Blog

Two states are pioneering an innovative strategy to diminish corporate influence and anonymous “dark money” spending in elections, which has flourished since the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision.

Hawaii’s legislature approved legislation on Friday and forwarded it to Governor Josh Green that would restructure the legal definition of corporations to prevent them from participating in election spending. Meanwhile, volunteers in Montana are collecting petition signatures to place a comparable measure before voters this November.

Advocates argue that citizens oppose corporate and undisclosed money in electoral processes, and these initiatives address that concern. Critics contend that states cannot enact legislation to circumvent Supreme Court precedents they oppose.

Comparable bills have been proposed in at least 14 additional states beyond Hawaii, though none have advanced significantly through their respective legislatures.

The Citizens United case originated when the conservative organization sought to air television advertisements promoting its documentary critical of Hillary Clinton during her 2008 presidential campaign. The Supreme Court’s 2010 decision essentially eliminated restrictions on corporate and union electoral expenditures, provided they avoid direct campaign contributions.

This decision has aided both major political parties. According to OpenSecrets, a campaign finance monitoring organization, outside political expenditures exceeded $4 billion during the 2024 federal elections — nearly 12 times the amount spent in 2008.

A portion of these funds originated from dark money organizations that face no donor disclosure requirements. The Brennan Center for Justice calculated a record $1.9 billion in such spending during 2024, with dark money also influencing various state-level contests.

Justin Levitt, a campaign finance law expert at Loyola Law School, suggested that restricting corporate electoral spending might not substantially alter political funding patterns, emphasizing that wealthy individuals like Elon Musk contribute far larger amounts.

Tom Moore, a former Federal Elections Commission attorney now serving as a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, believes Americans support overturning the Citizens United ruling. The Washington, D.C.-based organization advocates redefining corporations to prohibit campaign spending while preserving their lobbying rights.

The restrictions would encompass nonprofit organizations engaged in dark money activities as well.

“This is a genuinely new approach to getting Citizens United out of America’s politics that is based on absolutely foundational corporation law,” Moore stated.

Moore indicated that if even one state implements this approach, it would face judicial scrutiny.

Democratic Governor Josh Green of Hawaii has not announced his position on the legislation. He must declare any veto intentions by June 30.

“This is an instance where a small state has a chance to make big waves on the national scene,” said Democratic state Senator Karl Rhoads, who sponsored the bill. “I think we should take advantage of it.”

Hawaii Attorney General Anne Lopez’s office, led by the Democratic official, opposed the measure, citing concerns about the difficulty and expense of court defense.

In Montana, volunteers are collecting signatures to place the corporate redefinition concept — called The Montana Plan — before state voters in November.

Montana’s Supreme Court decided in April that the initiative could move forward despite Republican Attorney General Austin Knudsen’s assertion that it violates single-subject requirements for ballot measures.

“It really resonates with citizens,” said Jeff Mangan, former Montana state commissioner of political practices who leads the ballot campaign. “They probably see it because they live it.”

Bradley Smith, a Republican former Federal Election Commission member, believes Moore’s proposal will likely fail in court.

“The mistake I think supporters of this are making is thinking you can ignore the substance of a Supreme Court ruling by semantic lawyerly tricks,” Smith explained.

Smith argued that lower courts would probably reject measures designed to bypass Supreme Court decisions and would likely dismiss laws that connect general government services to recipient behavior.

Should these measures become law, Smith suggested corporations might exit states rather than limit their political activities.

Loyola’s Levitt expressed uncertainty about the effort’s success but knows who would make the final determination.

“The one thing I am absolutely sure of is if it got the signatures and is passed by the Montana public and is approved by the Montana courts, that the Supreme Court will want a crack at it,” Levitt noted. “There are a lot of steps between here and there.”

OMAHA, Neb. — Democratic voters in Nebraska will decide Tuesday which candidate gets the chance to compete for a crucial congressional seat that plays an outsized role in presidential elections.

The contest centers on Nebraska’s 2nd District around Omaha, where retiring Republican Representative Don Bacon has held office. This district draws national attention because Nebraska splits its electoral votes, unlike most states, creating what political observers call a “blue dot” in an otherwise Republican state.

Since 2008, Democratic presidential candidates have captured this district’s electoral vote three times out of five elections, making it a key battleground every four years.

Tuesday’s Democratic primary features three leading candidates: state Senator John Cavanaugh, activist Denise Powell, and district court clerk Crystal Rhoades. On the Republican side, Omaha City Council member Brinker Harding runs without opposition, having secured former President Donald Trump’s endorsement.

Cavanaugh has faced criticism from multiple directions throughout the campaign season.

Fellow Democrats worry that his congressional victory could backfire for the party. Their concern stems from the fact that Nebraska’s Republican governor would select Cavanaugh’s replacement in the state legislature, potentially giving GOP lawmakers additional power.

This strategic concern has dominated primary discussions more than traditional policy debates.

Critics within his own party focus less on Cavanaugh’s political positions and more on potential consequences of his departure from state government.

Campaign materials from opposing candidates and supporting organizations have saturated local media with warnings about what might happen if Cavanaugh advances. They argue that a Republican replacement could help pass conservative legislation on abortion restrictions and transgender issues.

Some Democrats also fear that additional Republican legislative strength could enable redistricting changes or eliminate Nebraska’s split electoral vote system. State Republicans attempted unsuccessfully in 2024 to switch Nebraska to a winner-take-all electoral system like 48 other states.

A television advertisement from the New Democrat Majority super PAC warns: “Our Blue Dot. We fought hard for it. But if John Cavanaugh goes to Congress, it could all fall down.”

EMILY’s List, which supports female candidates nationwide, has backed Powell’s campaign while describing Cavanaugh’s candidacy as “a gift to MAGA Republicans.”

Republican organizations have distributed materials suggesting Cavanaugh aligns with Trump’s positions, including manipulated images showing the two politicians together.

“Clearly, the Republicans know that I’m the strongest general election candidate,” Cavanaugh responded. “And so they’re trying to hurt me.”

Former Nebraska Democratic Party executive director Paul Landow believes the attacks indicate both parties view Cavanaugh as the most electable candidate in November.

Landow dismissed concerns about the “blue dot” as misleading, pointing out that Republicans already hold a filibuster-proof legislative majority but still struggle to pass controversial measures due to internal opposition. He also noted that Democrats could gain legislative seats in upcoming elections.

“There’s so many things that have to fall into place for this alleged danger to the ‘blue dot,’” Landow explained. “It’s just wild speculation.”

While Democratic candidates share common ground opposing Trump administration policies on immigration, healthcare, and military actions, tensions have escalated as primary day approaches.

Campaign spending data from AdImpact shows candidates and allied groups have invested over $2.6 million in television and digital advertisements since January, with most funding supporting Cavanaugh and Powell.

