision. He receives publicly funded therapies that have helped him learn to crawl, to pull himself up to stand, and to use American Sign Language.

Landry lives with his parents and sister in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, one of the eight states whose attorney general has chosen to remain in a lawsuit challenging a federal rule that protects accommodations for people with disabilities. States are asking a federal court in Texas to declare unconstitutional a part of federal law that requires states to provide services to disabled people in their communities, rather than in institutions, when appropriate.

Cravins, an attorney, has followed the case with increasing concern. If the states succeed, that could strip disabled people like her son of the right to publicly funded services that allow them to live in their own homes and neighborhoods, and instead push them into institutions such as state hospitals and nursing homes.

“Landry is a part of our family, a part of the community,” she said, “and to present his involvement in our family and in our community as a burden is unconscionable.”

The lawsuit is unusual. It began in 2024 with 17 Republican-led states suing the Biden administration over its inclusion of gender dysphoria as a protected disability under a portion of federal law known as Section 504. The states also challenged the constitutionality of Section 504 itself.

But the suit has since morphed into something different.

After President Donald Trump was reelected and his administration made clear it would not enforce the Biden rule protecting gender dysphoria, eight states pulled out of the lawsuit. Their attorneys general scrambled to distance themselves from it, amid a swift backlash from the disability community that warned the suit imperiled federal protections for all people with disabilities.

But in a surprising move, nine states chose to stick with the lawsuit anyway, and in January amended their complaint.

They’re now asking the court to strike down a part of Section 504 that requires states to provide disabled people with services in their communities whenever possible, rather than in institutions such as state hospitals and nursing homes.

It’s a maneuver that has shocked many in the disability rights community. Those who spoke with Stateline said they have not received answers from public officials about why the states are still pursuing the lawsuit after the Trump administration removed federal protections for gender dysphoria.

The Republican attorneys general from the states involved either did not respond to Stateline’s requests for comment or referred Stateline to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who is leading the lawsuit. Paxton did not respond to Stateline’s request for comment.

Last week, a few days after Stateline reached out, Indiana dropped out of the lawsuit, leaving eight states remaining.

Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita, a Republican, said he remains concerned about “federal overreach into traditional state matters” but felt that Trump’s move in December to officially exclude gender dysphoria from Section 504 protections meant the lawsuit’s core objective had been reached.

“Our goal in this lawsuit was to remove President Biden’s ridiculous addition of gender dysphoria as a disability, which risked jeopardizing services for those who truly need them most,” Rokita said in a statement. He noted he has a child with a disability; his son has Angelman syndrome, which causes developmental delays.

But eight other states are pushing forward with the lawsuit: Alaska, Florida, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, South Dakota and Texas.

Cravins, Landry’s mom, said she feels misled by Louisiana Republican Attorney General Liz Murrill, because Murrill initially framed the case as being about the inclusion of gender dysphoria and has not responded to questions about why her state remains involved after that’s no longer an issue.

“Other states left the lawsuit. Louisiana didn’t. Why?” Cravins asked. She said she’s written an open letter to Murrill about the case, with no response. “At this point, it seems that her issue is people with disabilities living in the community.”

States say in their revised complaint that updates to Section 504 unfairly restrict how they’re able to spend money and prevent them from deciding how best to care for their own residents. They say their budgets, strained by rising costs and workforce shortages, can’t always accommodate expensive service changes required by the law, and that with smaller Medicaid budgets they’re having to make hard choices. Removing the law’s “integration mandate” would give them more flexibility.

Disability rights advocates respond that if the court strikes down the integration rule, it will be harder for people with disabilities to get services in their communities. States won’t be required to provide those as a condition of receiving federal money.

And they worry the states’ efforts signal a return to darker times, when disabled people were hidden away, warehoused in institutions and far from family and friends.

“The reality is, the world was not built with us in mind, and there are people who would rather us not be here,” said Kaleigh Brendle, an advocate and college student who launched a nonprofit to push back against efforts to defang Section 504. “Us existing in the world makes people uncomfortable, with our braces, our canes, our wheelchairs, our differences.”

