Apr. 29, 2026, 8:42 PM EDT

ByStacey Abrams

The Supreme Court’s decision in Louisiana v. Callais is a direct hit to the heart of the Voting Rights Act and to the fragile promise that every American’s vote should carry equal weight. The VRA ended Jim Crow. Full stop. With this decision, it’s open season — once again — on Black and brown voters at the ballot box.

In 2023, the Supreme Court instructed Alabama to finally draw fair maps to create two majority-Black constitutional districts to allow Black citizens a shot at equal representation. Today, that same Supreme Court ruled that Louisiana’s two majority-Black congressional districts are unconstitutional — and in doing so, gutted Section 2 of the VRA, opening the door to racial gerrymanders across the South and Southwest.

Let’s first understand what the VRA is. After the Civil War, the 13th Amendment banned slavery (mostly). The 14th Amendment granted birthright citizenship (for now). And the 15th Amendment barred the federal government and the states from denying the right to vote based on race, color and servitude (in theory). But until the fairly recent year of 1965, the 15th Amendment was routinely ignored by Southern states using the legal mechanism of Jim Crow.

Poll taxes, literacy tests and language restrictions were the most visible tools of voter suppression. However, Black voters who successfully navigated those hurdles still faced the ignominy of not having a real choice. Hostile political regimes drew the boundaries of voting lines and districts to make it impossible for Black and brown voters to elect anyone who represented their interests. Enter the Voting Rights Act.

Section 2 of that act made it illegal to design districts to dilute or block racial communities from finding common cause. It also required a corrective action: When populations routinely boxed out of meaningful participation hit a certain threshold, political districts should reflect their growing power. Thus, political leaders couldn’t use maps as weapons to permanently silence the voices of people of color.

The John Roberts Court has now declared that racism in American politics is no more. Despite the recent behavior in Texas and North CarolinaWednesday’s cruel Callais decision pretends that Jim Crow is a bygone era and not this week’s news. Section 2 represented the core protection against racially discriminatory redistricting, but now the court has dramatically narrowed one of the last meaningful tools marginalized communities had to challenge maps designed to erase their political existence. For decades, Section 2 gave Black voters in the South and brown voters in the Southwest access to the courts to remedy harm. There was something those voters could do when, for example, state legislatures split Black neighborhoods across districts or packed Latinos into as few seats as possible to minimize their broader influence. Section 2 was not a perfect safeguard but it worked, and it instituted accountability.

Now, thanks to Roberts, who has made a career of dismantling the Voting Rights Actand the rest of the Supreme Court’s conservative members, that accountability is gone.

We are rushing headlong into midterm elections, and that timing matters. The Supreme Court and those celebrating this decision know what they’ve done. Lines drawn on state maps determine who has a realistic chance to win seats in Congress and in state legislatures. Lines drawn on county and municipal maps determine who wins seats on school boards. Such lines can be drawn to guarantee voters of color are silenced before a single vote is cast. The consequences of this disastrous ruling are already reverberating across our country. Majority-Black districts could be dismantled or diluted. Latino districts in fast-growing areas could lose political muscle. Representatives championing the minority communities they represent will likely lose their seats. Congressional maps in closely divided states could be tilted further away from competitiveness.

Almost immediately, Florida redrew its federal legislative districts as lawmakers meet in special session. In Mississippi, the state where I grew up, the governor has called for a special session to make the state Supreme Court less racially representative. In Georgia, where I live, conservative candidates are calling for the Georgia Legislature to follow suit. Today’s decision will open a floodgate of redrawn political districts and retaliatory actions, a mere four years before the next U.S. Census will remind us of what we know to be true: The demographics of America are evolving. This ruling is an attempt to slow the pace of change, if not halt it altogether.

Once such horrible maps are in place, reversing them is extraordinarily difficult.

While Black voters are disproportionately at risk after Thursday’s ruling — they could lose up to 30% of the Congressional Black CaucusFair Fight Action and Black Voters Matter say —  it’s important to emphasize that every American who doesn’t share the ideology driving the erasure of Black voting strength is at risk.

When courts curtail the ability to challenge unfair maps, the ripple effects extend to Latino communities, Asian American neighborhoods, Native American enclaves, young voters, working-class districts and rural regions alike. The restoration of racial discrimination in voting makes it easier to take power from all of us. As devastating as Thursday’s ruling is, we saw it coming. Over 15 years, the VRA has been weakened several times. Shelby County v. Holder hollowed out Section 5. Rucho v. Common Cause allowed for partisan gerrymandering and Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee limited lawsuits against racially discriminatory voting laws.