Cavanaugh’s campaign has spent approximately $375,000 on advertising, while Powell’s campaign invested $345,000. However, outside groups supporting Powell have significantly amplified her message.

Powell helped establish Women Who Run Nebraska, a political action committee supporting progressive female candidates, and brings ten years of Democratic activism experience. Despite never holding elected office, she believes her community connections appeal to independent and third-party voters, who comprise nearly 30% of district residents.

“My name recognition has increased dramatically,” Powell stated, adding that “people are really connecting with my message.”

Rhoades brings two decades of public service experience and a track record of managing successful local Democratic campaigns, including Omaha Mayor John Ewing’s upset victory over a longtime Republican incumbent last year. Although she has raised less money than her competitors, Rhoades has deliberately avoided television advertising in favor of direct voter contact through door-to-door campaigning.

Both Powell and Rhoades have emphasized concerns about Democratic influence declining if Cavanaugh wins the congressional nomination.

Tuesday’s primary winner will enter a challenging general election campaign. Trump carried the district in 2016, and Bacon, despite conflicts with Trump, has successfully defended the House seat through five terms.

The ballot also includes a U.S. Senate race where Republican incumbent Pete Ricketts seeks a full term after his 2023 appointment and 2024 special election victory replacing Ben Sasse.

Ricketts confronts four Republican primary opponents but anticipates facing independent candidate Dan Osborn in the general election. Osborn, an industrial mechanic and military veteran, came within seven points of defeating Republican Senator Deb Fischer in her 2024 reelection campaign. Democratic primary candidates include William Forbes and Cindy Burbank.

In the gubernatorial race, Republican Governor Jim Pillen faces five primary challengers, while former state Senator Lynne Walz competes against frequent candidate Larry Marvin for the Democratic nomination. Marvin has previously sought the U.S. Senate four times since 2012.

The Missouri Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday regarding a legal challenge to new congressional boundaries, marking one of the earliest redistricting victories for former President Donald Trump. Meanwhile, legislators in Louisiana and South Carolina are deliberating whether to join other Republican-controlled states in redrawing U.S. House maps before November’s midterm elections.

The nationwide redistricting fight that started 10 months ago has grown more intense as Election Day approaches. A recent Supreme Court decision that weakened federal Voting Rights Act protections has given states new grounds to attempt eliminating districts with significant minority populations.

Following Texas, Missouri became the second GOP-led state to respond to Trump’s call for congressional map changes aimed at helping Republicans secure more House seats. The Missouri Supreme Court is examining whether the revised districts meet state constitutional requirements for compactness and if they can stay in effect for this year’s elections despite a petition drive demanding a public vote.

South Carolina Republican lawmakers face a strategic decision about whether redrawing their state’s only Democratic-controlled district could lead to complete Republican dominance or potentially backfire by creating more competitive races for Democrats. State senators must determine whether to consider a redistricting proposal from the House after the legislative session concludes Thursday.

Louisiana is also reviewing congressional redistricting following a Supreme Court decision that struck down a majority-Black district as illegal racial gerrymandering. The state has already delayed its May 16 congressional primaries, with the number of seats Republicans will target during redistricting still uncertain.

Alabama is also preparing to modify its congressional districts for this year’s elections after the U.S. Supreme Court Monday reversed an order requiring the state to use a map containing two predominantly Black districts.

GOP strategists believe they could secure up to 14 additional House seats through new maps already approved in Texas, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Florida and Tennessee. Democrats anticipate gaining six seats from revised maps in California and Utah. The Virginia Supreme Court recently blocked a redistricting attempt that might have created four more winnable Democratic seats.

A South Carolina House committee was scheduled to consider Tuesday whether to advance a congressional redistricting proposal for full chamber debate. The House also appears ready to approve legislation potentially moving the June 9 congressional primaries to August, allowing time for new district implementation, despite some absentee and military ballots already being submitted.

Any redistricting effort must also pass the Senate, where support remains uncertain. Two-thirds of senators must agree before Thursday’s regular General Assembly session ends to permit later legislative action on redistricting.

Trump posted on social media Monday that he was monitoring the redistricting vote closely, encouraging South Carolina senators to “be bold and courageous” and postpone House primaries to enable new district creation.

Despite having a supermajority, several Republican senators doubt the proposed map guarantees GOP victory in the seat held by veteran Democratic U.S. Rep. Jim Clyburn. They worry that relocating enough Democratic voters to other districts could backfire, potentially resulting in a 5-2 or even 4-3 Republican advantage.

Some senators also question the fairness of Republicans controlling all seats in a state where Democratic presidential candidates have received at least 40% of votes in every election this century, regardless of Trump’s endorsement of the new map.

Republican State Sen. Caleb Kleinpeter, who leads Louisiana’s Senate redistricting committee, said his panel plans to vote Tuesday on a U.S. House map, with full Senate consideration expected Thursday.

The committee is reviewing multiple options, including versions that would favor Democrats in just one district or none at all. Kleinpeter indicated that a map eliminating all majority-Black districts would face significant court challenges.

Last Friday, dozens of people urged lawmakers to preserve two majority-Black districts during an exhausting nine-hour hearing featuring civil rights advocates and the only four Black congressmen elected to represent Louisiana since Reconstruction ended.

Missouri’s current U.S. House delegation includes six Republicans and two Democrats under a map the Republican-controlled legislature created following the 2020 census. With Trump’s support, Republican state leaders adopted new boundaries last September designed to improve their chances of capturing an additional seat by targeting a Kansas City district represented by longtime Democratic U.S. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, the city’s first Black mayor.

The revised House map divides portions of Kansas City among neighboring Republican districts while extending the remainder of Cleaver’s 5th District eastward into heavily Republican rural territory. A state judge in March dismissed claims that the map violates constitutional compactness standards, determining that the new districts are more compact on average, even though the 5th District individually is not. That ruling was appealed to the state Supreme Court.

A second case also argued Tuesday before the state Supreme Court claims the new districts should have been automatically halted in December when opponents submitted over 300,000 petition signatures demanding a statewide referendum.

However, Republican Attorney General Catherine Hanaway and Republican Secretary of State Denny Hoskins argue the new districts can only be suspended if and after Hoskins confirms the petition meets constitutional standards and contains sufficient valid signatures. Hoskins has until August 4, Missouri’s primary election date, to make that determination.

A state judge in March sided with the Republican position while also ruling that plaintiffs lacked standing to sue and had filed prematurely.

WASHINGTON — The White House announced Monday evening that President Donald Trump will undergo medical and dental examinations on May 26 at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, marking his fourth documented healthcare visit since returning to the presidency.

The scheduled appointment comes as routine annual preventive care for Trump, who will celebrate his 80th birthday next month and holds the distinction of being the oldest individual ever elected to the U.S. presidency, according to the White House statement.