Nonpartisan, until recently

For decades, disability issues were largely nonpartisan. The two most consequential landmark federal disability rights laws were signed by Republican presidents: Richard Nixon signed the Rehabilitation Act — which includes Section 504 — in 1973; George H.W. Bush signed the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990.

The requirement that states provide services for disabled people in their communities comes from the landmark 1999 Olmstead v. L.C. ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court. Advocates hailed that decision as a civil rights victory that has helped shift disability care from institutional “warehousing” to integrating disabled people into the fabric of their communities.

“Now the states’ lawsuit seeks to upend all of that,” said M. Geron Gadd, a senior attorney with the National Health Law Program who focuses on disability rights cases.

Gadd said that as a litigator, she’s seen states shift how they fight disability-related cases: Instead of disputing how laws apply in specific situations, states are increasingly challenging the thrust of the laws themselves.

“States seem to be much more offended by having to conform their programs and services to basic requirements of disability law,” said Gadd. And, she added, “it seems to have become politicized in ways that it had not been for decades.”

State efforts have echoed those at the federal level.

The Trump administration has been pushing a rule change that would penalize disabled adults who live with their families and deduct the value of their bedroom from the amount they receive in federal benefits. Last year, Trump administration officials abandoned a proposal to cut disability benefits for older workers after news reports and public outcry. The efforts have been made in the name of government efficiency and reducing red tape, particularly in safety-net programs.

And in April, the U.S. Department of Justice delayed a Biden-era deadline — based on the Americans with Disabilities Act — for state and local governments to update their web content to make it accessible for people with disabilities.

Disability rights advocates say the conservative-led states and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services they are suing feel like two sides of the same coin, with disabled people and their families caught in the middle of the case, without a champion.

‘Something to fight back’

When Kaleigh Brendle was 17, she joined four other vision-impaired high school students in challenging a decision by the College Board — which administers Advanced Placement tests — to replace hard-copy Braille exams with a digital format during the COVID-19 pandemic.

They were successful. Brendle’s experience then, as well as her experiences pushing to get the accommodations she needed in school, drove her to advocate for disability rights nationally.

She named her new advocacy nonprofit Judy’s League, for Judy Heumann, a legendary disability rights activist known as the “Mother of the Disability Rights Movement.” Brendle likes to quote Heumann, who often said that disability can happen to anyone at any time.

Families and students with disabilities also worry the Republican states’ lawsuit could erode Section 504 protections for students if states were no longer required to provide services in public schools and could instead direct students to institutions.

As a student, Brendle received services locally that helped her learn to use a cane, to read Braille and to use accessible technology needed to complete school coursework.

At times she had to push for the accommodations she needed.

“But at least 504 gives you a leg to stand on,” she said. “It gives you something to fight back with.”

Similarly, Cravins worries her son Landry could have a hard time receiving services at his local school when he’s old enough to attend, even though he would be able to go to school with his peers with the right supports.

National disability rights groups — including the National Federation of the Blind, the National Down Syndrome Society and the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund — have continued urging the public to speak out about the possible loss of rights.

“It feels like it’s up to us as individuals to try and convince these people in these positions of power to stop attacking us,” Brendle said.

Cascading effects

On Monday, the states asked the judge to decide the lawsuit without a trial. Over the next few months, the states and feds will file briefs with the court. Disability community groups and allies will have the chance to file briefs as well.

If the states prevail, it’s hard to say what the cascading legal impacts could be. A win could trigger further litigation. Other courts might interpret the law differently.

A number of state laws, programs and other efforts have been built on the integration mandate and could be affected as well, said Mike Oxford, a retired director of an independent living center in Topeka, Kansas, who has been a longtime disability rights advocate.

“I’ve seen people with significant disabilities become great lawyers, academics, corporate leaders, on and on,” he said. “That would not have happened” without the integration mandate.

Oxford said he has not gotten a response from Kansas Republican Attorney General Kris Kobach when he asked about the case. He doesn’t think that the attorneys general remaining in the case believe it’s still about gender dysphoria.

“It’s just totally ridiculous,” he said. “They’re lawyers. They signed the new complaint. They know what it does and doesn’t say.”

