The Dictatorship

Louisiana map order highlights splits within the court’s GOP and Democratic wings

Published

1 month ago

May 6, 2026

Louisiana map order highlights splits within the court’s GOP and Democratic wings

The Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling last week in Louisiana v. Callais provided a predictable snapshot of how the justices line up in some of the most crucial cases. The decision, which struck down the state’s congressional map for wrongly taking race into account, was a clean split between the GOP appointees — all of whom were in the majority, led by Justice Samuel Alito — and the Democratic appointees, led by Justice Elena Kagan. Her dissent doubled as an obituary for the Voting Rights Act, arguing that Callais marked the “latest chapter in the majority’s now-completed demolition” of that landmark law.

But a subsequent order in the case, entered on Monday night, spotlights a murkier divide. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson once again was the lone dissenter calling out the majority, prompting Alito to pen a pointed rebuke in turn.

While the Callais ruling itself is incredibly important for redistricting across the country going forward, the order that sparked their exchange is a procedural one whose practical significance remains to be seen. It sent the case back to the lower court it came from. Typically, that doesn’t happen until 32 days after the ruling. That standard lag time gives the losing party time to file a long-shot petition for rehearing. (It’s a long shot because granting such a petition would require the justices to consider reversing course on a ruling they just made.)

The fast-track request came from white voters who successfully challenged the map. They argued that “those 32 days could matter” here because, they said, the lower court needs to either draw or approve a new map ahead of this year’s midterm elections. Louisiana took no position on the request, suggesting that it didn’t matter whether the justices granted it because state officials were already working to produce a new map.

Black voters opposed the request, arguing that they should have the chance “to consider seeking rehearing in the ordinary course.” They also noted that the state’s congressional primary was already underway and that some overseas voters had already cast mail-in ballots. On top of arguing that the fast-track request should be denied, they urged the justices to halt their ruling from taking effect until after the 2026 elections. They cited what’s known as the “Purcell principle,” for the proposition that federal courts can’t “disrupt a state’s voting rules, including electoral maps, close to an election, much less when voters are already voting.”

But Jackson was the only justice who backed their position. The Biden appointee dissented from the majority’s unsigned one-paragraph order that summarized the parties’ positions and noted that the justices may adjust the procedural deadline. And though the Black voters asked the court to let them consider seeking rehearing on the typical timeline, the majority said they “have not expressed any intent to ask this Court to reconsider its judgment.”

In her dissent, Jackson accused her colleagues of having “spawned chaos in the State of Louisiana.”

She chided the majority for intervening rather than avoiding “the appearance of partiality” by applying the court’s normal rules. Noting that early primary voting was already underway, she recalled the court’s decision backing Texas’ map last yearin which the majority criticized a lower court for “improperly insert[ing] itself into an active primary campaign.” Jackson said the majority “unshackles itself” from “constraints today and dives into the fray. And just like that, those principles give way to power.” She called the court’s “abandon … unwarranted and unwise.”

That prompted a concurring opinion by Alito, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, that said the dissent “levels charges that cannot go unanswered.” He called it “groundless and utterly irresponsible” for Jackson to accuse the majority of exercising its power in an unprincipled way.

“What principle has the Court violated?” Alito wondered. “The principle that Rule 45.3’s 32-day default period should never be shortened even when there is good reason to do so? The principle that we should never take any action that might unjustifiably be criticized as partisan?” He concluded that Jackson’s claim that the court “unshackles itself” from “constraints” shows that it’s her “rhetoric that lacks restraint.”

One question raised by the exchange is: Where were Justices Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor in all this?

We’re left to speculate.

Looking at the orderthey were in the same place as Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh, joining neither Alito’s nor Jackson’s separate opinions. If either justice had a more nuanced position than that, they were free to share it with the public.

To be sure, this isn’t the first split among the Democratic appointees. A recent example came in a Fourth Amendment casewhere Jackson wrote another solo dissent. Sotomayor merely noted her disagreement with the majority without joining her colleague’s separate writing or explaining her own disagreement, while Kagan was apparently with the majority.

Contrary to the president’s claimthose three justices don’t always “stick together like glue.”

Of course, the procedural motion decided Monday raised different legal issues than the Callais decision itself. If it were the same, then we would have seen the same lineup. And all the justices who remained silent may have had different reasons for doing so.

