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. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The redistricting rush 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dems also talk gerrymandering

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

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

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

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

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

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

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

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

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

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

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

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

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

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

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Detention argument

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shot at Secret Service agent

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

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

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

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

Allen’s lawyers protest jail communications setup

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘I don’t think about it’

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

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

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

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

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

Jennifer Shutt contributed to this report.

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

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

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

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

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

Few policy changes

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

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

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

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

New authorizations needed 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Local food, foreign food aid oversight

The bill does include some new provisions.

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

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

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

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

“Going to make hunger worse”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Immigration enforcement debated

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

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

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

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

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

Democrats also called for federal immigration agents to: 

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

Up to $140 billion

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

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

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

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

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

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

WASHINGTON — State officials say they need more information from the Trump administration before they can fully implement new requirements for Medicaid, according to a survey released Thursday by KFF and the Georgetown University Center for Children and Families.

Republicans’ “big, beautiful” law made several changes to the state-federal health program for lower income people and some people with disabilities, including that enrollees between the ages of 19 and 65 work, participate in community service, or attend an education program for at least 80 hours a month.

The survey of Medicaid program officials from 43 states showed the people tasked with implementing the law have questions about how exactly they should determine if someone meets the new requirements or is exempt. 

“In addition to how to define medical frailty, states wanted additional direction in many areas including what qualifies as community service, how to calculate half-time school attendance, and what is considered a ‘significant relationship’ to qualify for the caregiver exemption,” the report states. “They also indicated they need guidance about what sources can be used for verification, whether self-attestation will be allowed if other sources are not available, and how long verification of exemptions remain valid.”

The law includes several additional carve-outs, including for Medicaid enrollees who are pregnant, have dependent children, are tribal community members or are in the foster care system, and for individuals released from incarceration in the last 90 days, among others.

The vast majority of state officials surveyed said they would implement the new requirement for work, education, or community service at the start of next year.

There are, however, a few states moving forward earlier. 

Nebraska plans to begin May 1, Montana on July 1 and Iowa officials said they will begin this year, though they haven’t provided a date, KFF said. Arkansas has planned a “soft launch” for July but won’t actually remove anyone from Medicaid for not meeting the new requirements until next year, according to the report.

Hardship exemptions

The KFF-Georgetown survey says that nearly all states will allow hardship exemptions for people in counties with higher unemployment; those who recently experienced a natural disaster; those who have been admitted to a hospital or nursing facility; or those who need to travel outside their community for medical care.

Indiana and Iowa are the only two states so far that don’t intend to allow any hardship exceptions from the requirement that Medicaid enrollees work, attend community service, or enroll in an education program, the report said. 

“Oklahoma is not adopting the exceptions for residents of counties with high unemployment or with a declared natural disaster while Missouri is not adopting the exception for residents of counties with high unemployment,” the report says. “New York is not planning to adopt the exception for individuals traveling outside their community for medical care. Twelve states had not made a decision.”

Look-back periods vary

Thirty-six states will look back one month when someone applies for Medicaid to determine whether they’re working, participating in community service, or enrolled in an education program. Indiana and Idaho will look back at the last three months before the person applied to determine whether they meet the new requirement. 

Thirty-four states will look back one month during the renewal process, which must happen at least every six months under the law. 

“Indiana and New Hampshire will check quarterly and at renewal to verify that enrollees meet the requirements every month between renewals,” according to the report. “Arkansas will also look back three months at renewal but is not planning quarterly checks. States that had not made a decision at the time of the survey included five states for application, six states for renewal, and seven states for more frequent checks.”

Economic growth is slowing down nationally and in Wisconsin this year, on top of a year of underperformance in 2025, a national economist for the homebuilding industry said Wednesday.

At a presentation in Madison to the Wisconsin Bankers Association, Robert Dietz said the risk for a recession has risen in 2026, driven in large part by the Iran war and its effect on the price of oil.

Dietz is the chief economist for the National Association of Home Builders, which at the start of 2026 gauged a 30% chance for a recession this year — already a little higher than the average annual risk of 15-20%.

The 2026 Wisconsin Economic Forecast, an annual program, was put on by WisPolitics + State Affairs and  WisBusiness along with the bankers group.

For this year, “we have now raised that to 40% , and you can find plenty of economists that think that recession risk is about 50% or higher,” Dietz said.

Up to now, the economy has been “good, not great,” Dietz said, with annual growth of 2.1% in 2025.

“We expect the economy this year to grow at only a 1.9% growth rate,” he added. “It’s getting awfully close to what we call stall speed at that level, and obviously the run up in oil prices is the big dragging factor that is hurting.”

The national unemployment rate is 4.3% — a point higher than Wisconsin’s rate of 3.3%. With slower economic growth in the picture, his team is forecasting the unemployment rate to rise up to 5% — “not bad, but it is deteriorating,” Dietz said.

Tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump are also impinging on the economy, Dietz added.

“Tariffs change the cost of inputs,” Dietz said, affecting economic sectors ranging from soybeans to manufacturing. “The cost of aluminum in the United States right now is 40% higher than it is in the global marketplace. That is due to tariffs. And I’m a supply-side free market economist — I’m not a big fan of taxes, I’m not a big fan of tariffs. I just don’t think they’re a particularly good way to raise revenue.”

In 2025, U.S. manufacturing lost about 100,000 jobs, “and that was directly attributable to tariffs.”

With the war in Iran and a corresponding spike in the price of oil, inflation has jumped back over 3%, Dietz said.

But for the last three years, more than half of the increase in the consumer price index has been in the cost of housing, including rent and other homeownership costs. Dietz said the homebuilding industry wants to see policies that reduce the cost of construction and increase housing inventory.