If the court strikes down the integration mandate, that doesn’t mean the entire law is invalidated or in-community services automatically cease.

But it does mean that if a family were denied services outside of an institution, they’d likely have to pursue litigation each time to fight the decision, Cravins said.

“I think it’s important for the average citizen to realize that laws only work when there is enforcement behind them,” she said.

Stateline reporter Anna Claire Vollers can be reached at avollers@stateline.org.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s new decision gutting a key provision of the federal Voting Rights Act clears the way for state officials to drastically reshape not only Congress but also state legislatures, county commissions, city councils and even local school boards.

The ruling, released last week in a case called Louisiana v. Callais, dismantled some of the final guardrails protecting the electoral power of Black, Hispanic and other racial minority voters that had been enshrined in the Voting Rights Act, a landmark 1965 federal civil rights law that bars racial discrimination in voting access.

The 6-3 decision all but nullifies a provision called Section 2 that required states to draw electoral maps to give racial minority voters the opportunity to elect their chosen candidates.

And while intense national attention on the case’s fallout has focused on the U.S.  House as the 2026 midterm congressional elections loom, the new ruling also applies to state legislative districts and maps for county or municipal elections.

Those localized changes are just hovering further down the road.

“While everyone has been focusing on what this means for the power in Congress, there’s a whole other sector of power that it changes,” said Davante Lewis, an elected member of the Louisiana Public Service Commission and one of the litigants in a case that pushed Louisiana to create the congressional maps that were eventually struck down in the Callais ruling.

“This is a decision on who gets to serve on a school board, who gets to serve on a city council, who gets representation in the judiciary,” Lewis said.

Electoral maps are typically redrawn every 10 years after a census, but the Trump administration has encouraged Republican-led states to redraw districts to favor the GOP, a controversial move that has prompted some Democratic-led states to retaliate with gerrymandering of their own.

“But after 2030, I think we’re definitely going to see the impact of the Callais decision at the state level,” said Travis Crum, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis whose research focuses on voting rights, race and federalism.

Effects across the South

Critics of the ruling say it will fundamentally dilute the voting and governing power of Black and other minority citizens up and down the ballot, particularly in the South. There, many of the seats held by Black elected officials are in so-called opportunity districts that were created after the Voting Rights Act to allow Black and other minority voters to elect their preferred candidates.

“On the congressional level, we’re in this race to the bottom of redistricting, but when it comes to the state legislative level, we’ll have to wait and see,” Crum said.

In 10 state legislatures across the South, Republicans could gain more than 190 seats currently held by Democrats, most of them Black representatives in majority-minority districts, according to an analysis released in December by voting rights groups Fair Fight Action and Black Voters Matter Fund. At the federal level, one analysis from The New York Times found that Democrats stand to lose a dozen U.S. House seats across the South.

In the hours after the Supreme Court ruling, Republicans across the nation began calling for maps to be redrawn, particularly in states where courts had forced them to create districts where Black or other racial minorities made up the majority of residents.

A US Supreme Court ruling hammered voting rights. What does it mean and what happens now?

“These lines should all be colorblind. You should never be basing a decision on race,” said Arizona Republican state Sen. Warren Petersen, who’s president of the state Senate and running for attorney general.

He told Stateline he believes both congressional and state legislative maps should be redrawn in Arizona — even if it takes litigation.

Mississippi Republican Gov. Tate Reeves called a special legislative session set for later this month, when he wants lawmakers to draw new election maps for Mississippi state Supreme Court districts. A federal judge in Mississippi will have to quickly decide whether to adopt a new map for some special elections scheduled for November.

Democrats, too, took action. In Illinois, lawmakers backtracked on a proposed constitutional amendment that would have directed lawmakers to consider race in drawing district lines, a provision taken directly from the Voting Rights Act. Instead, Illinois Senate President Don Harmon, a Democrat, told Capitol News Illinois that lawmakers want to learn more about the ruling before putting such an amendment on a ballot for voters to decide, to prevent unintended consequences that could undermine voting rights.