Public attention surrounding the president’s wellness has intensified significantly, leading Trump to express regret about previous medical imaging procedures. He stated that last year’s heart and abdominal scans generated unwanted speculation about his physical condition.

Despite frequently criticizing former President Joe Biden over age-related health concerns, Trump has recently emphasized his vitality. During Monday’s Oval Office gathering, he remarked about his well-being. “I feel literally the same,” Trump stated, referring to how he felt five decades ago. “I don’t know why. It’s not because I eat the best foods.”

The president also made light of his fitness routine last week, joking that his daily exercise consists of “like about one minute a day, max.”

Presidential administrations maintain broad authority over medical information disclosure to the public. Following Trump’s April 2025 annual examination, his physician declared the president “fully fit” for his commander-in-chief responsibilities.

Navy Captain Sean Barbabella, Trump’s doctor, noted the president had lost 20 pounds since his 2020 medical evaluation, which had indicated he was approaching obesity levels.

Several months following the April visit, Trump required additional medical attention after experiencing what White House officials characterized as “mild swelling” in his lower extremities. The White House medical team diagnosed chronic venous insufficiency, a typical condition among elderly individuals that causes blood accumulation in leg veins.

During that period, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt also explained visible bruising on Trump’s hands, which has occasionally been concealed with cosmetics. Leavitt attributed the marks to skin irritation from extensive handshaking and aspirin usage. Trump regularly takes aspirin as a preventive measure against heart attacks and strokes.

Trump subsequently underwent an October medical evaluation that the administration labeled a “semiannual physical,” during which he received his annual influenza vaccination and COVID-19 booster shot. He later disclosed to The Wall Street Journal that he had comprehensive heart and abdominal imaging performed in October for preventive screening purposes.

During his initial presidential term, Trump completed at least four medical examinations while in office, excluding his Walter Reed hospitalization for COVID-19 treatment in October 2020.

The upcoming dental portion of his examination follows two recent visits to a dental practice located near his Florida residence, where the president frequently spends weekends.

The May 26 medical appointment is set to occur approximately 10 days following Trump’s anticipated return from a diplomatic summit in Beijing with Chinese President Xi Jinping.

Virginia Republican Representative Jen Kiggans is facing mounting pressure to step down after endorsing comments made by a radio host who used racially offensive language when discussing House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries.

The controversy began during Kiggans’ appearance on “Richmond’s Morning News” when conservative radio host Rich Herrera made inflammatory remarks about Jeffries, the first Black American to lead a congressional party.

“If Hakeem Jeffries wants to be involved in Virginia politics, then I suggest he does what a bunch of New Yorkers are doing. Leave New York, move down here to Virginia. Run for office down here, you can represent us. If not, get your cotton-picking hands off of Virginia,” Herrera stated during the broadcast.

Kiggans, who serves Virginia’s 2nd Congressional District, responded by saying: “That’s right. Ditto, yes, yes to that.”

The phrase “cotton-picking” carries deeply offensive historical connotations tied to America’s slavery era, when enslaved individuals were forced to harvest cotton on plantations.

Following widespread backlash, Kiggans attempted to clarify her position through a statement posted on X, explaining her intent while distancing herself from the host’s word choice.

“The radio host should not have used that language and I do not – and did not – condone it. It was obvious to anyone listening that I was agreeing Hakeem Jeffries should stay out of Virginia,” her statement read.

As of Monday evening, Jeffries had not publicly responded to the incident.

Several prominent Democrats have called for Kiggans’ resignation, including House Minority Whip Katherine Clark and California Governor Gavin Newsom.

Clark condemned the incident on social media, stating: “Now they are using brazenly racist language to attack Black leaders.”

Newsom’s office issued a statement declaring: “Every Republican should be denouncing this racist statement.”

Virginia Democratic state Senator Aaron Rouse expressed his outrage in a formal statement, saying: “I am deeply appalled by anyone who promotes this rhetoric. We are no longer enslaved on plantations. We now hold positions of power our ancestors fought for.”

The incident occurs amid intense political battles in Virginia, where Republicans maintain narrow control of both chambers of Congress heading into this year’s midterm elections.

Virginia has become a key battleground in the ongoing redistricting disputes that began under former President Donald Trump’s administration.

On April 21, Virginia voters initially approved new Democratic-drawn congressional boundaries in a special election that could have shifted four Republican House seats to Democratic control.

However, the state Supreme Court invalidated those results on May 8, siding with Republican challengers who argued that Democratic legislators failed to follow proper procedures when creating and placing the referendum on the ballot.

Virginia Democrats responded Monday by petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court to restore the congressional map they believe will improve their prospects in November’s midterm contests.

A California mayor has stepped down from office after agreeing to plead guilty to federal charges for secretly working as a propaganda agent for the Chinese government, federal prosecutors announced Monday.

Eileen Wang, 58, who served as mayor of Arcadia, California, resigned from both her city council seat and mayoral position within hours of the charges becoming public. The city, located near Los Angeles, has a large Chinese-American population.

During a brief federal court appearance conducted with a Mandarin interpreter, Wang was released on $25,000 bond while attorneys schedule a future hearing for her formal guilty plea. The charge of acting as an unregistered foreign agent carries a potential 10-year federal prison sentence.

“Individuals in our country who covertly do the bidding of foreign governments undermine our democracy,” stated U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli when announcing the case.

Court documents reveal that Wang admitted to promoting Chinese government propaganda between late 2020 and 2022 while serving on Arcadia’s city council. She helped operate a website called the “U.S. News Center” that appeared to be a legitimate news source for the local Chinese community but actually served as a Beijing government mouthpiece.

Federal prosecutors say Wang followed instructions from Chinese officials to publish pro-China content, including articles that disputed reports of human rights violations against Uyghurs in China’s Xinjiang region. When a Chinese government official praised her work via text message, Wang responded “Thank you leader,” according to court filings.

Wang collaborated with Yaoning “Mike” Sun, 65, whom she previously described as her fiancé and campaign finance adviser. Sun received a four-year prison sentence in February after pleading guilty to similar charges in October 2025.

The case also involves John Chen, described by prosecutors as a high-ranking Chinese Communist Party intelligence official who had personal meetings with Chinese President Xi Jinping. Chen was sentenced to 20 months in prison in November 2024 for related charges.

Wang’s legal team issued a statement saying she “apologizes and is sorry for the mistakes she has made in her personal life.”

City Manager Dominic Lazzaretto clarified that the federal charges relate to “conduct that ceased after Ms. Wang was sworn into office in December 2022” and emphasized that “no city finances, staff or decision-making processes were involved.”

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump is set to travel to Beijing Tuesday for discussions with Chinese President Xi Jinping, asserting that American trade relations with China have become more profitable while downplaying ongoing disputes over critical minerals, tariffs, and cutting-edge technologies like artificial intelligence that threaten to strain ties between the globe’s two economic powerhouses.

