Politics

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down Louisiana’s second majority Black congressional district in a decision that could open the door for Republican-led states to eliminate Black and Latino electoral districts that tend to favor Democrats and affect the balance of power in Congress.

The court’s conservative majority found that the district, represented by Democrat Cleo Fields, relied too heavily on race. Chief Justice John Roberts had described the district as a “snake” that stretches more than 200 miles (320 kilometers) to link parts of the Shreveport, Alexandria, Lafayette and Baton Rouge areas.

The decision weakens a landmark voting rights law’s protections against discrimination in redistricting. It’s unclear how much is left of the provision, known as Section 2, the main way to challenge racially discriminatory election practices.

The 1965 voting rights law, the centerpiece legislation of the Civil Rights Movement, succeeded in opening the ballot box to Black Americans and reducing persistent discrimination in voting.

Nearly 70 of the 435 congressional districts are protected by Section 2, election law expert Nicholas Stephanopoulos has estimated.

The court heard the case for a second time in October and it’s not clear whether the decision was issued early enough for some states, including Louisiana, to consider a new round of redistricting ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, in which Republicans are trying to preserve a thin majority.

President Donald Trump had already touched off a nationwide redistricting battle to boost Republican chances.

Legislatures already are free to draw extremely partisan districts because of a 2019 Supreme Court decision.

The court did an about-face from a decision in a similar case from Alabama less than three years ago that led to a new congressional map for the state that sent two Black Democrats to Congress.

The Alabama decision also prompted Louisiana lawmakers to add a second majority Black district. About a third of Louisianans are Black and they now form majorities in two of the state’s six congressional districts. Alabama has a separate appeal pending at the Supreme Court.

___

Associated Press writer Sara Cline contributed to this report from Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

___

Follow the AP’s coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court.

source

By Simon Lewis

WASHINGTON, April 28 (Reuters) – The U.S. State Department said on Tuesday it would produce a limited number of commemorative passports bearing a portrait of Donald Trump, the latest example of the administration attaching the president’s likeness or name to official property.

The passports will be released as part of celebrations for the 250th anniversary of the U.S. Declaration of Independence in July, State Department spokesperson Tommy Pigott said in a statement, which did not mention that the passports would contain Trump’s image.

Renderings provided by the State Department showed Trump’s portrait displayed on a page inside the passport, opposite an image of the signing of the Declaration of Independence in 1776.

“These passports will feature customized artwork and enhanced imagery while maintaining the same security features that make the U.S. passport the most secure documents in the world,” Pigott said.

It was unclear whether U.S. citizens will be able to opt out of receiving the commemorative passport, but a State Department official said there would be no extra fee charged to receive one of the limited run of commemorative passports.

The U.S. Mint has also announced plans for a commemorative gold coin featuring Trump’s image to mark the anniversary of the country’s founding, and the Treasury Department has said paper currency will bear Trump’s signature, the first time a sitting president has signed U.S. money.

Since he returned to office early last year, Trump’s administration has also affixed his name to prominent Washington buildings, a planned class of Navy warships, a visa program for wealthy foreigners, a government-run prescription drug website, and federal savings accounts for children.

(Reporting by Simon Lewis; Editing by Daniel Wallis)

source

PHOENIX (AP) — A federal judge on Tuesday dismissed a U.S. Department of Justice lawsuit against Arizona seeking access to the state’s detailed voter records, the latest legal setback in a nationwide effort by the Trump administration.

U.S. District Judge Susan Brnovich, a Trump appointee, wrote that Arizona’s statewide voter registration list is “not a document subject to request by the Attorney General” under federal law. The judge dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice because, she wrote, “amendment would be legally futile.”

The dismissal of the Arizona lawsuit follows a string of other rulings against the Department of Justice in similar cases in other states. The DOJ has sued at least 30 states and the District of Columbia seeking to force release of detailed voter data, which includes dates of birth, addresses, driver’s license numbers and partial Social Security numbers.

In addition to Arizona, judges have rejected those attempts in Rhode Island, California, Massachusetts, Michigan and Oregon. In Georgia, a judge dismissed a DOJ lawsuit because it had been filed in the wrong city, prompting the government to refile elsewhere.

The DOJ sued Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes in January for failing to comply with its request for the detailed voter information.

“This moment is a win for voter privacy,” Fontes said in a statement. “I will never comply with illegal requests that put Arizona voters in harms way.”

