The Dictatorship
Elena Kagan knows why the Supreme Court majority wrongly supported Texas’ redistricting effort
It’s emblematic of the Supreme Court’s increasingly tenuous legitimacy and image of rank partisanship that no one was surprised last week when it blocked a district court order overturning Texas’ recently redrawn congressional maps.
The new maps were intended to benefit Republicans and potentially flip five House seats from Democratic to Republicans, so, of course, the court’s 6-3 conservative majority ruled in their favor. That the court’s conservative justices simply ignore the law and lower-court decisions when they hurt Republicans — and create new legal doctrines when it benefits the GOP — is no longer news.
In a clinical 16-page dissent, Justice Elena Kagan laid out in withering detail how her fellow justices ignored the law, past precedent and common sense.
Indeed, in a clinical 16-page dissent, Justice Elena Kagan laid out in withering detail how her fellow justices ignored the law, past precedent and common sense in giving Texas Republicans a political boost. The conservative majority isn’t even pretending it’s not putting its finger on the scale to help the GOP.
Texas Republicans redrew the state’s congressional maps this year in a brazen and cynical effort to flip five House seats to the GOP next year. A host of progressive groups quickly sued, claiming Texas had violated the 14th and 15th amendments in using used racial data in its gerrymandering process. A U.S. district judge appointed by President Donald Trump conducted an exhaustive nine-day hearing, heard testimony from 23 witnesses and pored over more than 3,000 pages of evidence. Then, he issued a 160-page decision that found overwhelming evidence that Texas had, indeed, created a racial gerrymander — and he blocked the maps.
Yet, Kagan wrote,“this Court reverses that judgment based on its perusal, over a holiday weekend, of a cold paper record.”

Considering how breezily they dismissed the district court judge’s ruling, it’s hard to imagine the conservative majority even bothered to read the opinion. If they did glance at it, they did so with minds already made up.
To step back a moment, in 2019, the Supreme Court ruled that while distasteful, unjust and “incompatible with democratic principles,” excessive partisan gerrymandering was “beyond the reach of the federal courts” and thus legal. And in a concurring opinion in the Texas case, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that state Republicans were motivated by “partisan advantage pure and simple.”
But the evidence uncovered by the district court suggests this simply isn’t true.
The district court found repeated instances of Texas legislators admitting the new districts were drawn along racial lines.
The evidence that emerged in trial of the GOP’s racial intent was overwhelming. For example, in direct testimony, Texas’ mapmaker argued that he was motivated by the goal of delivering Texas Republicans more House seats but then acknowledged that he had racial “data available at the press of a key on his redistricting software.”
The new maps constructed three majority Black or majority-Hispanic districts, “by the smallest amount possible” in some cases, less than half a percentage point. Kagan’s dissent notes that an expert witness testified “she had generated tens of thousands of congressional maps” that benefit Republicans and don’t use racial data and “not one of them had racial demographics that looked anything like those in the 2025 Map.”
Moreover, the district court found repeated instances of Texas legislators admitting the new districts were drawn along racial lines. For example, the Republican who introduced the bill redrawing the maps said, “[W]e created four out of five new seats” to have a ‘Hispanic majority. I would say that’s great.’”

This wasn’t even a close call, and yet, in a few paragraphs, the Supreme Court breezily dismissed the district court’s findings of fact.
Amazingly, Alito went a step further and attacked the plaintiffs for using false “claims of racial gerrymandering for partisan ends.” By this logic, the blatant partisans are not the Texas Republicans who redrew the state’s maps to give themselves a clear political advantage, but rather those who argued, correctly according to the district court, that Texas’ maps were motivated by racial intent.
What is particularly galling about the decision, as Kagan notes, is that under the court’s precedents, it is required to give “significant deference” to a lower court’s findings of fact regarding a racial gerrymander. The 6-3 conservative majority simply ignored that standard.
Kagan chastises her colleagues for acting like “we know better” than the court that actually listened to the evidence.