The upcoming Beijing meeting represents what could be the initial encounter of four planned discussions this year between the leaders.

“We’re doing a lot of business with China and making a lot of money,” Trump stated recently. “We’re making a lot of money — it’s different than it used to be.”

The gathering focuses mainly on maintaining economic relationship stability, with observers anticipating only minor policy revelations. The trade ceasefire established in October will likely receive an extension, while China may reveal intentions to purchase American soybeans, beef, and Boeing aircraft. American officials have also hinted at establishing a Board of Trade to maintain ongoing economic dialogue between the nations.

According to Brett Fetterly, a managing principal at consultancy The Asia Group specializing in China, some within the Trump administration believe “the outcome that matters more than any set of deliverables is stability and space for continued engagement, both to build domestic resilience and to facilitate future deal-making.”

However, continued engagement represents merely an initial move toward managing U.S.-China competition, as reciprocal tariffs, artificial intelligence and electric vehicle development, and the Iran conflict threaten to destabilize relations.

Contrary to Trump’s profit assertions, China purchased approximately $50 billion less in American goods last year compared to 2022, based on U.S. Census Bureau statistics.

Part of this decline stems from Beijing halting soybean purchases during the previous year’s trade dispute. The Trump administration has expressed clear intentions to support American agricultural and manufacturing sectors by increasing Chinese imports from the U.S., aiming to reduce a trade deficit that reached $202 billion last year.

The United States now imports more products from Taiwan than China, a shift partly driven by the AI competition that has American companies purchasing computer chips and servers from the self-governing territory.

Dating back to Trump’s initial presidency, China also started redirecting U.S.-bound merchandise through other Asian nations, while American businesses moved supply chains for computers and electronics to Vietnam and India.

China’s portion of U.S. goods imports has dropped from 22% when Trump first took office in 2017 to only 7.5% during the first quarter of this year, according to government information analyzed by Chad Bown, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics and co-author of “How to Win a Trade War.”

U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer stated he “highlighted” during an April 30 conversation with Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng the importance of a “new government-to-government Board of Trade.”

Greer suggested the board could enhance trade in products without national security implications. This might include agricultural items, for example, but exclude computer chips or other sensitive technologies.

The proposal could simplify trade dispute resolution and assist American efforts to increase sales to China. It might help avoid a repetition of last year when Trump increased tariff rates on Chinese products by 145% before reaching a truce during an October meeting with Xi in South Korea.

The board would also provide the Trump administration with an alternative to substantial tariff increases, which have created logistical and legal complications. The Supreme Court determined that Trump lacked authority to unilaterally impose many of last year’s tariffs, while his subsequent temporary replacement tariffs were ruled illegal by a federal court last week.

The Trump administration indicates both the U.S. and China would require domestic approval to establish the board that could oversee tens of billions in trade. Administration officials also seek to create an investment forum for discussing financing operations in each country.

The U.S. delegation to China includes approximately 17 CEOs, featuring Tesla’s Elon Musk, Apple’s Tim Cook, and Boeing’s Kelly Ortberg, according to the White House.

In certain respects, Trump’s and Xi’s administrations have been operating at cross-purposes. Trump believes America can maintain its AI advantage, viewing the trade imbalance as the primary challenge to address. However, Xi perceives a world disrupted by climate change and the Iran conflict, developments that could benefit Chinese technologies including solar panels and electric vehicles.

“Washington and Beijing are competing at different levels and different domains, with different theories of victory,” explained Michael Sobolik, a senior fellow focusing on U.S.-China relations at the Hudson Institute, a conservative think tank. “President Trump leveraged tariffs not as a weapon against China but as leverage to secure a trade deal. Xi Jinping is angling to win a cold war with the United States.”

The U.S.-Israel conflict with Iran is also creating an energy turning point, noted Ali Wyne, a senior research and advocacy adviser on U.S.-China relations at the International Crisis Group.

The Trump administration expects the world to continue depending on oil and natural gas, while China views price increases following energy shipment disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz as supporting a green energy shift that benefits its industrial approach.

“The structural frictions between the United States and China, they are growing in number and severity,” Wyne observed.

Multiple potential tensions could easily disrupt optimistic friendship discussions, questioning whether meaningful summit progress is possible on issues including:

— China’s control over most rare earth mining and nearly all processing for these minerals essential to electronics. The Trump administration is working to develop domestic rare earth production through new partnerships and company investments, a strategy requiring several years to implement.

— The U.S. effort to restrict China’s access to the most sophisticated computer chips. These processors, created by companies like Nvidia and AMD, possess the computational capability to advance AI development.

— China’s automotive manufacturing dominance. Its global vehicle exports rose 21% last year, according to the China Association of Automobile Manufacturers. China can offer EVs at significantly lower prices than manufacturers in the U.S., Germany, Italy, Japan, and South Korea.

— Tariffs. Following the Supreme Court’s rejection of Trump’s tariffs, the administration initiated national security investigations under Trade Act of 1974 provisions to impose new tariffs based on excessive industrial capacity and efforts to prevent forced labor that could potentially survive legal challenges.

— U.S. sanctions on a Chinese oil refinery and numerous tankers and shipping companies for participating in Iranian oil transportation. Beijing responded to the earlier this month action by demanding non-compliance with U.S. penalties against Chinese enterprises. The countries are also competing over Panama Canal management.

A district court judge in Montana has stopped the state from implementing new restrictions on Election Day voter registration, finding that the limitations would unfairly impact Native American and younger voters.

The court decision blocks enforcement of legislation passed by Montana’s Republican-led Legislature last year that would have prohibited people from voting in federal elections if they registered after 12 p.m. on Election Day. This marked the second attempt by state lawmakers in five years to eliminate same-day voter registration.

District Judge Adam Larsen issued the temporary order on Friday, which will stay in place until a full trial can be held on a lawsuit brought by the Montana Federation of Public Employees and several Native American tribes, including the Blackfeet and Northern Cheyenne. The trial is scheduled for late August, well after the state’s June 2 primary elections.

Writing from the county that includes Helena, the state capital, Larsen observed that same-day registration has become “wildly popular” among Montana voters. The state has permitted Election Day registration since 2006, and when given the chance to eliminate it through a ballot measure in 2014, 57% of voters chose to keep it.

“The undisputed record demonstrates that a substantial number of Montana voters rely on Election Day registration, including during afternoon hours,” Larsen wrote. “The record further establishes that some voters will be unable to register prior to noon due to work schedules, travel constraints, polling place hours or unforseen registration issues.”

Officials from Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen’s office said they were disappointed with the court’s decision.

“Unrestricted voter registration on Election Day puts a undue burden on Montana’s election administrators who have very important jobs ensuring our elections are secure and run smoothly,” spokesperson Chase Scheuer said in an email.