Today’s ruling on Louisiana v. Callais strikes even closer to the bone by narrowing the very mechanism communities use to fight discriminatory maps in court. These decisions have steadily built upon one another, eviscerating the protections mandated by the 15th Amendment and perhaps altering the country’s  memory of what the VRA attempted to fix. More than just a law protecting voting rights, the VRA stood as a guard against abuse of power by a racial majority that had — and has — repeatedly failed to act fairly.

This is how authoritarianism is imposed: through incremental decisions that remove democracy’s guardrails. We now find ourselves returning to the before-times. But instead of Alabama state police on the Edmund Pettus Bridge, we have state legislators with poison pens, drafting themselves into permanent power. In a democracy, the faith of the people is born of a belief that they can participate in its processes and benefit from its success. Authoritarians need only break that faith in order to hold on to power or expand it. And the Supreme Court has been hard at work to make it so.

But the Supreme Court is not the only actor in this story. Congress retains the authority to strengthen voting rights protections. State legislatures can adopt independent redistricting commissions or refuse to vote for racially discriminatory maps. Voters can reach out to elected officials at every level of government and demand that they publicly take a stand for voting rights. Civic organizations can mobilize communities to solve for voter suppression tactics even when the rules shift.

In Louisiana v. Callais, the Supreme Court lies to America by claiming a racial neutrality in our laws that every day under this regime proves false. Politicians opposed to full participation in democracy will rush to take advantage of this hat-tip to hatred, and the resulting political fights will destabilize our country months ahead of November’s midterm elections.

But the midterms are a way station on the road to saving America’s soul, and we must understand them — and this decision — as a call to action. We who believe in democracy must act with urgency and elect leaders of moral integrity.

The fight for a multiracial democracy is the central pillar of our national story. For 250 years, we have grappled with our choices and sometimes suffered the consequences. But we have always moved forward when people organized, persisted and refused to back down. That work must — and will — continue.

Apr. 29, 2026, 8:09 PM EDT

WASHINGTON (AP) — A group of cultural and historic preservation organizations pressed a federal judge Wednesday to block President Donald Trump from making major renovations to the Kennedy Centerthe art and cultural venue that has seen rapid transformation since the president returned to office last year.

The groups want U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper to issue a preliminary injunction that would halt any construction ahead of the July 6 start datesaying they worry the president and board of trustees will flout historic preservation rules that seek to maintain the building, which draws millions of visitors every year.

The laws that govern the process “go to the very fundamental question of: Do we slow down and take stock before we make changes to properties that define the American experience?” attorney Greg Werkheiser said in an interview after the hearing.

Justice Department attorneys, representing the president and board, argued Wednesday that plans for the building are limited in scope and well within the authority of the board, not requiring extra approvals.

Since returning to office last year, Trump has taken particular interest in the Kennedy Center. He ousted its previous leadership and replaced it with a handpicked board that named him chairman, changes that prompted an outcry from many artists and exacerbated the operation’s financial challenges. Trump, whose name was later added to the building’s facade, announced the renovations earlier this year.

Besides being a premier arts and cultural destination, the Kennedy Center is considered a “living monument” to President John F. Kennedy, who raised millions to build the center but was assassinated before it opened. Perched on the Potomac River, the massive structure and gleaming white marble facade form an indelible part of the Washington, D.C., landscape.

The hearing is the second in as many daysover the fate of the Kennedy Center. Rep. Joyce Beatty, a Democrat from Ohio, has also sued to stop renovations as an ex officio member of the board. Cooper, the judge, is also overseeing that lawsuit. For the second day in a row, the judge’s evenhanded scrutiny of both sides made it difficult to discern how he might rule.

In testimony, executive director Matt Floca, a former facilities manager who was elevated by the Trump-aligned board, said the renovations planned are merely to repair decades of wear and tear, including extensive water damage to a part of the building that was nicknamed “the swamp.”

“The most efficient and effective way to complete the magnitude of projects we need to complete is to close the center,” Floca said.

Attorneys for the preservation groups raised doubts about the limited scope of the project, pointing to Trump’s statements that he would “fully expose” the building’s steel skeleton.

Yaakov Roth, a Justice Department attorney representing the president, said those fears are overblown.

“There’s no risk that there will be unilateral changes … that we’ll wake up and the building will be gone,” Roth said.