In many states, Republicans are focusing first on congressional redistricting. Louisiana Republican Gov. Jeff Landry postponed his state’s U.S. House primaries even though absentee voting has already begun. In Alabama, Republican Gov. Kay Ivey called a special state legislative session aiming to move the state’s May 19 primary in at least a handful of districts. Prominent Georgia Republicans were also calling for their state’s political maps to be redrawn, though GOP Gov. Brian Kemp said in a statement that it’s too late to do that this year.

And in North Dakota, the ruling leaves a tribal redistricting case in limbo. Tribes had used Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act to sue the state over a legislative district map the North Dakota legislature approved in 2021.

Gerrymandering for partisan advantage is legal at the federal level, though some states do have their own laws restricting or prohibiting it. In Florida, Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis is arguing the Supreme Court ruling invalidates voter-approved amendments that prevent the state from gerrymandering districts based on race or political party.

For most states, though, state officials can redraw maps explicitly to favor Republican voters, for example, so long as they don’t state their intention to disadvantage voters based on race.

‘Ripple like wildfire’

Critics of last week’s Callais ruling also worry it will rapidly erode the pipeline that has made it possible for Black and other minority candidates to get elected to office.

“Now, state legislatures can draw maps where they are picking their voters instead of their voters picking them,” said Lewis, the Louisiana commissioner. “They can dilute the power of Black and brown people serving in the state legislature, which means there’s fewer people to fight a congressional map” that pulls voting power away from minority communities.

He worries that if Black Democratic state lawmakers oppose their white Republican colleagues in legislatures with GOP majorities, those colleagues could redraw maps to eliminate the Black lawmakers’ seats, claiming they’re doing it only for partisan reasons.

The diluting of minority voting power, he said, “is going to ripple like wildfire.”

At the most local level, city councils and county boards typically draw those voting maps, but the ruling could be used to apply to them as well, said Crum, the law professor. 

Arizona is one of a handful of states where an independent commission, rather than the state legislature, determines both congressional and legislative districts. Outside of a court order, it can’t convene before the turn of the decade.

Petersen, the Arizona state senator, said he’s prepared to litigate if the state’s redistricting commission doesn’t take action to redraw districts that he said are unconstitutionally drawn. He doesn’t expect new maps before 2028, though.

“We’ve heard complaints from constituents that they don’t like the way their district was drawn,” he said. “We have some people here in Arizona that represent completely far-flung areas.

“I do think you’ll get a better outcome on some of these legislative districts” by removing race-based districting, he said.

Lawmakers in some states have tried to guard against the loss of federal protections by introducing their own state-level voting rights bills. Ten states have their own versions of the federal Voting Rights Act, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, Virginia and Washington.

Lawmakers in at least 10 other states have introduced such bills this year alone: Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Rhode Island and Vermont.

The new Supreme Court ruling doesn’t render those laws unconstitutional, said Crum.

“But people who are seeking to undermine those state Voting Rights Acts are certainly going to rely on some of the themes” of the recent ruling, Crum said. “You might see them try and replicate some of the moves the court made.”

Editor’s note: This story has been updated to correct that Maryland has a state-level voting rights law, which was enacted last week.

Stateline reporter Anna Claire Vollers can be reached at avollers@stateline.org.

Republican lawmakers and candidates across the country have escalated their anti-Islam rhetoric in recent months, a strategy aimed at energizing voters by claiming without evidence that Muslim culture and religious tenets threaten American political values.

Political observers say Republicans are seizing on anti-Islamic sentiment to gin up enthusiasm among their voters as they head into the 2026 midterm elections. It’s been a successful campaign strategy in the past.

Aggressive enforcement tactics have soured many Americans on hard-line immigration policies, once a winning issue for conservatives, and GOP victories on abortion and transgender rights have blunted the electoral power of those issues.

Instead, GOP candidates in some of the highest-profile political races in the country are putting Islam and the nebulous threat of Shariah at the center of their campaigns.

Shariah is a religious code derived from the Quran and the teachings of Prophet Muhammad that addresses moral, spiritual and daily life for Muslims. But the term has become shorthand, in some conservative circles, for anything having to do with Islam or with Islamic extremism.

Critics say conservative politicians have made Muslims a political bogeyman in their fight to hang onto power. Muslims say the rhetoric misrepresents their values and endangers their communities.