Another “caution flag” on the horizon is consumer debt, he said. Mortgage delinquency rates have risen slightly but remain low. Other debt indicators have prompted concern, however.

Delinquency rates are rising on shorter-term loans for seven to nine years. Credit card delinquency rates have gone up, and the average credit card interest rate, 20-25%, is “kind of a yellow caution flag.”

About one in three car owners with unpaid loans has a balance that is more than the car’s market value, Dietz said — echoing the subprime housing loan crisis that helped trigger the Great Recession in 2008.

Student loan delinquencies, however, have gone up to more than 16% — one-and-a-half times their peak in 2013.

“That’s going to have an impact on rental demand” in the housing market, Dietz said. For the borrowers who fall behind, it could endanger their future credit and crowd them out of the home-buying market.

Economic uncertainty persists, and “the cost of that uncertainty” has been declining international investment in 10-year U.S. Treasury bonds, Dietz said. In response to that drop-off, the interest rate paid to investors on those bonds has risen to 4.4% after starting the year at 4%.

“That’s going to have follow-up effects on mortgage rates, real estate development and apartment construction,” Dietz said.

In a follow-up discussion, economist Scott Hodek of the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development and Tim Schneider, president and CEO of Bank Five Nine in Oconomowoc, echoed much of Dietz’s assessment, while observing that Wisconsin overall has been in better shape so far.

Even with some decline in overall jobs and in the labor force over the last year in Wisconsin, “we’ve seen growth in some industries,” Hodek said — notably construction and healthcare. While manufacturing employment has fallen, Hodek said manufacturers still report having jobs to fill, but difficulty filling them.

Wisconsin residents of working age who are younger than 65 and who don’t have jobs are most often people with responsibilities for caring for their children or for the elderly, Hodek said. That means addressing the demand for care as well as other factors that might get in the way of people wanting to join the labor force, he said, because when there’s a mismatch between workers and the jobs available, “you’re going to have folks sitting on the sidelines.”

Schneider said that from his vantage point, Wisconsin’s economy is “in pretty good condition.” Tariff expenses, fuel surcharges as the price of gas goes up and continued concerns about finding workers complicate that picture, he added.

Immigrant workers remain important in industries ranging from dairy farming to construction, he said.

“I think we need to figure that out at the federal level,” Schneider said. “And I’ve talked to our congressional folks and Senate folks about this — both sides just can’t seem to figure it out. I think both want the same thing, but just can’t get it done.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

International Workers Day on May 1 commemorates the great labor struggles of the 19th and early 20th centuries, when workers fought and died for decent wages and working conditions.

The militant energy of the early labor movement, long dormant in the United States, has been making a comeback recently as Americans chafe at economic instability, the destruction of health care and other basic rights and protections, and recoil from a government dedicated to further enriching billionaires at the expense of working people. Add to that the campaign of terror the Trump administration has launched against immigrants who do much of the manual labor in this country and the violent repression of the neighbors who try to protect them, and it’s starting to feel like 1886.

On Friday, May 1, labor unions and immigrants rights groups are coming together to organize mass walkouts in more than 3,000 cities across the U.S. “No work. No school. No shopping” is the tag line for the national campaign, joined in Wisconsin by Madison Teachers Inc., the Southcentral Federation of Labor, and myriad civic groups. 

This week’s protests grow out of “A Day Without Immigrants,” the May Day general strikes that began 20 years ago to oppose Wisconsin U.S. Rep. James Sensenbrenner’s federal bill that proposed making unauthorized presence in the U.S. a crime punishable by mandatory prison sentences. For the first time, in those May Day protests, “you saw largely Latino immigrant, working-class families … with grandparents and baby strollers, coming out in this peaceful wave of mass marches,” recalls Christine Neumann-Ortiz, executive director of Voces de la Frontera, the Milwaukee-based immigrant workers’ rights group. “It really was like an earthquake, and it shelved that terrible bill and put the conversation of immigration reform back on the table.”

This year, national labor unions are showing up for the May Day actions in a big way. That’s inspiring, because it’s clear that massive resistance from a broad, working-class movement is what it’s going to take to stop the brutal repression and outright theft of public resources by the current regime.

“Workers’ rights and immigrants’ rights are the same,” Andy King, managing director of the Fair Immigration Reform Movement (FIRM) said on a May Day press call this week. His group’s May Day demands include no more funding for ICE and Border Patrol, permanent protections and a pathway to citizenship for immigrants, and stopping the construction of megawarehouses for the mass detention of human beings. 

The fear-mongering about immigrants coming from the Trump administration is not an accident, Neumann-Ortiz said during the same call. “It’s a strategy to divide us, to scapegoat and to distract from the real challenges working families face, and in particular, the growing control of our economy by billionaires.” She talked about the heartbreaking case of Elvira Benitez, a mother of three from Sheboygan Falls, Wisconsin, who was arrested by ICE during a routine check-in after she was approved for a green card. Now she’s sitting in detention in Kentucky, and her youngest daughter is under medical supervision for suicidal thoughts related to the traumatic experience of being separated from her mom, Neumann-Ortiz said.

She also highlighted the case of Salah Sarsour, president of the Islamic Society of Milwaukee, a legal permanent resident, who was detained by ICE in what appears to be a retaliatory arrest for his political speech defending Palestinian rights. 

A secretive police agency that whisks people away in order to silence dissent should worry all of us. “And these are not isolated cases, as we know,” Neumann Ortiz said. “It’s a system.”