The lawsuits over the Kennedy Center represent another fight over Trump’s efforts to leave a lasting imprint on the nation’s capital. Since he took office last year, the former Manhattan construction mogul has angered preservationists by paving over the White House’s historic Rose Garden. In October, the White House tore down its East Wing to make room for a $400 million ballroom.

Besides the Kennedy Center building, the president also added his name to the United States Institute of Peace. Trump also wants to move forward with plans to build a 250-foot “triumphal arch.”

Apr. 29, 2026, 11:03 PM EDT

WASHINGTON (AP) — The House took a crucial step Wednesday toward funding the Department of Homeland Securityas the Trump administration warned that money to pay Transportation Security Administration and other agency personnel will “soon run out,” sparking new threats of airport disruptionsand national security concerns.

House Republicans adopted a budget resolution on a largely party-line vote, 215-211. The action doesn’t automatically fund the department — it’s focused on eventually providing $70 billion for immigration enforcement and deportations for the remainder of President Donald Trump’stime in office, which Democrats oppose.

But launching the GOP budget process, which will play out over weeks to come, has been what Speaker Mike Johnsonneeded to unlock a broader bipartisan bill for TSA agents and others that has languishedduring the longest-ever agency shutdown in history. That bill is expected to come to a vote Thursday to fund much of the agency.

“It takes time,” Johnson, R-La., said after another day of start-stop action in the chamber that dragged for hours into the evening. “We will get there.”

The House’s narrow Republican majority has repeatedly stalled out under Johnson’s gavel, with his own party tangled in internal disputes on a range of pending issues, including the Homeland Security funding.

Democrats refused to fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol without changes to those operationsafter the deaths of Americans protesting Trump’s deportation agenda. Republicans refused the broader Democratic-backed bill to fund TSA and the other aspects of Homeland Security without the money for ICE and Border Patrol.

But the White House urged Congress this week to act, warning the money Trump tappedto temporarily pay TSA and other workers through executive actions is drying up.

“DHS will soon run out of critical operating funds, placing essential personnel and operations at risk,” said a memo from the Office of Management and Budget.

Homeland Security shutdown is longest ever

Homeland Security has been operating without regular funds for more than two monthssince Feb. 14, in a broader dispute over Trump’s immigration agenda.

In the memo late Tuesday to lawmakers, the White House called on the House to quickly approve the budget resolutionthat GOP senators had approved in an all-night sessionlast week to kickstart the process.

“Restoring funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has never been more urgent, as demonstrated by recent events,” the White House memo said, a nod to the situation over the weekend when a man armed with guns and knives tried to storm the annual White House correspondents’ dinnerthat Trump, the vice president and top Cabinet officials were attending.

But the day wore on as Johnson huddled privately with lawmakers sorting out other issues that stalled voting.

Next steps are expected Thursday when the House is likely to consider the Democratic-backed bill to fund the department, minus the Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement funds, which are expected to come later this summer in the budget resolution process.

Immigration enforcement operations central to the debate

While immigration enforcement workers have largely been paid through the flush of new cash — some $170 billion — that Congress approved as part of Trump’s tax cuts bill last year, others, including TSA, have had to rely on Trump’s intervention through executive action to ensure their paychecks.

But with salaries topping $1.6 billion every two weeks, DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin said recently, those funds are drying up.

Rep. Jodey Arrington, R-Texas, the chairman of the Budget Committee, argued that the Democrats are making “ridiculous and even dangerous demands” as they push for changes to immigration operations.

But Democrats have held firm in the aftermath of the deaths of Renee Goodand Alex Prettiin Minneapolis.

Rep. Brendan Boyle of Pennsylvania, the budget panel’s top Democrat, said, “We know there are reforms that need to happen with ICE and CPB in order to rein in the abuses we have seen.”

More than 1,000 TSA officers have quit since the shutdown began, according to Airlines for America, the U.S. airlines trade group that called Wednesday on Congress to fully fund the agency.

“The urgency to provide predictable and stable funding for TSA is growing stronger by the day,” the group said in a statement. “Time and time again, our nation’s aviation workers and customers have been the victim of Congress’ failure to do their jobs.”

Complicated budget strategy ahead

House and Senate Republicans have embarked on a go-it-alone strategy, attempting to approve funds for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol for the remainder of Trump’s term to ensure no further interruptions from Democrats.

It’s a cumbersome process, the same that was used last year to approve Trump’s tax cuts bill, and it will play out over several weeks.

With the budget resolution now adopted by the House and Senate, lawmakers will next draft the actual $70 billion ICE and Border Patrol funding bill, with voting expected in May. Trump has said he wants it on his desk by June 1.