Notably, they got yet another opportunity to weigh in. On Tuesday, the voters who opposed the fast-tracking returned to the justices, asking them to reverse the order they issued Monday. The voters noted that the court justified Monday’s order by saying they hadn’t “expressed any intent to ask this Court to reconsider its judgment.” But the voters pointed back to their opposition filing that said they wanted “the opportunity to consider seeking rehearing.” To eliminate any doubt, they said in their motion Tuesday that they wanted to request rehearing.

Again, the practical significance of Monday’s order was unclear to begin with in terms of its effect on the midterms in Louisiana, where separate litigationis playing out in response to the GOP governor’s attempt to suspend the primary after voting had already begun.

And even if the Supreme Court were to give the voters a chance to request a rehearing, we wouldn’t expect the justices to actually reconsider the historic decision they just made.

But Tuesday’s motion meant the justices weren’t free of the litigation just yet. Though they may be now, at least with this chapter of the litigation, because on Wednesday, they denied the voters’ request to reopen the matter – this time without comment from any of the justices.

This post has been updated to include the Supreme Court’s Wednesday order.

Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletterfor expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration’s legal cases.

The Dictatorship

Court denies request to immediately block DOJ ‘slush fund’

Published

9 hours ago

June 11, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Court denies request to immediately block DOJ ‘slush fund’

Jun. 10, 2026, 6:14 PM EDT

A federal judge in Washington has denied a bid Wednesday brought by a watchdog group to immediately block the Justice Department’s “anti-weaponization” fund, for now choosing to trust the department’s assertions that it is not moving forward with the fund.

U.S. District Judge Richard Leon ruled immediately, denying Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington’s request for a temporary restraining order that would have blocked the Department of Justice from taking steps to create the fund.

Throughout the 30-minute hearing, the DOJ reiterated that the administration was not moving forward with the nearly $1.8 billion fund, which seeks to compensate individuals who allege they have been politically targeted or victimized by the DOJ.

Andrew Block, the only lawyer present for the government, repeatedly cited Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche’s June 2 congressional testimonyin which he said the administration was “not moving forward” with plans to create the fund.

Leon indicated he agreed with the DOJ’s position that the case appeared to be moot, saying he was not persuaded there was an issue for the court to decide regarding the creation of the fund. He issued a stern warning to the DOJ, saying, “Don’t play possum with this court!” — meaning he does not want to be deceived.

The plaintiffs argued Blanche’s testimony did not amount to an official cancellation. Nikhel Sus, CREW’s attorney, said Blanche “refused to memorialize that rescission,” or in other words, put it in writing. Sus said that was “highly unusual.” Leon responded, “This whole case is highly unusual to say the least.”

Leon asked the government twice why they would not just rescind the order that established the fund. Block responded, “I don’t know,” and pointed again to Blanche’s public statements about the fund’s future.

Both Leon and Sus raised the issue of Trump’s continued public defense of the fund. “It can still be an important issue and also not moving forward,” Block said. “That isn’t a direction to move forward with the fund.”

Although Leon rejected CREW’s bid for an immediate block, he indicated he is still considering its request for a longer-term block against the fund.

A block order from a separate federal judge in Virginia remains in effect until at least Friday.

Fallon Gallagher is a legal affairs reporter for MS NOW.

The Dictatorship

Trump is accelerating our Social Security insolvency crisis

Published

9 hours ago

June 11, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Jun. 10, 2026, 5:50 PM EDT

The date when Social Security’s trust fund is expected to run out of money just got bumped up. The fund is now projected to empty in 2032according to a new report released by Social Security’s trustees.

The new depletion date isn’t an earth-shaking change — it’s only a quarter earlier than the estimate in last year’s report. But it illustrates how President Donald Trump’s policies are degrading a program he promised to never jeopardize — and accelerating an approaching crisis in how our government will assist the elderly and disabled.

The report names three factors that contributed to the earlier insolvency date. One is a declining fertility rate, but the other two drivers can be traced back to Trump: a drop in immigration into the country, and the “substantial effect” of the tax policies in the One Big Beautiful Bill he signed last summer.

Trump’s acceleration of the program’s insolvency comes atop his assaults on the program’s administrative capacities.

Reduced immigration during Trump’s second term — especially when coupled with a declining fertility rate — strains Social Security because the program is funded through payroll taxes. Those come out of people’s paychecks, and fewer workers supporting an aging population means the program receives less revenue. Indeed, Social Security already has been tapping its trust fund for the better part of the past two decades because the program’s costs have exceeded its cash income. And as the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities pointed out last yearlast year’s tax cuts were a boon to the rich but a bust for the solvency of the Social Security trust fund.