Deaths in ICE custody have hit a new record since the beginning of Trump’s second administration. Yet the federal government plans to expand warehouse detention to house more than 92,000 people. Adriana Rivera of the Florida Immigrant Coalition told reporters on FIRM’s May Day press call, “our state has become ground zero for a system that warehouses human beings for top dollar, makes jokes and merch at their expense, where suffering is hidden and accountability is absent.”

“Shut down these disgusting warehouses and choose a path rooted in care,” she demanded.

What is happening to our country? What will it take to wake people up?

During the same week I listened to activists planning the May Day walkout, my phone rang and an automated voice informed me that Wisconsin U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson was holding an impromptu “telephone town hall” in the middle of a weekday afternoon. I stayed on and listened to Johnson tell his constituents that he favors eliminating the Senate filibuster in order to fully fund the Department of Homeland Security without the guardrails Democrats are seeking for ICE and Border Patrol. We’re living in too “dangerous” a time not to act immediately, Johnson said, and Congress is “too broken” to make these decisions in a deliberative fashion. That’s why, he explained, now that President Trump is in office and Republicans hold a majority, he has switched his position on ending the minority party’s power to filibuster legislation. Johnson wants to get Democrats out of the way to pass the SAVE America Act, which will severely curtail voting rights on the thoroughly disproven theory that undocumented immigrants are voting in large numbers and swaying U.S. elections. 

Johnson listened approvingly to voters on the call who recycled Trump’s Big Lie that Democrats are stealing elections. He expressed his enthusiasm for RFK Jr. and “progress” on his pet issue — getting rid of supposedly harmful vaccines. Some callers expressed anxiety about the Iran war, with Johnson reassuring them that it was going “perfectly.” One woman swore at him and was disconnected. But the most revealing part of the call came when a caller mentioned that a lot of people are worried about health care — a brewing crisis in Wisconsin where 63,000 people are losing Medicaid coverage because of Trump’s cuts and another 20,000 have dropped their Affordable Care Act coverage because of rising premium costs after Republicans refused to renew ACA enhanced tax credits.

The root cause of the problem with health care, Johnson said, is the government’s involvement. 

“Take a look at Amazon, what that private sector competitor has done to deliver products in hours, sometimes at a really low cost. So private sector consumerism works, but we’ve driven consumerism out of healthcare by having somebody else pay for it,”  he said. His solution? “Move to a rational system of catastrophic care plans, and then most of healthcare paid out of pocket with real consumerism.”

Never mind Johnson’s choice to hold up Amazon as a paragon of business, a company that was sued by the Federal Trade Commission for illegally blocking competition, inflating prices using its monopoly power, and stifling innovation. Never mind the multiple lawsuits brought by its drivers for high-pressure, inhumane working conditions and that unfortunate incident in which a warehouse worker died on the floor while his coworkers were allegedly told by management to ignore him and keep production rolling.

Setting all that aside, how many regular voters in Wisconsin agree that the best way to handle crushing healthcare costs is to make them pay out of pocket for every medication, office visit and procedure?

As Trump’s approval ratings reach a new low and gas prices spike, Johnson’s position that you should cover the full cost of your healthcare out of pocket is unlikely to give Republicans a bump.

The problem in our country is that we seem to have lost the class consciousness that animated the labor movement of the Progressive Era.

Instead, today, we have a right-wing populism that purports to defend the interests of blue collar workers but is, in fact, investing in the immiseration of the vast majority of Americans, the theft of their healthcare, their education, their wages and workplace protections, for the benefit of oligarchs like Johnson, who couldn’t care less if people suffer, sicken and die, so long as he remains rich. 

I don’t think people can put up with this for much longer. The inhumane treatment of regular, hardworking people, the pain and waste of the greed-driven regime we are living with should turn the stomach of every American. 

May Day is a sign of hope. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

A Dane County Circuit Court judge ordered the Wisconsin Department of Justice to release its list of about 16,000 law enforcement officers certified in the state. 

The lawsuit was brought by media outlets the Badger Project and Invisible Institute. Police officers in Wisconsin are required to be certified by the state’s Law Enforcement Standards Board. The DOJ has previously released partial versions of the list, arguing that the full database could compromise the identity of officers working undercover. 

Both outlets have frequently written about “wandering cops” who leave departments due to misconduct or abuse only to be hired by another agency. The DOJ list includes a record of cops being fired or resigning in lieu of termination. 

Judge Rhonda Lanford ruled on Tuesday that the DOJ’s argument against releasing the list went against the state’s open records law. 

“When responding to records requests, there is a strong presumption of openness and liberal access to public records,” she wrote.  “[T]he DOJ has not met its burden to show that this is an ‘exceptional case’ warranting nondisclosure.”  The judge concluded that DOJ’s denial “was not the product of a genuine, case-by-case balancing analysis, but rather a habitual denial based on [its] past inability to garner compliance from local agencies.”

Lanford noted that law enforcement officers hold a public position and therefore “necessarily relinquish certain privacy and reputational rights by virtue of the amount of trust society places in them and must be subject to public scrutiny.”

Tom Kamenick, the lead attorney in the lawsuit and founder of the Wisconsin Transparency Institute, said the decision was a win for transparency in Wisconsin government and the requirement that officials must prove real risk of harm when denying an open records request. 

“Courts have ruled time and time again that speculative fears of harm do not justify withholding government records from the public,” Kamenick said in a statement. “Government officials must do more than merely claim that, hypothetically, something bad might happen if the records are released.  Rather, they must show that harm is likely to occur and is sufficiently serious to overcome the presumption of access to government records. DOJ could not do that here.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision gutting the federal Voting Rights Act sent Black Democrats in the U.S. House reeling on Wednesday, as they confronted a new reality where Republicans could gerrymander some of them out of office and limit the ability of Black voters to elect candidates in the future.

