Reading Time: 4 minutes

Wisconsin will likely face limited immediate impact at both the legislative and congressional level from the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that narrowed how the Voting Rights Act can be used to challenge political maps. But it may make it easier for people to challenge school board and city council maps in court.

The ruling in Louisiana v. Callais raises the bar for voting rights challenges by requiring stronger evidence that race, rather than political considerations, drove how districts were drawn, and making it easier for states to defend maps on nonracial grounds. 

Dan Lennington, the managing vice president and deputy counsel at the conservative Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, said the boundaries that could be most easily struck down as a result of the Wednesday ruling are those that were drawn explicitly for racial reasons. Some examples, he said, are the boundaries for Milwaukee city council districts and certain school districts.

Race is a common factor in drawing Milwaukee city council districts, though campaigns to add additional majority-minority districts haven’t always succeeded. 

For example, departing Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett in December 2021 vetoed a proposed city council map because it didn’t include a third Latino-majority district, only for Mayor Cavalier Johnson to sign that same map several weeks later.

Lennington also pointed to state laws that use race as a factor to determine school district boundaries. One of those laws explicitly mentions “racial composition of the pupils” as a factor for drawing boundaries — a law that he said is now implicated by the Callais decision.

“If a plaintiff comes to us and says that they live in a district that’s been racially gerrymandered, we would take a very close look at that case,” he said.

Less likely impact on legislative and congressional level

There likely won’t be much impact in Wisconsin at the congressional district level because there’s just one majority-minority district in the state, UW-Madison political science professor Barry Burden said ahead of the ruling. The 4th Congressional District, represented by Rep. Gwen Moore, D-Milwaukee, comprises much of Milwaukee and the surrounding suburbs in Milwaukee County. 

Even if Section 2 of the VRA did not apply, he said, the district would likely stay much the same given the general principle of keeping communities intact. 

A decision like the one handed down, he said, “would open the door if line drawers wanted to break up that county or city in some way, but I think it would probably be challenged on other grounds.”

Challenges to Wisconsin’s congressional maps have often had more to do with partisan than racial line-drawing. Speaking to reporters on Wednesday, Gov. Tony Evers, a Democrat, said he wasn’t surprised by the federal decision but reiterated his call for new congressional maps, which he said unfairly gave Republicans a 6-2 seat advantage in a swing state.

But two recent court decisions in Wisconsin rejected challenges to the state’s congressional maps on the basis that they constitute an unconstitutional “anti-competitive” gerrymander. Those rulings focused not on race, but on whether courts can take up claims based on partisan advantage. 

Doug Poland, co-founder of the liberal law firm Law Forward, said this ruling could empower lawmakers to pursue partisan goals while making racial challenges harder to prove.

But because of Wisconsin’s demographics — a largely white state, with the most significant minority populations concentrated around the Milwaukee area — the state has run into Section 2 challenges far less often than southern states, he said.

“As a practical matter, this decision doesn’t have a big impact on Wisconsin at the moment,” he said. “That could change.”

There’s more at play among state legislative districts, Burden said. The state has nine majority-minority legislative districts, where a single minority group makes up over half of the population: seven in the Assembly and two in the Senate. Two other districts — one in each chamber — are minority influence districts, where combined minority populations make up a majority.

Democrats in Wisconsin have generally steered clear of breaking up minority districts to avoid violating the VRA, Burden said, but packing minority voters in one district sometimes costs them adjacent districts where they might have been competitive if the minority population was more evenly distributed. For that reason, there’s a history of Republicans supporting majority-minority districts in the state.

The issue has been a factor in recent redistricting fights. In March 2022, the Wisconsin Supreme Court initially selected Evers’ legislative maps, which created an additional majority-Black Assembly district. 

But while Evers argued this addition was necessary to comply with the Voting Rights Act, it drew criticism from both sides of the aisle. A Black Democratic legislator criticized the move as diluting Black voices, while Republicans appealed the maps to the U.S. Supreme Court, which sided with the GOP and ordered the Wisconsin Supreme Court to select a different map.

If any of the districts are found to be out of compliance with the U.S. Constitution under the ruling via some additional challenge, Burden said, Wisconsin may draw new districts sooner than later.

“I don’t know who that advantages,” he said. “It probably depends who’s drawing the lines.”

Lennington also pointed out President Donald Trump’s success with Black and Latino voters relative to past GOP candidates, adding that splitting majority-minority legislative districts wouldn’t necessarily give either party an advantage here.

What he did predict, though, is that splitting such districts “might polarize us even more” if they were replaced with districts drawn on partisan as opposed to racial lines.

“It just might make the red more red and the blue more blue,” he said.

Alexander Shur is a reporter for Votebeat based in Wisconsin. Contact Shur at ashur@votebeat.org.

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat Wisconsin’s free newsletter here.