The Department of Justice did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

At least 13 states have either provided or promised to provide their detailed voter registration lists to the department, according to the Brennan Center and Associated Press reporting: Alaska, Arkansas, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas and Wyoming.

Federal officials say they need the voter data to ensure that states are complying with federal election laws related to maintaining voter registration lists. In the Rhode Island case, a Justice Department attorney acknowledged that the department was seeking unredacted voter roll information so it could be shared with the Department of Homeland Security to check citizenship status.

Democratic and some Republican officials have objected to the requests and said such a demand violates state and federal privacy laws.

source

By Patricia Zengerle

WASHINGTON, April 28 (Reuters) – The Republican-led U.S. Senate on Tuesday blocked a Democratic-led resolution that would have barred President Donald Trump from military action against Cuba without congressional approval.

The Senate voted 51 to 47, almost entirely along party lines, on a procedural measure that blocked a war powers resolution, as members of Trump’s party argued that there are no active U.S. hostilities against Cuba.

Republican Senator Rick Scott of Florida, who introduced the point of order that stopped the resolution, said a war powers vote was not appropriate because Trump has not deployed troops.

Democratic Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, a lead sponsor of the measure, had argued that U.S. efforts to stop fuel shipments to the Communist-ruled island constitute military action.

“If anyone were doing to the United States what we are doing to Cuba, we would definitely regard it as an act of war,” Kaine said in a Senate speech before the vote.

Under Trump, U.S. forces have launched strikes on boats off Venezuela and gone into Caracas to seize President Nicolas Maduro, and, with Israel, waged war on Iran since February 28, all without authorization from Congress.

Trump has said “Cuba is next.” He did not specify what ​he plans to do with the island nation, but ​has frequently said he believes its government is on the verge of ​collapse.

Democrats have failed repeatedly in both the Senate and House of Representatives to force Trump to obtain congressional authorization for military operations.

Trump’s fellow Republicans, who hold slim majorities in both the Senate and House, have almost unanimously voted down such resolutions, accusing Democrats of using the war powers act to try to weaken Trump.

Although the U.S. Constitution says Congress, not the president, can declare war, that restriction does not apply for short-term operations or to counter an immediate threat.

The White House says Trump’s actions are within his rights, and obligation, as commander-in-chief to protect the U.S.

(Reporting by Patricia Zengerle; Editing by David Gregorio)

source

By Joseph Ax

April 28 (Reuters) – Virginia’s top court on Tuesday left in place a county judge’s order temporarily blocking the state from certifying the results of last week’s referendum, when voters approved a new Democratic-drawn congressional map aimed at flipping four Republican U.S. House seats.

The ruling, which came in one of three lawsuits Republicans have filed challenging the ballot measure, is not the last word on the election. The Virginia Supreme Court heard arguments in another lawsuit on Monday over whether Democrats complied with legal requirements when initiating the referendum, but it has not yet reached a final decision in any of the cases.

If allowed to stand, the ballot measure would give Democrats the advantage in 10 of the state’s 11 U.S. House of Representatives districts in November’s midterm elections, up from the party’s current 6-5 edge. Democrats need to flip three Republican-held seats to gain a House majority and break Republicans’ unified control of Washington.

The fight in Virginia is part of a national redistricting battle that President Donald Trump launched last summer, when he pushed Texas Republicans to install a new congressional map targeting five Democratic incumbents. Other states, both Republican- and Democratic-led, soon followed.

Florida appears to be the final state intent on redrawing its districts ahead of November. Republican lawmakers are preparing to vote on Wednesday on whether to approve a new map, drawn by Governor Ron DeSantis’ office, that is intended to flip four Democratic seats.

If Virginia’s referendum is blocked, and DeSantis’ effort is successful, that would give Republicans a windfall of around seven seats after the months-long redistricting arms race.

Tuesday’s order in Virginia came as part of a lawsuit filed by the Republican National Committee. Last Wednesday, the day after the election, a judge in Tazewell County ruled the referendum was illegal and blocked state officials from certifying the results.

Democratic state Attorney General Jay Jones appealed, but the state Supreme Court denied his request on Tuesday.

(Reporting by Joseph Ax; Editing by Paul Thomasch and Lisa Shumaker)

source

By Deena Beasley

April 28 (Reuters) – The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, overseen by Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., on Tuesday asked for nominations to the influential task force that decides which preventive medical care is provided at no cost to patients.