Members of the Congressional Black Caucus vowed to fight the court’s decision. They demanded fresh votes on federal voting rights legislation that has languished for several years and urged voters to turn out in the November election.

But facing a Republican-controlled Congress for at least the rest of the year and a Republican White House for at least the next two-and-a-half years, the prospect of major new voting rights legislation becoming law appears slim in the near term.

“It will pave the way for the greatest reduction in representation for Black and minority voters since the years following Reconstruction,” Rep. Terri Sewell, an Alabama Democrat, said of the court’s decision, referring to the post-Civil War period in the South.

Republicans could ultimately secure up to 19 U.S. House seats nationally directly because of the Supreme Court’s decision, according to a projection by Fair Fight Action, a Georgia-based progressive voting rights group, and the Black Voters Matter Fund, which advocates on behalf of Black voters. 

As of Aug. 4, 2025, Congress included 61 Black members of the House, including two delegates, and five senators, according to the Congressional Research Service.

Racial gerrymander

In a 6-3 decision written by Justice Samuel Alito, the Supreme Court ruled that Louisiana’s congressional map was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander because it unnecessarily created a second district where a majority of residents are Black.

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act had previously limited states from using maps that dilute the voting power of minority citizens. Justice Elena Kagan, one of the court’s three liberal justices, wrote in a dissent that the decision would now allow states to dilute the voting power of minority voters without legal consequences.

Republicans welcomed the decision, with many saying race should play no role in redistricting. President Donald Trump, informed about the ruling by reporters and told that it would help Republicans, exclaimed, “I love it.”

Florida lawmakers approved a new map within hours of the opinion. The proposal, offered by Gov. Ron DeSantis earlier this week, seeks to secure four additional House seats for Republicans. DeSantis had invoked the court’s decision, even before it was released, to push lawmakers to pass the new map.

GOP candidates and officials in other states urged state lawmakers to move quickly to redraw maps, even with primary elections approaching. Even if only a small number of states enact fresh gerrymanders this year, the Supreme Court decision will likely trigger another, bigger wave of redistricting over the next two years ahead of the 2028 election.

“The Court rightly acknowledged that the South has made extraordinary progress, and that laws designed for a different era do not reflect the present reality,” Alabama Republican Attorney General Steve Marshall said in a statement.

Rep. Richard Hudson, a North Carolina Republican who chairs the National Republican Congressional Committee, in a statement said the decision “restores fairness, strengthens confidence in our elections, and ensures every voter is treated equally under the law.”

The Supreme Court in 2019 allowed states to redraw maps for political advantage, ruling that federal courts would no longer adjudicate partisan gerrymandering cases. That previous decision, combined with Wednesday’s opinion, offers states a wide berth to draw maps that limit the voting power of minorities if they’re sold as politically necessary.

Bloody Sunday

Sewell represents a district that includes Selma, where the civil rights activist and future U.S. Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., along with other marchers, was beaten by state troopers in 1965 while walking across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in an episode called Bloody Sunday. 

The beatings helped spur Congress to pass the Voting Rights Act later that year — the same law the Supreme Court weakened on Wednesday.

“The court just gave states permission to use partisan gerrymandering as a wholesale excuse to deny Black and minority voters a voice in our democracy,” Sewell said.

In Missouri, the Republican-controlled legislature earlier this year passed a map intended to oust Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, a Democrat who was Kansas City’s first Black mayor. The state Supreme Court is weighing a legal challenge that could keep the map from taking effect before the November election.

On Wednesday, Cleaver in a statement called the opinion “deeply disrespectful of the generations of African Americans and civil rights advocates who gave their freedom, their blood, and even their lives to make it possible.” 

Obama criticizes ruling

Former President Barack Obama condemned the decision as another example of how a majority of the current Supreme Court seems intent on “abandoning its vital role” in ensuring equal participation in American democracy and protecting the rights of minority groups against majority overreach.

“The good news is that such setbacks can be overcome,” Obama said in a statement. “But that will only happen if citizens across the country who cherish our democratic ideals continue to mobilize and vote in record numbers – not just in the upcoming midterms or in high profile races, but in every election and every level.

Several Democrats said Congress should pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, a Democratic-sponsored measure that seeks to restore preclearance — a requirement that states with a history of discrimination obtain federal approval before making voting changes. The Supreme Court effectively halted preclearance in 2013.

The House, under Democratic control, passed the legislation in 2021 but it stalled in the Senate. Democrats could likely pass the bill again if they retake the House in November but would face a likely filibuster again in the Senate. Even if they managed to pass the bill, Trump would be virtually certain to veto it.

Rep. Cleo Fields, a Louisiana Democrat whose district was ruled an unconstitutional racial gerrymander, sought to place the court’s decision in a broader, historical context. 

Looking ahead to midterms

Recalling Louisiana’s Jim Crow past, he said the state used to require individuals to recite the Constitution’s preamble before registering to vote.

“If you tell me I’ve got to jump a certain height, I could probably do that. Tell me I’ve got to run a certain distance, I could probably do that, too. But if you tell me I have to be white to serve in Congress from Louisiana, I can’t do nothing about that — I need some help from my government,” Fields said, adding that’s why Congress needs to pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries called the Supreme Court’s conservative majority “illegitimate” and said the opinion was unacceptable but not unexpected. 

While acknowledging the decision represents a setback, America has an opportunity to mount a comeback in the upcoming election, he said.

Jeffries, who is set to become speaker if Democrats retake the House in November, said one of the chamber’s first actions would be to pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.

“So we can end the era of voter suppression in America once and for all,” Jeffries said.