However, Judge Larsen dismissed the state’s claim that the new law would simplify election administration, pointing out that local officials would need to handle federal elections differently from state and local contests.

The judge noted that Montana requires polling locations serving at least 400 voters to operate from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. on Election Day, while smaller polling sites don’t have to open until noon.

Larsen determined that Native American voters encounter “unique barriers” when trying to vote, such as lengthy travel distances and limited transportation options. He also found that students and other young voters struggle with registration due to “scheduling constraints” and because they relocate more often.

Amanda Curtis, who leads the Montana public employees organization, said their legal challenge protected “the fundamental right of every voice to be heard” against “overreaching politicians.”

The lawsuit also contested changes to state law regarding which forms of identification students can present at polling places to register and vote, but Larsen ruled that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate anyone had been denied voting rights because of these requirements. Scheuer stated that these ID changes “bolster the integrity of Montana elections.”

In 2021, the Legislature passed a law that would have ended voter registration at noon the day before Election Day, but the Montana Supreme Court overturned it in 2024, calling it a violation of an “unequivocal fundamental right” guaranteed by the state Constitution. The justices noted that more than 70,000 Montana residents had used Election Day registration since it began.

Prior to lawmakers passing the most recent legislation in 2025, legislative staff issued a memo warning that the proposal might conflict with the Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling.

Kevin Warsh, President Donald Trump’s choice to head the Federal Reserve, successfully passed a critical Senate procedural vote on Monday, advancing his nomination to replace current Fed Chair Jerome Powell, whose term concludes this Friday.

Following Monday’s procedural vote, senators are anticipated to confirm Warsh for his 14-year Fed governor position as soon as Tuesday. After that confirmation, legislators will begin considering his concurrent four-year appointment as Fed chair, with that final vote potentially occurring by Wednesday.

The Republican-majority Senate is widely expected to approve Warsh’s nomination during a period when questions about the central bank’s independence have intensified.

Trump has taken extraordinary steps to influence Fed operations, including attempting to remove Fed Governor Lisa Cook in a matter now pending before the Supreme Court. He also backed a Department of Justice probe into Powell’s handling of a building renovation project, which a federal judge determined was a pretext for pressuring Powell to lower interest rates or step down.

Although the Justice Department discontinued its investigation, the lead prosecutor in Washington has indicated the possibility of reopening it. Powell has stated he will remain in his position until the matter is definitively resolved.

Powell has expressed concern “about the series of legal attacks on the Fed which threaten our ability to conduct monetary policy without considering political factors.” Warsh has remained silent regarding the Trump administration’s actions toward the Fed.

Warsh has announced plans for “regime change” at the Federal Reserve, including strengthening coordination with the Treasury Department and administration on non-monetary matters, while working toward reducing the Fed’s balance sheet.

While Trump has indicated his expectation that Warsh will reduce interest rates, Warsh has maintained that he has made no commitments to Trump regarding monetary policy decisions.

The Fed chair holds one vote among 12 on interest rate decisions and represents one voice among 19 at policy-making discussions.

During their most recent meeting last month, Fed officials voted to maintain the policy rate between 3.50% and 3.75%, with three central bankers dissenting to signal their willingness to consider a potential rate increase.

The Federal Reserve’s upcoming meeting, which would be Warsh’s first as chair if confirmed, is set for June 16-17.

WASHINGTON — Site preparation work commenced Monday for President Donald Trump’s proposed Triumphal Arch in the nation’s capital, marking another step forward for the disputed monument project.

Crews were observed conducting inspections at the planned location situated between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington National Cemetery, using specialized tools and equipment. Sections of the area were cordoned off with fencing, while pink survey markers were placed throughout the grassy terrain.

According to a Thursday court document filed in connection with a federal lawsuit opposing the monument, the current activities involve “surveys and geotechnical testing which are being used to generate information that will assist Defendant National Park Service (NPS) in completing procedural prerequisites” required for the approval process.

Standing at 250 feet tall, the controversial arch represents one of multiple initiatives the Republican president has launched to establish a permanent legacy in Washington. The massive structure could significantly alter the city’s historic skyline, prompting fierce resistance including legal action from military veterans and a historian.

Trump’s arch design has already received preliminary endorsement from the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, an agency staffed with Trump appointees.

The elaborate monument features four guardian lions at its foundation, topped by a Lady Liberty-inspired figure holding a torch and flanked by two eagles — all finished in gold. The inscriptions “One Nation Under God” and “Liberty and Justice for All” would appear in golden letters on opposite sides of the structure.

Neither the White House nor the Public Citizen Litigation Group, which represents the four lawsuit plaintiffs, provided immediate responses to requests for comment.

The legal challenge brought by the veterans and historian seeks to halt construction, arguing the arch would interfere with the visual corridor connecting the Lincoln Memorial to Arlington House at Arlington National Cemetery, along with other concerns.

Trump administration representatives stated in their court submission that the National Park Service has not issued final authorization for arch construction, and if such approval occurs, they would provide a minimum 14-day advance notice before beginning work.

The filing noted that plaintiffs received prior notification about the survey activities and clarified that this preliminary work does not represent “construction, or a demolition in preparation for construction, of an arch.”

The Interior Department has eliminated a regulation that elevated environmental protection to the same status as industrial development, as the Trump administration works to reduce barriers for companies seeking to drill, mine, log, and graze on federally-owned property.

The regulation, implemented in 2024 during the Biden presidency, aimed to reshape how the Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management operates across roughly 10% of America’s territory. The policy enabled public lands to be designated for environmental restoration through the same leasing process used by petroleum companies for extraction rights.

However, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum contended the regulation could have restricted access to hundreds of thousands of acres, hampering energy and timber operations while damaging ranchers dependent on public grazing areas.

Advocates maintained that environmental protection had historically taken a backseat at the land management agency, undermining its responsibilities outlined in the 1976 Federal Lands Policy Management Act. Although the bureau had previously granted conservation leases in select instances, no formal program existed before the Biden era.

Corporate interests and their Congressional Republican supporters vigorously fought against the regulation and campaigned for its elimination. They claimed Biden’s modification violated the “multiple use” requirements for Interior Department properties by elevating the “non-use” of federal territory — referring to restoration leases — to a dominant role.

The government’s extensive land portfolio is primarily located in western regions including Alaska, California, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming. Following his inauguration, Trump has launched numerous initiatives designed to increase fossil fuel extraction from these publicly-owned areas. The Republican leadership has also moved to diminish certain clean energy projects, alleging they received unfair government support during Biden’s tenure.

The formal elimination of the regulation was set for publication Tuesday in the Federal Register, with supporting documents released beforehand.

This development follows Congressional Republicans’ recent cancellation of land use strategies implemented during Biden’s final weeks that limited development across extensive portions of Alaska, Montana and North Dakota.