The Preventive ‌Services Task Force, which typically has 16 members, last met over a year ago. Three successive planned meetings were canceled and new members have not been named to replace the five volunteers whose terms expired in December.

“That task force has been lackadaisical. It’s not been doing its job,” Kennedy told a House committee earlier this month.

A division of HHS on Tuesday said it is seeking clinicians and researchers to be nominated to the task force “including but not limited to” specialties such as cardiology, oncology, obstetrics/gynecology, pediatrics, family medicine and health economics. Nominations are due by May 23.

Medical experts say Kennedy’s sidelining of the panel has delayed updates to screening guidelines for cancer, heart disease and other conditions.

(Reporting By Deena Beasley and Ahmed Aboulenein; Editing by Neil Fullick)

source

By Luc Cohen

April 28 (Reuters) – As the U.S. midterm elections approach, Democrats are winning legal challenges to the Trump administration’s push to obtain states’ voter rolls, dealing a blow to the president’s unprecedented effort to expand the federal government’s role in elections. 

The Democratic-run states’ victories come as their party is locked in a fierce battle to take back both houses of Congress from President Donald Trump’s Republicans in the November 3 midterms.

So far this year, federal judges in California, Massachusetts, Michigan, Oregon and Rhode Island have dismissed Justice Department lawsuits demanding those states’ voter rolls, including sensitive information like partial Social Security numbers. 

Litigation surrounding U.S. federal elections has become common, with Democrats and aligned voting rights groups generally challenging state laws they believe restrict the right to vote and Republicans and their allies challenging state voting practices they say leave elections vulnerable to fraud. Trump asserts, falsely, that his 2020 election loss was due to fraud. 

But the Justice Department’s efforts to obtain states’ voter rolls highlight a new dynamic this election cycle: voting rights groups are increasingly finding themselves in court fighting against the federal government.

“This year, we have the added layer of the Department of Justice being perhaps the main player in voter suppression litigation,” said Lis Frost, a lawyer with Elias Law Group, which has intervened in the voter data demand lawsuits on behalf of voting rights groups. “This DOJ has taken on the mantle that was previously carried by right-wing organizations to try to argue that there are voters on the rolls that shouldn’t be there and to try to remove voters from the rolls.” 

Frost’s firm was founded by prominent election lawyer Marc Elias, an outspoken Trump critic. The firm frequently represents the Democratic party and its candidates in court. 

Four of the judges who dismissed the suits – three of whom were appointed by Democratic presidents and one of whom was appointed by Trump during his first term – found that the federal government did not articulate why it needed the unredacted data to carry out oversight of state voting practices. The fifth judge, Trump appointee Hala Jarbou of Michigan, said the Justice Department adequately explained the basis of its request but that the laws it cited did not require the state to hand over the rolls.

The U.S. Constitution assigns individual states the role of administering federal elections.

To be sure, the Trump administration could still prevail: it is appealing three of its losses, and 25 similar cases are pending. Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, who leads the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, has said she is prepared to take the cases to the Supreme Court, where conservative justices hold a 6-3 majority. 

In a statement, White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said, “President Trump is committed to ensuring that Americans have full confidence in the administration of elections, and that includes totally accurate and up-to-date voter rolls free of errors and unlawfully registered non-citizen voters.” 

TRUMP CALLS FOR ‘NATIONALIZING’ ELECTIONS

Since last year, the Justice Department has sent letters to nearly every state seeking their voter rolls, and asking for details about their procedures for removing ineligible individuals like deceased people, convicted felons and non-citizens. Seventeen states handed over their rolls voluntarily, Justice Department lawyers have said. The department sued dozens of states, including several led by Republicans, that did not comply. 

In an interview with Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures” program on April 19, Dhillon said that the department had reviewed 60 million voter records so far and found the names of 350,000 dead persons and 25,000 people who lacked proof of citizenship.

Dhillon did not provide evidence that votes were cast for those names. 

Trump and his allies have long asserted states are not doing enough to prevent voter fraud, even though state audits and academic studies have found it is rare. 

Critics say Republicans are driven less by concerns over election security than by an effort to gain political advantage by narrowing the electorate, risking the disenfranchisement of eligible, often Democratic‑leaning voters.