To be clear, if the fund is depleted, Social Security won’t go belly up. Benefits will continue to be paid out, but there will be a large drop in the amount. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates that the “average monthly cut would total $500, which is more than what the average retired household spends on groceries each month.”

That would be a huge blow to the budgets of many older Americans. Social Security is a major source of income for most retirees, and roughly 40% of beneficiaries over the age of 65 rely on it for most of their income. And it would mark the destabilization of the sole source of retirement security for most Americans that is supposed to be insulated from ups and downs — unlike 401K plans. As the CBPP has pointed outSocial Security is “most workers’ only source of guaranteed retirement income that is not subject to investment risk or financial market fluctuations.”

Trump’s acceleration of the program’s insolvency comes atop his assaults on the program’s administrative capacities. His cuts to the Social Security Administration have left offices understaffedincreased wait timesand reduced quality of customer service.

Ultimately, Trump is exacerbating a colossal social safety net problem that predates him, and the trust fund will hit dire straits after he has left office. Democrats need to have clear plans for shoring up the program and making it robust for the future — which will require not being sheepish about taxes as a tool for renewing the social contract. And when Republicans try to claim that they, too, are champions of Social Security, all Democrats need to do is point to the truth.

Zeeshan Aleem is a writer and editor for MS NOW. He primarily writes about politics and foreign policy.

The Dictatorship

Wednesday’s Mini-Report, 6.10.26

Published

9 hours ago

June 11, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Today’s edition of quick hits.

* The latest from Northern Ireland: “The family of a man who lost an eye in a knife attack appealed for calm on Wednesday after the incident triggered a wave of anti-immigrant violence in Belfast overnight, with masked men burning families out of their homes and torching vehicles. The appeal ‌came as a Sudanese man appeared in court charged with attempted murder and as British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and politicians in Northern Ireland condemned the violence by ‘masked thugs’ that had targeted ethnic minorities.”

* In related news: “The British government hit out at X owner Elon Musk Wednesday, accusing him of whipping up tensions online ahead of disorder in Belfast.”

* The tenuous state of a dubious ceasefire: “Trump said the U.S. is going to hit Iran ‘hard’ today when pressed by reporters in the Oval Office about his statement earlier that Tehran will ‘pay the price’ for taking ‘too long’ to reach a peace agreement. ‘Well, we’re going to be attacking them and attacking them very hard, resuming bombing,’ he said.”

* The latest casualty figures from Lebanon: “Israel’s military offensive in Lebanon has killed at least 3,666 people, including 131 healthcare workers, and injured more than 11,300 since the U.S. and Israel began their war with Iran in late February, the Lebanese health ministry reported yesterday.”

* The changing nature of modern warfare: “Ukraine is wreaking havoc on unarmored trucks and trains in the battlefield’s rear, using drones with upgraded engines and batteries, integrated Starlink communication systems and new artificial-intelligence capabilities. The ramped-up attacks are causing fuel shortages, complicating troop rotations and reducing Russian military activity on the front.”

* This seems like a reasonable request: “Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee demanded Wednesday that Bill Pulte, President Donald Trump’s controversial pick for acting director of national intelligence, submit to a full security check before assuming the post, including an examination of his financial holdings and foreign contacts.”

* Some market trends can’t be stopped despite the White House’s best efforts: “Even as President Donald Trump boosts coal over clean energy, solar power is hitting new milestones in the U.S. and remains the leading source of new power. Data released Wednesday by global energy think tank Ember, along with a report by the Solar Energy Industries Association and analytics firm Wood Mackenzie, show the continued growth of solar and decline of coal in the United States despite federal policy. In May, for the first time, solar supplied more of the nation’s electricity than coal, or 12.8%, Ember said.”

* A bizarre schedule for a nonemergency vanity project: “Federal officials are laying more groundwork to begin construction on President Donald Trump’s planned 250-foot-tall triumphal arch, sharing additional documents that detail the project’s scope and an aggressive timetable for potentially completing work before Trump’s term ends. According to National Park Service documents posted this month, the administration envisions 20 hours per day of construction on the arch, year-round, in hopes of completing the project within two to three years.”

See you tomorrow.

Steve Benen is a producer for “The Rachel Maddow Show,” the editor of MaddowBlog and an MS NOW political contributor. He’s also the bestselling author of “Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans’ War on the Recent Past.”