Wisconsin will likely see limited, local effects from Voting Rights Act ruling — at least for now is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

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.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

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. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Forest Service programs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

State responses

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘More questions than answers’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No action under Biden

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

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

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

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

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

Public opinion dropping

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Action unlikely, at least in short term

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

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

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

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

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

Trump’s response

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

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

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

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

By Zara Norman/Medill News Service

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Issue is narrow, drugmaker says

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Generics expand access

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lead animal rights organizer appears in court

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is Louisiana v. Callais?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What did the Supreme Court decide?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why is the decision a big deal?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not nearly as much.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How are Republicans responding?

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

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

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

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

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

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

How are Democrats responding?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(The Center Square) – Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction Superintendent Jill Underly had two events on her calendar marked “private appointment” and another at noon April 15, the day an Assembly committee meeting was scheduled to look into a 2024…

(The Center Square) – Milwaukee’s downtown alderman continues to defend new rules that will close downtown food trucks earlier, despite violence across the rest of the city.

Reading Time: 3 minutes

The Wisconsin Elections Commission on Thursday overruled controversial ballot-counting decisions in Mequon and Madison, ordering the cities to revise final tallies in their Wisconsin Supreme Court election results.

Madison counted 23 late-arriving ballots that the commission voted should not have been included, while Mequon threw out five ballots the commission said should have been counted. The commission voted 6-0 to investigate both city clerks’ offices and ordered changes to the counts — voting 5-1 to require Madison and Dane County to exclude the 23 ballots and 6-0 to require Mequon and Ozaukee County to count the five.

The deadline for the state to certify the election is May 15, but some commissioners acknowledged the likelihood that lawsuits over the decisions could come before then.

In Madison, poll workers on Election Day counted 23 absentee ballots that arrived at four polling places after 8 p.m. Tuesday, despite a state law requiring that absentee ballots be “delivered to the polling place no later than 8 p.m.” in order to be tallied.

There was some debate ahead of the Madison vote because Commission Chair Ann Jacobs and Commissioner Mark Thomsen, both Democrats, said they felt uncomfortable disenfranchising the 23 voters. But Jacobs said she was following the law in ordering Madison to redo its count, adding that she hoped “those voters will perhaps appeal this decision.” 

“We’re going to disenfranchise 23 people,” said Thomsen, the lone no vote. “I don’t think the law requires us to do that.”

Voting in favor, Don Millis, a Republican commissioner, said the commission is bound by state law not to count those ballots.

“There has to be some accountability,” he added, “for the failure to get these ballots to the polling places in a timely manner.”

Dane County Clerk Scott McDonell, a Democrat, told Votebeat that he’s considering suing over the agency’s order. McDonell previously voted to count the late-arriving ballots during the county’s canvass.

“It’s disappointing that the Wisconsin Election Commission’s directive is to reject ballots that were properly cast by voters,” Madison Clerk Lydia McComas said in a statement.

This marks the second significant error from the Madison clerk’s office in recent elections. In 2024, officials didn’t count 193 ballots that arrived at the city well ahead of Election Day, leading to investigations and a lawsuit.

Mequon redo comes amid confusion over clerk’s standard

The decision to investigate Mequon came after City Clerk Caroline Fochs decided not to count five ballots under an unusually strict standard for the witness address field on absentee ballot envelopes. Commissioners and staff found that decision to be an abuse of discretion.

For years, Fochs has used a standard contrary to the commission’s guidance, which is to consider a witness address valid if it includes a street name, number and municipality.

Instead, if a witness lists a municipality that shares a name with another elsewhere in the country and does not include a ZIP code or state — even though the absentee envelope doesn’t call for them — Fochs told Votebeat she does not count the ballot. If the municipality name is unique, she will count it without a ZIP code or state. 

In this latest election, those municipalities were Baltimore, Fox Point, Verona and Houston.

“The idea that someone would Google to find out whether or not there’s multiple Veronas in the United States, but not Google the witness’s address to confirm where they were located just strikes me as an odd choice, and contrary to the applicable law,” Jacobs said.

A Votebeat review of Mequon ballots rejected since 2024 found that Fochs in some cases appeared to have misapplied her own standard — rejecting ballots from municipalities that didn’t share a name with any other city, like Chicago and Fox Point.

Referencing Votebeat’s reporting, Jacobs said those people’s votes “were not counted for any good reason.”

Fochs and her city attorney have defended the city’s standard as a proper use of discretion despite coming under fire for it. Fochs didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Speaking with Votebeat after the votes, Millis said that although mistakes happen from time to time, clerks need to understand that there can be consequences for errors “if you don’t follow the law and take reasonable efforts to make sure that all ballots are counted.”

Pointing out that he was a Republican commissioner, Millis said he also has a partisan interest in making sure votes in Mequon, a traditionally GOP city, are counted.

“We shouldn’t be doing things to make it difficult for anyone to vote, but here, from just even a partisan standpoint, on average, it’s hurting Republicans more than Democrats.”

Alexander Shur is a reporter for Votebeat based in Wisconsin. Contact Shur at ashur@votebeat.org.

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat Wisconsin’s free newsletter here.