Trump in February said in a podcast interview that Republicans should “nationalize” and “take over” voting, without giving details of what he intended.

Legal experts say the steps his administration has taken in that direction are unlikely to survive challenges in the courts.

In addition to the losses over state voter rolls, three federal judges in separate cases have blocked Trump’s 2025 executive order requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote and restricting the counting of mail ballots. The Justice Department is appealing. A March 2026 executive order restricting mail-in voting has also drawn legal challenges. 

“He doesn’t have the levers, he doesn’t have the switch, there is nobody he can order to federalize the elections who will listen to him,” said Justin Levitt, a former Justice Department elections lawyer and current professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles.

But even if the Justice Department continues to lose in court, some legal experts said they expected Trump to point to the legal battles to try to sow doubt in the legitimacy of the midterms should Republicans lose. That would echo a playbook that Trump deployed after his 2020 loss, when he used more than 60 defeats in legal challenges to the election results to rally his base and undercut faith in the reliability of the vote. 

“This is using the legal process, the law enforcement process to serve a propaganda role, to lead to destabilization and delegitimization of future elections like in 2026,” said David Becker, a former Justice Department election lawyer and now the executive director of the Center for Election Innovation & Research, a non-partisan group that promotes voter participation and election security.

A Reuters/Ipsos poll found that Trump’s claims have gained broad traction with the American public, with 46% of respondents, including 82% of Republicans, agreeing with the statement that large numbers of fraudulent ballots are cast by non-citizens.  

JUSTICE DEPARTMENT CITES CIVIL RIGHTS LAW 

In suing states to demand their voter rolls, the department has cited the Civil Rights Act of 1960. The law, passed to combat racial discrimination at a time when Southern states were destroying Black Americans’ voter registration records to cover up disenfranchisement, requires states to preserve such records.

But the judge who dismissed the lawsuit against California said the Justice Department’s request for the most populous U.S. state’s voter roll went beyond what Congress intended when it passed the Civil Rights Act and other voting laws.  

The judge, David Carter, said the fact that the department had requested the data of so many states suggested that the federal government was seeking to build a nationwide database of voter information, rather than investigate alleged mismanagement by individual states.

“The Department of Justice seeks to use civil rights legislation which was enacted for an entirely different purpose to amass and retain an unprecedented amount of confidential voter data,” Carter wrote in a January 15 decision.

The Santa Ana, California-based judge said the Constitution requires that policy changes that could erode privacy and voting rights must be decided by Congress.

“It cannot be the product of an executive fiat,” Carter, who was appointed by former President Bill Clinton, wrote.   

The prospect of a nationwide voter database has alarmed voting rights activists, who are concerned that the government is seeking to compare voter rolls with other sources of data to purge people it believes are not citizens.

But those other sources may not have up-to-date information on whether previously ineligible immigrants have since become naturalized citizens, said Renata O’Donnell, senior litigation counsel at the Campaign Legal Center, a nonprofit that works to expand voting access. 

“People who should lawfully be able to access the franchise are going to be disenfranchised,” said O’Donnell, whose organization is representing voting rights groups that have intervened in several voter roll cases. 

(Reporting by Luc Cohen in New York; Editing by Alistair Bell)

source

By Kanishka Singh

WASHINGTON, April 27 (Reuters) – The U.S. Department of Homeland Security said on Monday that past statements espousing what it labeled extremist views from immigrants applying for green cards and naturalization would “warrant closer scrutiny,” causing free speech advocates to raise concerns that it could stifle First Amendment rights.

The DHS statement came in response to a weekend report by the New York Times, which cited documents saying that under new guidance by President Donald Trump’s administration, immigrants can now be denied a green card for expressing political opinions, like participating in pro-Palestinian protests, criticizing Israel and desecrating the American flag.

“Certain behaviors and statements may raise serious concerns for USCIS (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services) personnel reviewing an applicant’s file, including espousing terrorist ideologies, expressing hatred for American values, advocating for the violent overthrow of the United States government, or providing material support to terrorist organizations,” USCIS spokesman Zach Kahler said.

“Such actions warrant closer scrutiny,” he added. USCIS is a part of DHS.

The Trump administration includes criticism of Israel as a potentially disqualifying factor, with DHS training materials, citing as an example of questionable speech a social media post that declares, “Stop Israeli Terror in Palestine” and shows the Israeli flag crossed out, the newspaper reported.