Compounding the court’s terrible decision is the main rationale used by the majority. “The District Court improperly inserted itself into an active primary campaign, causing much confusion and upsetting the delicate federal-state balance in elections,” the Supreme Court’s majority wrote.
Here the court is obliquely referring to the Purcell principle, which establishes that courts should avoid making decisions too close to an election as it might cause “voter confusion.”
Those of you reading that last paragraph might be confused. It’s December 2025. As Kagan dryly notes, “Texas is not on ‘the eve of an election.’”
If SCOTUS had upheld the district court’s decision, then Texas would use the same House maps from 2022 and 2024. One might even argue that alllowing Republicans to change that map creates far greater “voter confusion.”

The Supreme Court’s reasoning is ludicrous — and also incredibly dangerous. “If Purcell prevents” changing electoral law nearly a year before the election, said Kagan, then “it gives every State the opportunity to hold an unlawful election.”
That means that Indiana and Florida, two Republican-run states that are currently considering redrawing their House maps, could create racial gerrymanders and, according to the Supreme Court, there is no legal discourse to stop them. What’s to prevent Florida from utilizing Jim Crow tactics, such as demanding voters pass a literacy test or adopting poll taxes? The court has, in effect, given Republican states carte blanche to disenfranchise minority voters and ignore the Voting Rights Act.
At the end of her dissent, Kagan chastises her colleagues for acting like “we know better” than the court that actually listened to the evidence and issued a decision. ”I cannot think of a reason why,” she said.
But Kagan is being far too kind. She knows exactly why — as do the rest of us. The conservative majority of the Supreme Court is, in effect, an arm of the Republican Party, intent on helping the GOP, the law be damned. The law is no longer the law. The law is whatever is good for Republicans.
Michael A. Cohen is a political writer and a fellow with the Eurasia Group Foundation.
The Dictatorship
Iran negotiator or private investor? Raskin launches investigation into Jared Kushner.
House Judiciary Democrats are launching a new investigation into President Donald Trump’s son-in-law — and Iran ceasefire negotiator — Jared Kushner, citing his “glaring and incurable conflict of interest.”
In a letter obtained first by MS NOW, Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., writes that Kushner’s dual roles as Trump administration peace envoy and leader of a private equity firm have “been haunting American foreign policy since President Trump returned to Washington in 2025,” with the Iran war only compounding concerns that Kushner’s financial work could distort his priorities.
“Your client Saudi Arabia,” Raskin writes, “wants to see a continuation and escalation of President Trump’s Iran war, but the American people have an interest in minimizing the loss of American lives and treasure in this conflict.”
“To whom do your professional obligations and fiduciary duties belong?” Raskin asks in the letter, which was sent to Kushner, his firm, and the State Department on Thursday.

Kushner, who is married to Trump’s eldest daughter Ivanka, founded the investment firm Affinity Partners in 2021 after serving as a senior adviser during Trump’s first administration.
Affinity’s largest and earliest investor, according to The New York Timesis Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund, which is led by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. The fund invested roughly $2 billion after the first Trump White House ended. Sovereign wealth funds tied to other Gulf nations, such as Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, have also invested.
Affinity has earned a 25% rate of return since 2021, according to a person familiar with the firm’s internal dynamics.
Since Trump returned to the White House, Kushner has taken on the role of peace envoy, working on negotiations between Ukraine and Russia, Israel and Hamas and, most recently, the U.S. and Iran. The latter two, critics note, are in the region that is the source of sizable investments in Kushner’s firm.
“You cannot both be a diplomat and a financial pawn of the Saudi monarchy at the same time,” Raskin writes in the letter. “You cannot faithfully represent the United States with billions of dollars in Saudi and Emirati cash burning a hole in every pocket of every suit you own.”
In a statement shared with MS NOW, Ian Brekke, chief legal officer for Affinity, said Kushner “has complied with all applicable laws and requirements and has always operated in the best interests of the United States.”
“Jared is not raising funds and has not done business in Gaza, Ukraine or Iran and has no intention to do so,” Brekke said.