Jennifer Shutt contributed to this report

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court appeared poised Wednesday to uphold the Trump administration’s efforts to end temporary legal protections for 350,000 Haitians and 6,000 Syrians. 

The decision could also affect several other lawsuits related to what is known as Temporary Protected Status that are pending in lower courts. The suits challenge the Trump administration’s procedures to terminate country protections, which have sharply raised deportation risks for more than 1 million immigrants. 

So far, the Trump administration has ended TPS destinations for 13 countries, out of 17 that were active at the start of President Donald Trump’s administration.

Arguing on behalf of the Trump administration, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer said that federal courts, under the law, cannot review the executive branch’s decision to end or extend a TPS designation.

“They challenge the very kind of foreign policy-laden judgments that are traditionally entrusted to the political branches,” Sauer said of TPS recipients who are suing to remain in the United States. 

But two lawyers, Ahilan Arulanantham, representing Syrians, and Geoffrey Pipoly, representing Haitians, argued that their clients could challenge a lack of proper procedure that then-Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem took in ending those TPS designations. 

That would include not undertaking a review of country conditions before making a determination, the lawyers said.

Most of the questioning came from the three liberal justices, who grilled Sauer and pressed him on Trump’s racist remarks disparaging Haitians.

The conservative justices, who hold a 6-3 majority, asked Sauer only a handful of questions, and seemed skeptical of Arulanantham and Pipoly’s argument, signaling that they may already agree with the Trump administration’s position that the courts cannot review TPS terminations. 

A decision is not expected until June or early July. Both cases would go back to the lower courts to continue on the merits argument. 

But if the Supreme Court agrees with the Trump administration, then TPS holders from Haiti and Syria could be subject to deportation. 

The effort to end TPS designation is part of President Donald Trump’s broader effort to curtail immigration and strip legal status for people, creating thousands of newly unauthorized immigrants in order to subject them to his mass deportation drive.

How TPS works

TPS is a humanitarian program that Congress created in 1990 to allow for temporary protections for nationals who hail from countries deemed too dangerous to return to due to violence, disasters or other extreme circumstances. 

TPS holders must go through vetting to be approved for work permits and legal protections. Each renewal lasts from six to 12 to 18 months. 

Those determinations are up to the Department of Homeland Security secretary, who typically consults with the State Department to evaluate country conditions and determine if the status needs to be extended. Decisions would depend upon whether conditions are still unsafe for a migrant’s return.

Sauer argued that the courts cannot review that final decision, including procedural ones that lead up to it. 

Arulanantham contended that position is a “double edged sword.” Another administration could easily come in and a new DHS secretary could theoretically use TPS to give legal status to immigrants in the country unlawfully, and that decision would not be subject to review by the courts, Arulanantham said.

The TPS holders before the Supreme Court argue that Noem did not consult with the appropriate agencies, such as the State Department, before deciding to end TPS designation. They say she did not follow proper procedure — but they are not challenging that a decision to terminate a country can be reviewed. 

Arulanantham said with Syria, if Noem had reviewed the State Department’s report, which advises people not to travel to the country because of armed conflict, and still decided against renewing protections, that decision is not reviewable. 

“What is reviewable is whether she actually asks anything and gets any information about country conditions,” he said. 

Sauer said that legal argument was “meritless,” because the TPS “statute does not micromanage the degree of consultation with other agencies.”

Justice Amy Coney Barrett pressed Arulanantham why a challenge to the review of how a TPS termination is ended would even matter.

“If it’s just kind of a box-checking exercise, I mean, why would Congress permit review of the procedural aspect, when really what everybody cares about much more is the substance?” she asked.

Arulanantham said it’s “because Congress … and the millions of people who live with TPS, have some faith in government, and they believe that if there is consultation, the decisions will be better.”

He said, “Our view is that even if it comes back like a box-checking exercise, people will at least know that somebody talked to somebody else.”

Trump ‘racial animus’ cited

Pipoly argued that the ending of TPS for Haiti was based on racial animosity toward Haitians, pointing to the president’s own words where he referred to the Caribbean island as a “shithole.” 

“The true reason for the termination is the president’s racial animus towards non-white immigrants and bare dislike of Haitians in particular,” he said. 

Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked Sauer about those comments from Trump. 

“We have a president saying at one point that Haiti is a ‘filthy, dirty and disgusting s-hole country,’ I’m quoting him, and where he complained that the United States takes people from such countries, instead of people from Norway, Sweden or Denmark,” she said. “I don’t see how that one statement is not a prime example of … showing that a discriminatory purpose may have played a part in this decision.”

Sauer argued that none of those statements “mentions race or relates to race,” and instead the president was referring to “problems like crime, poverty, welfare dependence.”

In the lower court that blocked the Trump administration from ending TPS for Haiti, federal Judge Ana Reyes found that there was racial animosity in the government’s decision to end the humanitarian protections. 

This is not the first time Trump has tried to end TPS for Haiti — he did so in his first administration in 2018, but was blocked by the courts.

Haitian workers in the US

The day before Wednesday’s oral arguments, a handful of Democratic lawmakers gathered with domestic care advocates outside the U.S. Capitol to stress the importance of TPS workers. More than 20,000 Haitians work in healthcare, according to the immigration advocacy group FWD.us.

“At this moment, over 1 million people are at risk of being removed from their homes, separated from their families, having their lives uprooted because of Trump’s cruel and unlawful attempt to terminate their temporary protected status,” Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Ayanna Pressley said during the Tuesday press conference. 

Pressley said that thousands of TPS holders serve as essential workers, including one recipient from Haiti who took care of the congresswoman’s mother, who died from cancer.