Beyond its surface territory, the Bureau of Land Management controls publicly-owned subsurface mineral deposits — including coal for electrical generation and lithium for clean energy applications — spanning over 1 million square miles. The agency has traditionally maintained industry-supportive policies and has distributed grazing rights and oil and gas permits for more than 100 years.

WASHINGTON — In a Monday decision, the nation’s highest court opened the door for Alabama to eliminate one of its two congressional districts where Black voters make up the majority, potentially handing Republicans another House seat as both parties fight for control of the narrowly divided chamber ahead of November’s midterm elections.

The ruling comes after the Supreme Court decided in April to strike down Louisiana’s majority-Black House district, calling it an unconstitutional racial gerrymander and significantly undermining a key section of the federal Voting Rights Act.

Alabama state leaders referenced the Louisiana ruling when asking the Supreme Court to end a judicial mandate requiring the use of a court-ordered House map through the 2030 census. The justices granted that request and instructed a lower court to review the Alabama case considering the Louisiana precedent. This action may allow Alabama to implement a 2023 map created by its Republican-controlled legislature that contains just one district with a Black majority population.

Expecting this court reversal, Alabama lawmakers recently passed legislation permitting the state to cancel results from a May 19 primary in certain congressional districts and conduct a new primary using different district lines. Republican Governor Kay Ivey will determine when to schedule the special primary election, which must take place by August.

In her dissenting opinion to Monday’s brief decision, Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted that the Louisiana case only reversed one basis for the Alabama ruling. While the Voting Rights Act violation may be eliminated, Sotomayor argued that a lower court might still determine Alabama deliberately discriminated against Black voters, violating the 14th Amendment.

Alabama joins multiple states attempting to modify their congressional district maps before November’s elections in a nationwide redistricting fight that Republicans are currently winning.

Congressional districts are normally redrawn every ten years following the census to reflect population shifts. However, former President Donald Trump encouraged Texas Republicans last year to redraw districts in their favor to maintain a slim House majority in the midterms.

California Democrats responded with their own redistricting efforts, and many Republican-controlled states have followed suit. The Supreme Court’s Louisiana decision gave Republicans additional momentum for their redistricting campaigns.

Republicans believe they could secure up to 14 additional seats in November’s elections through new districts created in Texas, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Florida, and Tennessee. Democrats estimate they could gain up to six extra seats from new districts in California and Utah. However, Democrats faced a significant blow when Virginia’s Supreme Court struck down a voter-approved redistricting amendment that might have delivered four more seats for their party.

WASHINGTON – The nation’s highest court gave Alabama Republicans the green light Monday to move forward with congressional district boundaries that favor their party for this November’s elections, marking another significant development following the court’s major decision on voting rights.

The Supreme Court justices overturned a federal court ruling that had prevented state GOP officials from implementing their preferred redistricting plan, which lower courts had determined discriminated against voters based on race and weakened the electoral influence of Black residents in Alabama.

Officials in the conservative Southern state are anticipated to return to their earlier proposed map, which would reduce districts where Black voters make up a majority or close to a majority from two down to just one among Alabama’s seven congressional seats.

President Trump announced Monday his selection of David Cummins to lead the Transportation Security Administration following challenging months when the agency struggled with unpaid workers and extended wait times at airports nationwide.

The nominee previously served as a senior vice president with Serco, a contracting firm that partners with government agencies at various levels. If confirmed, Cummins would inherit leadership of an agency still recovering from the historic government shutdown that concluded in recent weeks.

Throughout the shutdown, TSA workers under current acting administrator Ha Nguyen McNeill faced periods without compensation, resulting in massive absenteeism and hundreds of resignations. The staffing crisis created significant delays for air travelers and sparked political debates over responsibility for the Department of Homeland Security closure.

According to what appeared to be his LinkedIn page before it was removed, Cummins brings transportation expertise from his time at Serco and claims co-ownership of “a dozen patents in transportation systems.” The profile also highlighted his role as operations director for the 2002 Winter Olympics held in Salt Lake City.

Serco representatives have not yet responded to requests for comment regarding Cummins.

President Donald Trump announced Monday his selection of Cameron Hamilton to head the Federal Emergency Management Agency, marking an unexpected return for the ex-Navy SEAL who lost his temporary leadership position last year for supporting the agency’s continued existence.

The nomination signals a shift in the Trump administration’s approach toward FEMA, moving away from earlier discussions about eliminating the disaster response agency that has faced sharp criticism from the president. Hamilton’s selection, particularly given his previous stance against dismantling FEMA, suggests this policy reversal is gaining momentum.

Should the Senate confirm Hamilton, he would serve as Trump’s primary emergency management advisor alongside Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin, becoming FEMA’s first permanent director during Trump’s second presidency. The agency has cycled through three interim leaders, including Hamilton’s short stint from January through May 2025.

Hamilton would inherit an agency struggling under the aftermath of Kristi Noem’s controversial tenure leading the Department of Homeland Security, FEMA’s parent organization. The emergency management agency has been weakened by widespread employee departures, restrictive operational policies, and a 75-day government shutdown that concluded April 30.

With disaster season approaching rapidly, Hamilton faces the immediate challenge of preparing the agency while implementing the extensive reforms Trump expects, following recommendations from a presidential council released last Friday.

“Now is the opportunity to stabilize FEMA,” said Michael Coen, the agency’s chief of staff in the Obama and Biden administrations.

When Trump initially appointed Hamilton as interim director in January 2025, the choice sparked controversy given his lack of state or local emergency management experience and his previous public criticism of FEMA. The appointment came just days before Trump publicly considered “getting rid” of the agency entirely.

Hamilton’s conflict with DHS leadership emerged when he advocated for maintaining federal disaster assistance to states, tribes, and territories.

“Once the conversation shifted to, ‘Now we’re going to abolish,’ I immediately expressed concern,” he said last September on the “Disaster Tough” podcast with John Scardena, a former FEMA incident management team leader.

DHS officials even administered a polygraph examination to Hamilton, alleging he and other staff leaked confidential meeting information. Though he passed the test, Hamilton recognized his termination was approaching.

During a May 7 House Appropriations subcommittee hearing, Connecticut Democrat Rep. Rosa DeLauro questioned Hamilton about FEMA’s future.

“I do not believe it is in the best interest of the American people to eliminate the Federal Emergency Management Agency,” he responded. His dismissal came the following day.

Hamilton’s willingness to defend FEMA despite knowing the personal cost earned him credibility among emergency management professionals, according to Scardena, who now leads the consulting firm Doberman Emergency Management Group.

“He won myself over and I think a lot of people by what he did,” Scardena said.

However, several current FEMA staff members, speaking anonymously due to fears of workplace retaliation, expressed concerns to The Associated Press about certain decisions made during Hamilton’s leadership.