In response to a March report in The New York Times that Kushner had taken recent steps to raise money for his firm from governments in the Middle East, Brekke wrote, “Affinity had early conversations with its anchor investor and does not intend to take in any additional capital while Jared is volunteering for the government.”
And in a statement to MS NOW, White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said Kushner had “sacrificed time with his family and livelihood” to work on the Trump administration’s initiatives overseas. She called Raskin “an attention-seeking loser who has saved zero lives and hasn’t accomplished anything.”
As part of the new House Judiciary investigation that Democrats are unilaterally launching, Raskin is asking Kushner to hand over a trove of materials tied to his work for Affinity and with the government.
The documents Raskin wants include: records of his communications with Saudi, Emirati, Qatari, and Israeli officials and their state-linked investment funds dating back to 2022; the financial records detailing all investors in his Affinity investment fund; records of meetings with investors dating back to July2024; and all communications relating to financial investments in Gaza, Ukraine, Iran, and other areas where Kushner has played a role as a negotiator.

Raskin is also requesting Kushner’s communications with the White House and the Trump campaign, including with Trump himself, dating back to July 2024 regarding his role in the new administration.
While Kushner is unlikely to play ball with Democrats — and as long as Republicans don’t side with Democrats, Raskin doesn’t have the unilateral ability to subpoena Kushner — the inquiry is a bit of a preview of the investigations Democrats will launch should their party win control of the House.
As the midterms approach, Democrats are pledging to make rooting out corruption in the Trump administration a central focus. And while Kushner could ignore Raskin now, that would be much more difficult next year if Democrats take back the committee gavels.
For Raskin, this is the latest step in a yearslong effort to review Kushner’s activities.
In 2023, while serving as ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, Raskin wrote to Kushner questioning whether his business interests may have influenced his work during the first Trump administration.
In 2024, Raskin and Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., called on the Department of Justice to appoint a special counsel to review possible violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act.
Kevin Frey is a congressional reporter for MS NOW.
The Dictatorship
House extends surveillance powers until April 30 after late-night revolt sinks GOP plan
WASHINGTON (AP) — The House early Friday approved a short-term renewal until April 30 of a controversial surveillance programused by U.S. spy agencies in a post-midnight vote after Republicans revolted and refused President Donald Trump’s push for a longer extension.
GOP leaders rushed lawmakers back into session to late Thursday with a series of back-to-back votes that collapsed in dramatic failure, before they quickly pushed ahead the stopgap measure as they race to keep the surveillance program running past Monday’s expiration date.
First they unveiled a new plan that would have extended the program for five years, with revisions. Then they tried to salvage a shorter 18-month renewal that Trump had demanded and Speaker Mike Johnson had previously backed. Some 20 Republicans joined most Democrats in blocking its advance.
Shortly after 2 a.m. they quickly agreed to the 10-day extension, which was agreed to on a voice vote without a formal roll call. It next goes to the Senate, which is gaveling for a rare Friday session, as Congress races to keep the surveillance program running.
“We were very close tonight,” said Johnson after the late-night action.
But Democrats blasted the middle-of-the-night voting as amateur hour. “Are you kidding me? Who the hell is running this place?” said Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., during a fiery floor debate.
At the center of the standoff that has stretched throughout the week is Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act,which permits the CIA, National Security Agency, FBI and other agencies to collect and analyze vast amounts of overseas communications without a warrant. In doing so, they can incidentally sweep up communications involving Americans who interact with foreign targets.
U.S. officials say the authority is critical to disrupting terrorist plots, cyber intrusions and foreign espionage.
Surveillance program fight is a debate over privacy and security
Its path to passage has teetered all week in a familiar fight, as lawmakers weigh civil liberties concerns against intelligence officials’ warnings about national security risks.
Opponents of the surveillance tool point to past misuses. FBI officials repeatedly violated their own standards when searching intelligence related to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol and racial justice protests in 2020, according to a 2024 court order.
Trump and his allies had lobbied aggressively all week for a clean renewal of the program, without changes.