“It was Haitian nurses who prayed over my mother, who sang songs to my mother, who oiled her scalp lovingly and braided her hair,” Pressley said. “Everyone who calls this country home benefits from TPS, and stands to be harmed by this termination.”

Pressley has led the bipartisan push in the House to approve a measure that would extend TPS for Haiti up to three years. 

Ten Republicans, including one independent who caucuses with the GOP, joined Democrats in approving the bill earlier this month. 

While it passed in the House, the legislation would need 60 votes in the Senate, which is controlled by Republicans. Additionally, if Congress managed to pass the bill, it would likely be rejected by Trump. 

“We are demanding the Supreme Court uphold the law, save lives and protect our communities,” Pressley said. “To send vulnerable families to countries like Haiti, Venezuela and Syria that are enduring horrific humanitarian crises is unconscionable, shameful, unlawful and preventable.”

The suspect in the attack at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner on Saturday night was prepared for a mass casualty event, prosecutors said in a document filed in federal court early Wednesday.

Jeanine Pirro, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, and three assistants in her office signed a memorandum asking a judge to keep 31-year-old Cole Tomas Allen detained as he awaits trial. They said his “actions were premeditated, violent, and calculated to cause death,” and he sought to “express his political opinions through violence.”

“Had the defendant achieved his intended outcome, he would have brought about one of the darkest days in American history,” they wrote. “The defendant traveled across the country with the explicit aim to kill the President of the United States.”

A detention hearing is set for Thursday. Allen is charged with attempting to assassinate President Donald Trump, as well as interstate transportation of a firearm with intent to commit a felony and discharge of a firearm during a crime of violence.

He faces up to life in prison if convicted of attempting to kill the president. Trump, first lady Melania Trump and Cabinet members all safely evacuated the Washington Hilton ballroom.

The document lists a host of weapons, ammunition and other supplies Allen had in his possession at the time of his arrest.

He had a “12-gauge pumpaction shotgun with one spent cartridge in the barrel and eight unfired cartridges in the magazine tube,” the document reads. He carried additional ammunition in a Velcro strapped to his body and in a separate pouch, the prosecutors said. 

He also carried a fully loaded .38 caliber pistol with two additional magazines. 

The document also shows a mirror selfie Allen appears to have taken in his hotel room just before the planned attack. He is fully armed and outfitted in the photo.

The White House Correspondents’ Dinner, dating back more than 100 years, is an annual black-tie event, often attended by the president, that hosts more than 2,000 journalists, administration officials and other guests at the Washington Hilton. 

President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance, House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and members of the Cabinet attended Saturday’s dinner, along with many members of Congress. 

Allen, who traveled by train from Los Angeles to Washington, D.C., prior to the attack, sent a note just prior to attempting to rush the Capital Hilton ballroom, brandishing a gun. 

He did not name Trump but said, “Administration officials (not including Mr. Patel): they are targets, prioritized from highest-ranking to lowest.”

Prosecutors argued his intent was to inflict mass harm and disrupt the government.

“Had the defendant successfully made it into the ballroom, he not only could have killed or injured dozens of people, but he could have destabilized the entire federal government, given the number of high-ranking government officials present,” the Department of Justice said. “The defendant sought to express his political opinions through violence. The Court should consider the identities of the defendant’s intended victims and the significant roles they play in governing this country to assess the nature of the charged offenses.”

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s pick to lead the Federal Reserve was one step closer to the job Wednesday after North Carolina Republican U.S. Sen. Thom Tillis cast the deciding vote to advance Kevin Warsh’s nomination to the full Senate.

Lawmakers on the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs voted 13-11 along party lines to move Warsh to the next step.

The potential turnover at the top of the Fed, which sets monetary policy, comes as Americans see higher costs hit their pocketbooks, particularly soaring prices at the gas pump, as the U.S.-Iran conflict disrupts worldwide energy supplies.

Tillis had withheld his support until the Trump administration announced Friday it would drop what the senator described as a “bogus” investigation of current Fed Chair Jerome Powell.

“It’s no secret that the reason that Mr. Warsh’s nomination could have been held up is because of my concern with the investigation. I want to thank the Department of Justice for the assurances that they gave me,” Tillis, R-N.C., said following the panel’s brief morning session that lasted just under 15 minutes.

“The fact of the matter is, this was based on two minutes of testimony. It was not criminal,” Tillis said of the DOJ’s probe into Powell’s June 2025 testimony to Congress on a major $2.5 billion renovation of the Fed’s Washington, D.C., headquarters.

The committee vote comes after Trump’s sustained verbal attacks on Powell over several months, including numerous public threats to fire the Fed leader if he did not agree to lower interest rates. `

A federal judge last month blocked the administration’s subpoenas to probe the Fed and Powell, citing “a mountain of evidence” that Trump was using the investigation to force Powell’s hand.

The Fed was scheduled to meet Wednesday afternoon to deliver its latest decision on interest rates, possibly the last under Powell, whose term expires May 15.

Inflation, affordability

The committee’s top Democrat, Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, said the vote brings Trump “one step closer to completing his illegal attempt to seize control of the Fed and to artificially juice the economy.” 

Inflation and affordability are emerging as major issues ahead of the 2026 midterm elections that will determine control of Congress. 

Sen. Raphael Warnock, D-Ga., said his constituents in Georgia and beyond “deserve to know that the Fed is on their side, maximizing their chances to keep a good paying job and keeping their lives affordable, not on the side of the president’s poll numbers or his political concerns as we approach the midterm.”

“Fed independence is not theoretical. It matters to the everyday lives of working families,” Warnock said.

According to a Reuters/Ipsos poll taken between April 24-27, 61% of Americans think the U.S. economy is on the wrong track. 