In 2024, Hamilton amplified false information on social media platform X regarding FEMA’s Hurricane Helene spending.

Under his temporary leadership, FEMA eliminated door-to-door outreach efforts to connect with disaster survivors and terminated a multi-billion-dollar resilience grant program, later reinstated by court order. The Department of Government Efficiency received access to FEMA’s internal systems containing survivors’ personal data. Staff members faced termination for processing approved reimbursements to New York City for housing undocumented immigrants through FEMA’s Shelter and Services program.

Hamilton has advocated for significant FEMA restructuring, arguing the agency should operate more efficiently, shed responsibilities he considers beyond its scope, and reduce some states’ reliance on federal assistance. A Trump-appointed advisory council recently proposed comprehensive FEMA changes requiring congressional approval.

“I think he’s going to need to rebuild trust across the agency,” said Deanne Criswell, FEMA administrator under former President Joe Biden, adding that she believes Hamilton cares about FEMA and she appreciated his outreach to emergency management directors and former officials during and after his tenure.

Hamilton may encounter Senate confirmation challenges due to his lack of emergency management agency leadership experience, typically considered essential preparation for overseeing an organization with more than 21,000 employees.

Federal statute mandates the FEMA administrator possess “a demonstrated ability in and knowledge of emergency management and homeland security” plus at least five years of “executive leadership and management experience.”

Hamilton’s background includes training as a Navy hospital corpsman followed by a decade serving as a Navy SEAL with SEAL Team Eight. He subsequently worked as a State Department emergency management specialist handling international crisis response before directing emergency medical services at DHS.

A weekend agreement between the Trump administration and National Links Trust has resolved a contentious dispute that threatened to close Washington D.C.’s three public golf courses.

The controversy began when the administration ended a five-decade lease arrangement between the National Park Service and National Links Trust at the close of 2025. The nonprofit organization had been responsible for managing and operating the District’s municipal golf facilities.

The lease termination halted ongoing improvements at Rock Creek Park Golf Course and created uncertainty about the operations of Rock Creek, Langston Golf Course, and East Potomac Golf Links.

Under the new arrangement, National Links Trust will continue managing all three facilities through fresh long-term lease agreements for Langston and Rock Creek courses. Meanwhile, President Trump and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum will directly supervise a redesign project at East Potomac.

Construction work at Rock Creek will restart, and the National Links Trust confirmed in their announcement that all three facilities “will remain open, accessible and affordable for the residents and communities that depend on them.”

The resolution follows a federal court decision that blocked the Trump administration from unilaterally closing East Potomac or beginning renovations without adequate public notification.

“We thank President Trump for reaching an agreement that keeps Washington, D.C.’s three public golf courses open, welcoming and affordable community gathering places for DC residents and all golfers. We look forward to continuing to provide our expertise in operating and managing these beloved and historic courses and to making D.C. proud,” the organization stated.

Trump’s involvement in golf operations extends well beyond his presidency, with ownership of multiple high-profile facilities including Trump National Golf Club Bedminster in New Jersey, which hosted a U.S. Women’s Open, and Trump National Doral near Miami, which recently returned to PGA Tour competition with the Cadillac Championship. LIV Golf events have been held at these venues as well as Trump National Golf Club Washington, D.C., a private facility in Northern Virginia separate from the municipal courses.

Renowned golf course designer Tom Fazio, who has previously collaborated on four Trump golf properties, will lead the East Potomac redesign project. According to Golf Digest reporting, Trump envisions the renovated course as a potential host for major championships or Ryder Cup competition.

Alabama’s top prosecutor has launched a civil investigation into the Southern Poverty Law Center’s fundraising operations following federal criminal charges against the organization.

Attorney General Steve Marshall revealed Monday that his office has issued a subpoena to the civil rights organization, requesting details about its donation practices and payments made to informants. The investigation aims to determine whether the group violated Alabama laws governing charitable organizations or engaged in deceptive business practices.

“We look forward to learning more about the inner workings of an organization that we have long believed was rotten, but until recently, has been impervious,” Marshall stated in a news release.

The Southern Poverty Law Center provided a short response to the state action. “We have received notice of a subpoena and are currently reviewing,” a spokesperson wrote in an emailed statement.

This state-level probe follows the Justice Department’s announcement of criminal charges against the organization, alleging fraud through the use of donated funds to pay informants operating within extremist organizations. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has accused the group of “manufacturing racism to justify its existence.”

The SPLC has rejected these allegations as “provably wrong” and defended its informant operations as intelligence-gathering efforts designed to prevent attacks and disrupt hate group activities. The organization maintains that federal authorities have been aware of these programs and that gathered information has been shared with law enforcement agencies.

The Southern Poverty Law Center, widely recognized for its work monitoring hate groups, has frequently found itself in legal disputes with conservative organizations, the Trump administration, and Marshall’s office. The center has been an outspoken opponent of various Trump administration policies.

WASHINGTON — Democratic Party officials submitted an urgent petition to the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday, seeking to overturn a Virginia court decision that eliminated a ballot initiative potentially worth four additional congressional seats for their party.

The petition follows Friday’s Virginia Supreme Court ruling that invalidated a constitutional amendment voters approved by a narrow margin last month. The state’s highest court ruled 4-3 that the Democratic-led legislature violated proper procedures by initiating the amendment process while early voting was already in progress during Virginia’s fall general election.

Democratic attorneys contended without success that federal Supreme Court precedent establishes that elections don’t officially occur until Election Day, regardless of early voting activity.

This legal challenge represents another development in the ongoing nationwide redistricting battle that began last year when President Donald Trump encouraged GOP-controlled states to redraw their electoral maps. The situation intensified following a recent Supreme Court decision that significantly diminished Voting Rights Act protections.

The Democratic petition faces steep odds, as the Supreme Court typically avoids overruling state courts’ interpretations of their own state constitutions. In 2023, the justices rejected a similar request from North Carolina Republicans seeking to overturn a state court decision that blocked their congressional map.

From a political standpoint, this appeal could benefit a party that has struggled to keep pace with Republican redistricting efforts nationwide, potentially providing ammunition for campaign messaging about Supreme Court partisanship. The court recently permitted Louisiana Republicans to move forward with redistricting after striking down a majority-Black district as unconstitutional racial gerrymandering.

Democrats found themselves at a disadvantage when, shortly after the Virginia ballot measure succeeded, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority overturned decades of precedent and essentially weakened the Voting Rights Act. This decision enabled Southern states to eliminate certain majority-Black districts and strengthen Republican congressional advantages.

The Virginia constitutional amendment originated well before that Supreme Court ruling. It was designed to counter Republican redistricting victories in Texas, Missouri, North Carolina, and Ohio, while offsetting a new Florida map that recently took effect. When the Virginia amendment initially passed, it temporarily balanced the national redistricting competition between both parties.