A group of Republicans traveled to the White House on Tuesday, and on Wednesday CIA Director John Ratcliffe spoke directly with GOP lawmakers. House Majority Leader Steve Scalise said Thursday there had “been negotiations late into the night with the White House and some of our members.”
“I am asking Republicans to UNIFY, and vote together on the test vote to bring a clean Bill to the floor,” Trump wrote on Truth Social this week. “We need to stick together.”
The result of days of negotiations
Thursday’s proceedings came to a standstill as lawmakers retreated behind closed doors and Johnson reached for an agreement to resolve the standoff.
Shortly before midnight GOP leaders announced a new proposal, a five-year extension, with revisions. The changes were designed to win over skeptics of the surveillance program who have demanded greater oversight to protect Americans’ privacy.
Among the changes are new provisions to ensure that only FBI attorneys can authorize queries on U.S. persons, and to require the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to review such cases, said Rep. Austin Scott, R-Ga., during the debate.
But the final product, a 14-page amendment, did not go far enough for some holdouts in either party.
With Johnson controlling a slim majority, he has little room for dissent. As the Republicans fell short on both efforts before the short extension, a handful of Democrats stepped in to try to help them advance the longer extensions, but most Democrats were opposed.
“We just defeated Johnson’s efforts to sneak through a 5-year FISA authorization tonight,” said Democratic Rep, Ro Khanna of California. “Now, they will have to fight in daylight.”
The Dictatorship
Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons resigns
Todd Lyons, the acting head of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, is resigning from the agency later this spring, the Department of Homeland Security confirmed to MS NOW.
He will remain in his role until May 31. The circumstances surrounding his departure were not immediately clear, and officials have not publicly identified his replacement.
“Director Lyons has been a great leader of ICE and key player in helping the Trump administration remove murderers, rapists, pedophiles, terrorists, and gang members from American communities,” DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin said in a statement.
“He jumpstarted an agency that had not been allowed to do its job for four years. Thanks to his leadership, American communities are safer.”
Lyons, a longtime immigration enforcement official who assumed the acting directorship in 2025, has overseen ICE during a period of expanded deportation operations under President Donald Trump. His tenure has coincided with a sharp increase in enforcement tactics under the administration, including the killings of Renee Good and Alex Prettiby immigration officers in Minnesota in January.
ICE has cycled through multiple acting leaders in recent years and has lacked a Senate-confirmed director. Lyons’ departure comes at a pivotal moment for the agency as it navigates ongoing legal challenges and political divisions tied to the administration’s hardline immigration crackdown agenda. In recent months, Lyons has faced growing scrutiny, including a court order requiring him to appear before a federal judge over concerns that the agency failed to comply with directives related to detainees’ rights.
Earlier Thursday, Lyons testified before a House Appropriations subcommitteewhere he faced questions from lawmakers over ICE’s budget, enforcement priorities and compliance with court orders.
During the hearing, Lyons defended the agency’s recent surge in operations, arguing that increased resources were necessary to carry out its mission, while acknowledging ongoing legal challenges and scrutiny surrounding detainee treatment and due process protections.
Before assuming the top post, Lyons previously held senior roles within ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations division, where he helped oversee deportation efforts nationwide.
Following the announcement of his resignation, White House border czar Tom Homan said Lyons “served selflessly as a highly respected and effective” as the acting ICE chief.
“I commend him for a distinguished law enforcement career and the countless contributions he has made to protect our country and advance its interests,” Homan said in a statement.
White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller praised Lyons as a “phenomenal patriot and dedicated leader.”
Didi Martinez is a freelance field producer for MS NOW.
Ebony Davis is a breaking news reporter for MS NOW based in Washington, D.C. She previously worked at BLN as a campaign reporter covering elections and politics.
-
Politics1 year agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
Politics1 year agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
The Dictatorship7 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words
-
Politics1 year agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
Uncategorized1 year ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
The Josh Fourrier Show1 year agoDOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?