When asked about the costs and benefits of the war in Iran, only a quarter of respondents said they agreed the U.S. military operation was worth it, according to the Ipsos poll.

Americans have watched fuel prices climb in March and April after Iran retaliated against the U.S.-Israeli attacks by choking off the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow maritime passageway where, prior to the war, one-fifth of the world’s petroleum passed.

Gas prices climb

The average price across the U.S. for a gallon of regular gas reached $4.23 Wednesday, not only the highest price point since the U.S. launched operations in Iran on Feb. 28, but also the highest since July 2022, according to GasBuddy.  

Prior to the war, a gallon of regular hadn’t topped $3 all year.

A return to normal, free flow in the strait — which was about 140 vessels per day pre-war — appears out of reach at the moment, as Trump announced last weekend his negotiators pulled back again on attending talks in Islamabad.

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth sidestepped a question Wednesday regarding how much longer the war might last, asked by Rep. Chrissy Houlahan, D-Pa., before the House Armed Services Committee.

During the same hearing however, the Pentagon’s Jules Hurst III, acting undersecretary of war who oversees finances, did reveal the war had so far cost the U.S. $25 billion.

While the Fed’s inflation target is 2%, data released at the beginning of April showed prices for all items rose 3.3% over a year ago. The jump was largely driven by a 21% spike in fuel prices from February to March.

The Fed’s so-called “dual mandate” is to maximize employment and stabilize prices. The Fed primarily loosens or tightens the economy by adjusting interest rates — lowering them if the economy lags and inflation is too low, and raising them when inflation becomes too high.

Lisa Cook firing

Warren and Warnock also noted Trump’s ousting in August of Fed Governor Lisa Cook, appointed to the board by former President Joe Biden. The U.S. Supreme Court is reviewing whether Trump exceeded his authority in firing Cook.

Warnock said he was dissatisfied with Warsh’s written responses to additional questions sent after his April 21 nomination hearing before the committee.

“I asked, quote: ‘If President Trump, or any future president, attempts to unlawfully fire you without cause, would you leave the Federal Reserve?’ His response, quote: ‘I will not answer hypothetical questions of this nature,’” Warnock recounted.

“Well, this isn’t a hypothetical question. In fact, the president attempted to fire Governor Cook this in the past year, and the president has repeatedly mused about firing Chair Powell because he won’t bend to his interest rate demands — doing so as recently as two weeks ago,” Warnock said, referring to Trump’s comments during an April 15 Fox Business interview. 

Asked Wednesday afternoon if he thinks Warsh will persuade the Fed’s board of governors to lower interest rates, Trump told reporters, “They should because it’s a good time to lower them. We’re the most prime country anywhere in the world.”

Powell also faced questions Wednesday afternoon.

When asked whether he expects Warsh will remain independent of Trump, Powell said, “He testified very strongly to that effect in his hearing, and I’ll take him at his word.”

Jennifer Shutt contributed to this report.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’ office on Monday invoked an upcoming landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision on the role of race in drawing congressional districts to justify the Republican’s proposed gerrymander.

“The use of race in redistricting should never happen,” the governor’s general counsel, David Axelman, wrote in a memo unveiling a map that aims to hand Republicans four additional U.S. House seats in Florida.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court delivered an opinion sharply weakening a major portion of the federal Voting Rights Act.

Even before the decision, Republicans and Democrats across the country were scrambling to get ahead of the court’s anticipated ruling. 

The rush comes even as state legislative sessions wind down and the window to redraw maps rapidly closes ahead of the midterm elections in November — likely pushing most redistricting battles into the 2028 election cycle.

The opinion in the case, Louisiana v. Callais, could reverberate for decades. The court’s conservative majority significantly curtailed the consideration of race when drawing legislative maps. 

Until now, Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act has limited states from using maps that dilute the voting power of minority citizens.

“If the Supreme Court does decide to gut or significantly weaken Section 2 of the VRA, we’re very concerned that it would give, basically, the green light to states to racially gerrymander,” Michael McNulty, policy director at Issue One, a group focused on protecting American democracy, said in an interview ahead of the decision.

Republicans could ultimately secure up to 19 U.S. House seats nationally directly because of the Supreme Court’s decision, according to a projection by Fair Fight Action, a Georgia-based progressive voting rights group, and the Black Voters Matter Fund, which advocates on behalf of Black voters. At the state level, the groups have projected that Republicans could gain up to 200 state legislative seats across the South. 

“It is hard to overstate what an earthquake this will be for American politics,” Rick Hasen, a professor at UCLA School of Law and director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project, wrote in a blog post following the opinion’s release on Wednesday.

Louisiana case

A group of white voters challenged Louisiana’s congressional map as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander after the state in 2024 created a second district where a majority of voters are Black. 

The U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative justices agreed, ruling 6-3 that the map is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander because the state didn’t need to create a second majority-minority district.

In the majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that “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 Elena Kagan, one of the court’s three liberal justices, wrote in a dissent that the Supreme Court has “had its sights set” on the Voting Rights Act for more than a decade.

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

Following the opinion, Republican-led legislatures across the South are expected to move to break apart Democratic districts where a majority of residents are Black or from other minority groups. 

U.S. Sen. Marsha Blackburn, a Tennessee Republican, called on the state legislature to reconvene and redraw the state’s congressional districts to create another Republican-held seat in Memphis. Blackburn, who is running for governor, said an additional seat is essential to cement President Donald Trump’s agenda.

Mississippi Republican Gov. Tate Reeves last week announced a special session to redraw the state’s Supreme Court districts, to begin 21 days after the court releases its decision.