Wisconsin Elections Commission overrules ballot-counting decisions in Madison and Mequon is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Reading Time: 3 minutes

Isaac Solis knows all too well how taking a pill bought off the street can lead to tragedy. 

His son Isaac Solis Jr., known as “Bubba,” died in 2019 after taking what he thought was the prescription drug Percocet. 

Instead, it was a counterfeit pill laced with fentanyl, a synthetic opioid that can kill in trace amounts.

Since then, he’s been on a mission to help prevent others from losing loved ones through his “One Pill Kills” awareness campaign. 

His message is being amplified in time for Fentanyl Awareness Day, observed nationally on April 29, through three billboards that feature his son. The billboards direct residents to the 1pillkills.org website and social media pages and include the message: Together We Will Save Lives.  

“It’s about spreading awareness obviously that even one pill can kill you, one line can kill you,” Solis said. “If one family sees it and reaches out to their loved one and one life is saved, that’s our goal.” 

Two of the billboards can be seen off of Interstate 94 in Milwaukee near West Becher and South Fourth streets, and the other is a north/south display on South 27th Street and West Morgan Avenue. The billboard near West Becher will be up for eight weeks and the one on West Morgan for four. 

Solis’s campaign has utilized several billboards over the years to increase community awareness on fentanyl. 

The message on the first billboard, he said, was very aggressive.

“Our grief was a bit more raw at that time,” Solis said. 

Another billboard featured photos of individuals who lost their lives to fentanyl. 

“Eight families put their angels up there,” he said. 

Drop in overdose deaths

Fentanyl has fueled the opioid epidemic nationally and a rise in overdose deaths. 

The drug had devastating impacts on Milwaukee County, which experienced multiple years of record high drug overdose deaths in the 2010s and 2020s. Those totals peaked at 674 in 2022 and 667 in 2023, according to data from the Milwaukee County Overdose Dashboard. Most of the deaths were caused by fentanyl alone or in combination with other substances.

Since then, the number of fatal overdoses has fallen. Last year 387 died, with 236 of those cases involving fentanyl. 

County Executive David Crowley credits increased funding for opioid prevention and collaboration for the decrease. 

“Thanks to the investment of opioid settlement dollars, increased access to free harm reduction supplies, and efforts to eliminate the stigma surrounding substance use disorder, fewer people are dying of overdose, which means more opportunities for treatment, recovery and a path forward,” Crowley said in a statement.

Fentanyl still a major problem

While Solis said the drop in fatal overdoses is great, it’s also concerning. 

“The troublesome part is we don’t know what amount of people are addicted to fentanyl and using it daily,” he said. “There’s a lot of work to do.The closer we get to zero deaths, the better.” 

He said fentanyl products continue to evolve and get more potent, and it can be in powder or liquid form, and even in vapes. 

“It can be hidden in something but you can have no idea what,” Solis said. “There’s always a threat of it being in any type of drug.”

Working together

Like Crowley, Solis credits collaboration for the progress made in addressing the opioid epidemic. He partners regularly with Team HAVOC, a grassroots South Side group. 

Rafael Mercado, founder of Team HAVOC, said Solis’ story and “One Pill Kills” message are having an impact. 

“He does a lot to bring awareness by way of billboards, social media and pop-ups,” Mercado said. “He has lost a son to this, so he knows firsthand the pain and suffering a family goes through and the ripple effect of addiction on a family.”  

Solis also partners with Samad’s House, a Milwaukee-based sober living home and behavioral health clinic dedicated to supporting women. He said he’s working with Tahira Malik, founder and chief operating officer of Samad’s House, to help organize a Walk for Lives event on July 11. Walk for Lives is a nationwide movement to raise awareness about those who died from fentanyl. 

Solis said he wishes he could do even more but knows that ending the fentanyl crisis won’t happen quickly. 

“The problem didn’t happen overnight,” he said. “It’s not gonna be any one group, not any one solution. Together we will save lives.”

---

Jonathan Aguilar is a visual journalist at Milwaukee Neighborhood News Service who is supported through a partnership between CatchLight Local and Report for America.

‘One pill can kill’: A Milwaukee father turns grief into a warning about fentanyl is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

For some, the ultimate sign that spring has arrived is the day the tractor is fired up. Writer Chris Hardie reflects on growing up on a family farm with a Ford 640 and how it taught him more than a few virtues.

The post Lessons from an old tractor appeared first on WPR.

Agents with the U.S. Secret Service and FBI interviewed liberal Wisconsin activist Kirk Bangstad Thursday, for a Facebook post suggesting either someone "in the Resistance needs to work on their marksmanship" or the latest assassination attempt of President Donald Trump was "faked."

The post Federal agents interview Kirk Bangstad over post on attempted Trump assassination appeared first on WPR.

Canines Grainger and Moose sniff out electronic storage devices that hold child exploitation materials.

The post Wisconsin DOJ using specialized canines to help investigate internet crimes against children appeared first on WPR.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trump ‘crusade’ against DACA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One shutdown after another

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

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

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

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

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

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

House hangup

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

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

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

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

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

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

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