The Virginia Supreme Court’s decision disrupted that balance. Legislative appointments determine the court’s composition, with control alternating between parties over recent decades, and the court generally lacks a clear ideological reputation.

WASHINGTON — The nation’s highest court has issued a temporary order maintaining current access to mifepristone, a commonly prescribed abortion medication, while justices deliberate on potential new limitations set to begin this week.

Justice Samuel Alito issued Monday’s directive, which ensures women can continue receiving the medication through pharmacies or mail delivery without requiring face-to-face medical appointments. The order blocks federal appeals court restrictions from going into effect temporarily.

This latest reproductive rights battle comes four years following the conservative-majority court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, enabling more than a dozen states to implement near-total abortion bans.

The legal challenge originates from Louisiana’s lawsuit targeting Food and Drug Administration regulations governing mifepristone prescriptions. State officials argue these policies weaken their abortion ban and raise safety concerns about the medication, despite FDA approval in 2000 and repeated scientific validation of its safety and effectiveness.

Federal trial courts determined Louisiana would likely succeed in their challenge, leading a three-judge 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel to rule that mail delivery and remote medical consultations should be halted during ongoing litigation.

Mifepristone is typically combined with misoprostol for medication-based abortions. These procedures represented nearly two-thirds of all U.S. abortions during 2023, according to the most recent available data.

The current legal battle mirrors a similar case from three years prior.

Previous lower court decisions also attempted to limit mifepristone availability through litigation filed by anti-abortion physicians shortly after Roe’s reversal.

The Supreme Court previously prevented the 5th Circuit’s restrictions from taking effect, despite opposition from Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas. The high court later unanimously rejected the physicians’ lawsuit in 2024, determining they lacked proper legal standing to file suit.

Major medical organizations, pharmaceutical companies, and Congressional Democrats have urged the court against restricting drug access in the current case. Industry representatives warned that siding with abortion opponents could destabilize the entire drug approval system.

The FDA has gradually removed various initial restrictions on the medication, including prescriber qualifications, distribution methods, and mandatory safety reporting requirements.

Despite these regulatory determinations, abortion opponents have contested mifepristone’s safety for over 25 years through multiple petitions and lawsuits, consistently claiming the agency violated federal law by ignoring safety concerns.

President Donald Trump’s administration has maintained notable silence at the Supreme Court level, choosing not to submit written recommendations despite federal regulations being central to the case.

The situation creates challenges for Trump’s Republican administration, which depends on anti-abortion group support while facing ballot measures and polling data showing broad American support for abortion rights.

Both legal sides interpreted the administration’s silence as implicit support for the appeals court decision. Alito oversees emergency appeals from Louisiana and authored the 2022 ruling declaring abortion lacks constitutional protection, returning decisions to individual states.

Democratic officials in Virginia have filed an appeal with the nation’s highest court, seeking to restore a congressional redistricting plan that could shift political control in the upcoming midterm elections.

The appeal, submitted Monday, comes after Virginia’s Supreme Court rejected the new electoral boundaries in a narrow 4-3 ruling on May 8. The proposed map had been designed to convert four currently Republican-held congressional seats to Democratic ones, potentially impacting the balance of power in Washington where Republicans maintain slim majorities in both chambers of Congress.

This redistricting battle represents an uncommon mid-decade effort to redraw district lines, departing from the traditional practice of adjusting boundaries only after each ten-year census. The dispute highlights how closely divided Congress has become, with even small shifts in seat allocation carrying significant political weight.

Virginia’s state Supreme Court sided with Republican opponents who challenged the Democratic-supported ballot initiative that voters had approved in April. The court’s majority determined that Democratic legislators had failed to follow required procedures when they expedited the referendum process last year to meet election deadlines.

Don Scott, who serves as the Democratic speaker of Virginia’s House of Delegates, is leading the federal appeal effort. In their Supreme Court filing, the Democratic lawmakers argue that the state court’s decision has “deprived voters, candidates, and the Commonwealth of their right to the lawfully enacted congressional districts.”

The Virginia Democrats are invoking a 2023 Supreme Court precedent that cautioned state courts against overstepping “the ordinary bounds of judicial review” in ways that would undermine state legislatures’ constitutional authority over federal election regulations.

This mid-decade redistricting conflict gives Republicans a strategic edge in the broader national picture. The current fight traces back to efforts initiated by former President Donald Trump, who encouraged Texas Republicans to abandon their existing electoral map and create new district boundaries aimed at capturing up to five seats currently held by Democrats.

Democratic redistricting efforts nationwide have faced additional obstacles following a Supreme Court decision that weakened key protections in the 1965 Voting Rights Act. That ruling, decided by the court’s 6-3 conservative majority, has enabled Republican-controlled Southern states to eliminate districts where Black and Latino voters—who typically support Democratic candidates—held majorities.

The redistricting process typically occurs once per decade, with state legislatures redrawing district boundaries to account for population shifts revealed by the national census. However, this Virginia case represents part of an unusual wave of mid-decade redistricting efforts that could reshape congressional representation before the traditional timeline.

The nation’s highest court has prolonged a temporary freeze on a lower court decision that would have restricted how the abortion medication mifepristone can be obtained by patients across the country.

Justice Samuel Alito announced Monday that the hold will remain in place until May 14, allowing the medication to continue being delivered by mail while the court weighs its next steps.

The Supreme Court is reviewing appeals from two drug manufacturers seeking to overturn a May 1 decision by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. That ruling would have brought back an older rule requiring patients to meet with a healthcare provider face-to-face before receiving mifepristone.

The appeals court had blocked a 2023 Food and Drug Administration regulation implemented during former President Joe Biden’s administration that allowed the medication to be prescribed via telemedicine and sent through the mail.

Pharmaceutical companies Danco Laboratories and GenBioPro challenged the 5th Circuit’s restrictions on mifepristone access. The Supreme Court initially stepped in on May 4 with a temporary hold to allow more time for deliberation.

Medical abortion procedures, which typically involve a combination of mifepristone and misoprostol, represent approximately two-thirds of all abortions performed in the United States. Any limitations on how these medications are distributed could substantially impact access across the nation.

This legal battle brings the divisive abortion issue before the Supreme Court again as November’s congressional elections approach and President Donald Trump’s Republican allies work to maintain their congressional majority.

In 2024, the Supreme Court unanimously turned down an earlier effort by anti-abortion organizations and physicians to reverse FDA policies that had made the drug more accessible.

These ongoing legal disputes stem from the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision that struck down the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling, which had established nationwide abortion rights. Following that reversal, 13 states have implemented nearly complete abortion prohibitions, while several others have imposed significant restrictions.

Louisiana filed suit against the Food and Drug Administration in 2025, arguing that the 2023 rule removing in-person dispensing requirements violated federal law and had led to a surge in medication abortions despite the state’s comprehensive abortion ban.