“I worry this will harm freedom, which is the very value some of these politicians are claiming to protect,” said Mustafa Akyol, a senior fellow at the Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank. Akyol is Muslim, and his research focuses on public policy and Islam.

“To think that American Muslims, which make 1% of the whole population, can enforce Shariah or force it on other people, that’s a very exaggerated claim.”

Up and down the ballot, Republicans have spent about $12 million since last year on ads that negatively mention Islam, Muslims or Shariah, according to AdImpact, an ad tracking firm.

Former Alabama Supreme Court Justice Jay Mitchell, now running for Alabama attorney general, recently released a campaign ad inviting supporters of “radical Islam” to “Allah Akbar your butt all the way back to the Middle East.”

In Georgia, Republican state Sen. Greg Dolezal, a candidate for lieutenant governor, released an AI-generated campaign ad last month depicting Muslim people invading a suburban neighborhood. In a post on X sharing the video, he described Muslims as “invaders who would rather pillage our generosity than assimilate.”

Officials in Alabama and Oklahoma have quashed efforts by Muslim groups to expand into larger facilities after those proposed developments attracted the attention and ire of conservative politicians. And Florida’s Republican-dominated legislature this year enacted laws allowing a handful of state officials to designate certain groups as domestic terrorist organizations.

At the federal level, incumbent Republican U.S. Sen. John Cornyn released a $1.6 million political ad earlier this year that claims “radical Islam is a bloodthirsty ideology” and says “Shariah law has no place in American courts or communities.”

There’s even a Sharia-Free America Caucus in Congress, launched last December by Republican Texas Reps. Keith Self and Chip Roy. It currently has more than 60 members spanning 25 states, according to Self. He called it “a noble cause to save Western Civilization and fight back against the threat of Sharia” in a January press release.

Akyol, of the Cato Institute, likens the furor to the American panic over communism in the 1950s that culminated in Wisconsin Republican Sen. Joseph McCarthy’s efforts to root out communist infiltration in the U.S. government and other spheres of power.

Those efforts “led to the crackdown on public freedoms in America like civil liberties, freedom of speech,” Akyol said. “Luckily that ended, but this seems like a McCarthyism 2.0 era where the issue now is not communism, but Islam.”

Years of legislation

Republicans say they’re responding to voter concerns and trying to preempt the possibility that religious or foreign political codes might creep into the U.S. legal system, jeopardizing free speech or due process.

Oklahoma state Sen. David Bullard is working with fellow Republican state legislators on a constitutional amendment that would bar courts and municipalities in Oklahoma from using any foreign law or religious code that would undermine the U.S. or Oklahoma constitutions. Similar efforts have been made this year in Arkansas, Missouri and other states.

Bullard said he’s heard from constituents who are concerned about a growing threat of other cultures “trying to forcefully usurp” American culture.

“Those are definitely Eastern ideas that don’t mix with Western culture, and the Constitution is created wholeheartedly on that Western culture concept,” he told Stateline.

He notes that his amendment doesn’t mention Shariah and does not single out Muslims.

Conservatives have been pushing similar state legislation for more than a decade. Since 2010, at least nine states have enacted laws aimed at preventing courts from enforcing foreign legal codes, including a 2014 constitutional amendment in Alabama.

When asked about examples of the kinds of instances he’s trying to prevent, Bullard cited a 2009 case in New Jersey in which a judge refused to give a woman a protective order after her husband repeatedly assaulted her, saying the husband was acting on his religious interpretation of Shariah. The ruling was overturned the following year.

“I think more and more people in Oklahoma are calling on us to protect them from that,” he said.

But even the most vocal proponents of anti-Shariah measures have struggled to explain how it could replace the American legal system or why more laws are needed to curb it. The establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution already prohibits the government from favoring one religion over another, or forcing adherence to a religious code.

Standing at a podium with a sign emblazoned with a line through the words “Sharia Law,” Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis conceded during a news conference earlier this month that there isn’t an immediate threat of Shariah becoming the basis for Florida law.

“Of course that won’t happen any time soon,” DeSantis said. “But the more that we’re able to do to protect against that, I think, is going to benefit Floridians for many, many years.”