“It is a decision that could (and in my view should) forever change the way we draw electoral maps,” Reeves said in a statement announcing the session.

Although the Supreme Court case centered on Louisiana, state officials are likely out of time to adopt a new map for this year’s election. The primary election is set for May 16.

Still, Louisiana will be free to pursue redistricting next year.

U.S. Rep. Troy Carter, Sr., a Democrat who represents one of the state’s two majority-minority districts, said the court’s decision was a “devastating blow” to the promise of equal representation.

“This ruling is about far more than lines on a map — it’s about whether Black Louisianians will have a meaningful opportunity to make their voices heard,” Carter said in a statement.

The redistricting wars of 2026

As of 2024, roughly a third of U.S. House seats represented majority-minority districts — 122 held by Democrats and 26 held by Republicans, according to estimates by Ballotpedia. Texas and California account for nearly half of all the districts.

Seven states have already taken the extraordinary step of redrawing their maps this year after President Donald Trump urged Republicans to draw lines that maximize partisan advantage ahead of the midterms. Maps are typically redrawn every 10 years after the census.

Texas and California struck first, followed by Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio and Utah. Virginia voters last week approved a redraw, and Florida lawmakers approved a new map Wednesday. 

All told, Republicans may emerge from the redistricting war with a small net advantage of a handful of seats if the Florida plan is enacted and the other maps are upheld.

The calendar will prove a major obstacle to additional gerrymanders this year. Primary elections have already been held in some southern states and ballots have been distributed in others. 

Mississippi, North Carolina and Texas have already held primaries, while ballots have been distributed in Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina. 

But after November the clock resets, giving states more than a year to pursue further changes to their maps before the 2028 election.

“We are much more concerned about the impact on 2028 and beyond that that would have, letting these politicians basically just pick their voters instead of the voters picking them,” McNulty said.

John R. Lewis bill

As Democrats look ahead to Callais’ likely fallout in the coming years, they have begun urgently calling for action in Congress and at the state level. They also say the decision emphasizes the stakes of this year’s elections.

“Today is a devastating day for democracy and a wake-up call for all those who seek to protect it,” Heather Williams, president of the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, said in a statement.

Democrats in Congress have repeatedly offered the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. Named after the civil rights activist and Georgia congressman who died in 2020, the legislation aims to strengthen Section 2 and other elements of the current Voting Rights Act, though it’s unclear whether the bill would be constitutional under the Callais decision.

The U.S. House, under Democratic control, passed the legislation in 2021 but it was filibustered in the Senate. Some lawmakers are speaking about the measure again, and Democrats may take control of Congress in November’s elections—though they would still face President Donald Trump in the White House. 

“We can and must revive the Voting Rights Act,” Rep. Terri Sewell, an Alabama Democrat and the ranking member of the House Administration Subcommittee on Elections, said at a shadow hearing on voting rights on Monday.

For their part, Republicans hailed the Supreme Court decision as long overdue.

U.S. Rep. Richard Hudson, a North Carolina Republican who chairs the National Republican Congressional Committee, in a statement said “activists” for too long had manipulated the redistricting process to achieve political outcomes, dividing Americans in the process.

“The Supreme Court made clear that our elections should be decided by voters, not engineered through unconstitutional mandates,” Hudson said.

Voting Rights Act over the years

Over more than a decade, the Supreme Court has narrowed the potency of the Voting Rights Act, a 1965 law banning racial discrimination in voting that came as Congress battled Jim Crow laws in southern states. 

The measure was intended to help enforce the U.S. Constitution’s 14th and 15th amendments, which guarantee equal protection under the law and prohibit denying the right to vote on the basis of race.

In 2013, the court effectively halted preclearance — the requirement that some states and local governments with a history of discrimination obtain federal permission before changing their voting practices. At the time of the decision, most southern states and a handful of others were subject to preclearance.

The Supreme Court in 2019 ruled that federal courts cannot review allegations of partisan gerrymandering. The decision cleared the way for state lawmakers to gerrymander their maps for political advantage without fear they would be second-guessed by federal judges. 

The opinion helped empower a wave of gerrymanders after the 2020 census and set the stage for this year’s mid-decade redistricting.

Turning to the legislatures

Facing a bleak federal landscape, some voting rights advocates are increasingly turning to state legislatures. The Supreme Court decision undercutting Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act will likely intensify efforts to advance state-level legislation.

“Because political participation is inherently local, it is imperative to press for protections at the ground level,” Todd Cox, associate director counsel at the Legal Defense Fund, a racial justice legal organization, said at the shadow hearing.

Some Democratic state lawmakers already introduced measures in anticipation of an unfavorable Supreme Court decision.

The Illinois House last week approved a state constitutional amendment that would require districts to be drawn “to ensure that no citizen is denied an equal opportunity to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of his or her choice on account of race.”

The Illinois amendment would also require, where practical, the creation of racial coalition or influence districts — terms that refer to districts where racial minorities together constitute a majority of residents. The measure, which must also pass the state Senate before going to voters, was a pre-response to the Callais opinion.

“This will ensure that Illinois will always recognize the fundamental principle that a democracy of the people, by the people and for the people must include all the people,” Illinois Democratic House Speaker Emanuel Welch told reporters after the amendment advanced.

Illinois Republicans have cast the amendment as a Democratic power grab. The state has some of the most gerrymandered maps in the nation, Illinois House Minority Leader Tony McCombie, a Republican, said in a statement. The Princeton Gerrymandering Project has given Illinois’ maps an overall “F” grade.

“Let’s be clear: this has nothing to do with strengthening democracy,” McCombie said. “It’s about locking in one-party control at any cost.”