Immigration officers were told to weigh those factors as “overwhelmingly negative,” it added.

Critics and rights groups have raised free speech and due process concerns.

“Trump plans to deny legal residency in the U.S. based on whether he agrees with your speech. Since when did it become ‘anti-American’ to criticize the actions of a foreign government?” Democratic U.S. Senator Chris Van Hollen wrote on the social media platform X.

“This is an incredibly disturbing attack on free speech, with the government deciding who can enter the country based purely on their expression of political views,” civil liberties group Defending Rights and Dissent said.

Trump has cracked down on pro-Palestinian movements by attempting to deport foreign protesters, threatening to freeze funds for universities where protests were held and scrutinizing immigrants’ online speech.

Last year, the Trump administration said it would vet immigration applications for “anti-Americanism” and antisemitism.

Trump alleges pro-Palestinian movements are antisemitic and support extremists.

Activists, including some Jewish groups, say the government conflates criticism of Israel’s assault on Gaza and its occupation of Palestinian territories with antisemitism, and advocacy for Palestinian rights with support for extremism.

In one attempted deportation case, the sole basis authorities provided to act against Tufts University graduate Rumeysa Ozturk was an editorial she co-authored in a student newspaper criticizing Tufts’ ‌response to Israel’s war on Gaza.

(Reporting by Kanishka Singh in Washington; Editing by Aurora Ellis)

source

WASHINGTON, April 28 (Reuters) – More than 70 Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives on Tuesday urged President Donald Trump not to permit Chinese automakers to build or sell cars in the United States.

The lawmakers, led by Representative Debbie Dingell and Ro Khanna, urged Trump to keep a ban in place has the strong backing of U.S. and foreign carmakers and other auto groups. Earlier this month, three Democratic senators made a similar push ahead of Trump’s planned summit with Chinese President Xi Jinping next month.

(Reporting by David Shepardson)

source

By David Morgan

WASHINGTON, April 27 (Reuters) – Legislation to fund the U.S. Secret Service and other agencies in the Department of Homeland Security will have to be modified before it can pass the House of Representatives, Speaker Mike Johnson said on Monday, raising the possibility of funding delays days after a gunman opened fire at a Washington dinner attended by President Donald Trump. 

The measure, which the Senate twice passed unanimously, is part of a two-pronged Republican effort to end the partial shutdown that has gripped U.S. homeland security operations since mid-February. Negotiations to fund the department failed to reach agreement on reforms for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol, following the fatal shootings of two U.S. citizens earlier this year.   

The bill would fund all of DHS, with the exception of ICE and Border Patrol. House Republicans had been expected to pick it up this week, after voting on a separate $70 billion funding blueprint for the two immigration enforcement agencies that passed the Senate last week. The House is expected to vote on the budget resolution with funding instructions for ICE and Border Patrol on Wednesday. 

The need to fund the Secret Service has intensified since Saturday’s shooting at the White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner by a man prosecutors say tried to assassinate Trump. U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin has said current money for the department, which also includes the Transportation Security Administration, will run out in early May.   

But Johnson told reporters the Senate legislation to fund all of DHS except for ICE and Border Patrol would have to change.

“We have a modified version that I think is going to be much better for both chambers. It doesn’t change most of the substance. But it makes sure that we’re not going to orphan the primary agencies of DHS,” Johnson told reporters, without providing details.

House Republican hardliners have balked at the Senate legislation, saying they wanted to fund all DHS agencies including ICE and Border Patrol. 

A modified bill would need to be passed again by the Senate, where Democrats could prevent it from receiving the 60 votes necessary to pass most legislation. 

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, Johnson’s counterpart, told reporters the DHS funding bill and the budget blueprint for ICE and Border Patrol would ultimately provide adequate funds for all homeland security operations. 

“We did everything we can to ensure that everything is appropriately funded,” said Thune. “Hopefully that will be enough to get the House in a comfortable position.”

The budget resolution the House is expected to take up this week is the precursor for separate funding legislation for ICE and Border Patrol that would circumvent Senate Democratic opposition through a parliamentary maneuver called budget reconciliation. That funding would run through Trump’s presidency, which ends in January 2029. 

Last year, Republicans passed legislation providing around $130 billion in funding for ICE and Border Patrol, separate from their annual appropriations.

(Reporting by David Morgan; Editing by Lincoln Feast.)

source