Real-world worry

The Islamic Academy of Alabama has operated as a K-12 private school near Birmingham for nearly three decades. But in December, local leaders of a nearby suburb denied the school’s request to relocate to a larger facility there. Alabama U.S. Sen. Tommy Tuberville, a Republican who’s running for governor and who has railed against Islam on the Senate floor and social media, called for the school to move out of Alabama.

School officials declined Stateline’s interview request but said they remain focused on supporting the education, well-being and safety of their students and community. They’ve dropped their current relocation plans.

In Oklahoma, Republican Attorney General Gentner Drummond — who is running for governor — elevated a proposed expansion by the Islamic Society of Tulsa into a political issue when he announced an investigation into its funding. City leaders later denied the society’s application; Muslim leaders responded by hosting a community open house at their Tulsa mosque to connect with the community and promote a better understanding of their faith.

And in Texas, Attorney General Ken Paxton, who is challenging Cornyn for the GOP nomination in the state’s Senate race, sued over the proposed development of a large Muslim-centric community north of Dallas. He called it a “radical plot to destroy hundreds of acres of beautiful Texas land and line their own pockets” and claimed it was unlawfully reserved only for Muslims.

Although the group initially advertised that sales would be limited to certain people, representatives for the development have since said it is open to anyone.

Shariah shorthand

While some lawmakers have made a distinction in their rhetoric between extremism and the Islamic faith, others have made sweeping, derogatory claims that denigrate and stereotype all Muslims.

Tuberville of Alabama has said: “Islam is not a religion. It’s a cult.” U.S. Republican Rep. Andy Ogles of Tennessee has said, “Muslims don’t belong in American society.” U.S. Rep. Randy Fine, a Florida Republican who’s cosponsoring an anti-Shariah bill in Congress, posted on X in February: “If they force us to choose, the choice between dogs and Muslims is not a difficult one.”

While politicians have invoked fears of extremism in their public comments, Akyol said American Muslims are the ones who are most worried.

“If the people who govern your state define you like that, what may come next?” he said. “Maybe a legal step against you, or some fanatic who really believes in that can take his machine gun and attack you.”

Much of the Islamophobic messaging has gone unchecked by other conservatives, a marked departure from previous leadership. In 2001, a few days after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, then-President George W. Bush visited a mosque in Washington, D.C., and met with Muslim community leaders, declaring “Islam is peace” and condemning retaliation against Muslim Americans.

Earlier this month, DeSantis signed a Republican-sponsored bill into law that allows a few state officials to label certain groups “domestic terrorist organizations.” The new law also bans Florida courts from enforcing religious laws and bars state funds from going to schools affiliated with groups designated as terrorist organizations. It does not specifically mention a religion, but cites Shariah as an example of the kind of religious laws it covers.

“You can have these groups that may not be waging physical war-type jihad,” DeSantis said earlier this month. He warned groups could wage “stealth” or “financial” attacks.

“To me, that’s still jihad and we’ve got to stop it, and this bill provides the structure to be able to do it.”

Critics say such laws also have the potential to harm any organization that finds itself at odds with a current administration.

“That is the danger of these laws, because they are specifically designed to silence political dissent,” said Wilfredo Ruiz, communications director at the Florida chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a national Muslim civil rights group. CAIR was one of two groups labeled as terrorist organizations by an executive order DeSantis issued in December.

The Biden administration criticized CAIR for statements made by its leadership after the Oct. 7, 2023, attacks in Israel, but the group denies that it supports terrorism.

CAIR Florida sued over DeSantis’ order, arguing it violated the group’s First Amendment right to free speech. In March, a federal judge blocked the order.

Ruiz said his organization has the resources to continue challenging such laws in court. But he said he worries about smaller groups, including those that aren’t Muslim but might be at risk of being declared a “terrorist group” by whoever is currently in power in Florida.

“Having that executive power with the capacity to name you a terrorist organization before you have been even accused criminally, much less convicted, this is an openly unconstitutional proposal.”

Stateline reporter Anna Claire Vollers can be reached at avollers@stateline.org.