Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

A democracy designed for a diverse country faces its latest test

Opinion

Supreme Court census protest

The Supreme Court will hear a census case Monday.

Mark Wilson/Getty Images

Smith is the vice president for litigation and strategy at the Campaign Legal Center, a nonprofit focused on bolstering voting rights and curbing money's influence on politics.


President Trump's crusade to exclude undocumented immigrants from the census count is being put through one final test.

At a key inflection point that may offer a window into how the Supreme Court will evaluate politically charged cases after the arrival of its newest member, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the court will hear the census case on Monday. It's extremely late in the game, as federal law requires the latest population counts for the allocation of congressional seats to be finalized by the end of December.

Chief Justice John Roberts knows how our continued faith in the Supreme Court depends on a collective belief that the court remains above the fray, not just another forum for partisan dispute. This case will be a test of that faith, because the president's order excluding undocumented immigrants from the census was both glaringly illegal and undertaken solely for political benefit.

The chief justice already ruled against the president once in a census case, last year, when Trump tried to add a citizenship question to the census. This time around, the question is similar: Can the president unilaterally exclude undocumented immigrants from state population counts that will be used to apportion seats in the House of Representatives?

Starting with the first census in 1790, the counts used for this apportionment function have always included all residents of the United States — citizens and non-citizens, regardless of immigration status. That is what the plain language of the Constitution calls for. There is no reason to change course now.

In addition to congressional apportionment, the case could have a direct impact on the outcome of future presidential elections. Since a state's number of Electoral College votes are determined in part by its seats in the House, excluding undocumented immigrants could reduce the voting power of Latinx communities — and other communities of color — in selecting presidents.

The president, however, has politicized the census in an unprecedented attempt to further marginalize communities that have struggled for political representation in the past.

On July 21, Trump announced that, "for the purpose of the reapportionment" after the census," the administration will "exclude from the apportionment base aliens who are not in a lawful immigration status." To implement this policy, the president directed Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, whose department includes the Census Bureau, to produce a second set of population data, separate from the results of the 2020 census, that would exclude undocumented immigrants.

The move is not only illegal but also extremely harmful. By law, the census must draw from the total population to ensure that the federal government is responsive and accountable to all people. This is to ensure it reflects population shifts in our diversifying country. The 14th Amendment requires that "representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State."

In the decision that is on appeal in this case, a federal district court in New York noted that federal law prohibits the president from relying on a second set of data, separate from the census, to reapportion Congress. A federal district court in California agreed, ruling Trump's attempt to exclude undocumented immigrants from the apportionment base violated the 14th Amendment.

Trump's plan not only ignores the Constitution, it also threatens to undercut central principles of our democracy. Elected officials do not simply represent the interests of those who voted for them. They represent all people in their districts. This includes children, noncitizens and individuals denied the right to vote due to state law. If left unchecked, the outgoing president's plan will unlawfully alter the composition of government and bend it towards his will.

This is a major test for the Supreme Court. It will be scrutinized to see whether it will stop the president's move to freeze out Americans by telling them they don't count.

Read More

Democrats’ Redistricting Gains Face New Court Battles Ahead of 2026 Elections
us a flag on white concrete building

Democrats’ Redistricting Gains Face New Court Battles Ahead of 2026 Elections

Earlier this year, I reported on Democrats’ redistricting wins in 2025, highlighting gains in states like California and North Carolina. As of December 18, the landscape has shifted again, with new maps finalized, ongoing court battles, and looming implications for the 2026 midterms.

Here are some key developments since mid‑2025:

  • California: Voters approved Proposition 50 in November, allowing legislature‑drawn maps that eliminated three safe Republican seats and made two more competitive. Democrats in vulnerable districts were redrawn into friendlier territory.
  • Virginia: On December 15, Democrats in the House of Delegates pushed a constitutional amendment on redistricting during a special session. Republicans denounced the move as unconstitutional, setting up a legal and political fight ahead of the 2026 elections.
  • Other states in play:
    • Ohio, Texas, Utah, Missouri, North Carolina: New maps are already in effect, reshaping battlegrounds.
    • Florida and Maryland: Legislatures have begun steps toward redistricting, though maps are not yet finalized.
    • New York: Court challenges may force changes to existing maps before 2026.
    • National picture: According to VoteHub’s tracker, the current district breakdown stands at 189 Democratic‑leaning, 205 Republican‑leaning, and 41 highly competitive seats.

Implications for 2026

  • Democrats’ wins in California and North Carolina strengthen their position, but legal challenges in Virginia and New York could blunt momentum.
  • Republicans remain favored in Texas and Ohio, where maps were redrawn to secure GOP advantages.
  • The unusually high number of mid‑decade redistricting efforts — not seen at this scale since the 1800s — underscores how both parties are aggressively shaping the battlefield for 2026.
So, here's the BIG PICTURE: The December snapshot shows Democrats still benefiting from redistricting in key states, but the fight is far from settled. With courts weighing in and legislatures maneuvering, the balance of power heading into the 2026 House elections remains fluid. What began as clear Democratic wins earlier in 2025 has evolved into a multi‑front contest over maps, legality, and political control.

Hugo Balta is the executive editor of the Fulcrum and the publisher of the Latino News Network

Kelly Sponsors Bipartisan Bill Addressing Social Media

Sen. Mark Kelly poses for a selfie before a Harris-Walz rally featuring former President Barack Obama on Oct. 18, 2024.

Photo by Michael McKisson.

Kelly Sponsors Bipartisan Bill Addressing Social Media

WASHINGTON – Lawmakers have struggled for years to regulate social media platforms in ways that tamp down misinformation and extremism.

Much of the criticism has been aimed at algorithms that feed users more and more of whatever they click on – the “rabbit hole” effect blamed for fueling conspiracy theories, depression, eating disorders, suicide and violence.

Keep ReadingShow less
The “Big Beautiful Bill” Becomes Law: From Promise to Fallout
a doctor showing a patient something on the tablet
Photo by Nappy on Unsplash

The “Big Beautiful Bill” Becomes Law: From Promise to Fallout

When I first wrote about the “One Big Beautiful Bill” in May, it was still a proposal advancing through Congress. At the time, the numbers were staggering: $880 billion in Medicaid cuts, millions projected to lose coverage, and a $6 trillion deficit increase. Seven months later, the bill is no longer hypothetical. It passed both chambers of Congress in July and was signed into law on Independence Day.

Now, the debate has shifted from projections to likely impact and the fallout is becoming more and more visible.

Keep ReadingShow less
Federal employees sound off
Government shutdown
wildpixel/Getty Images

Fulcrum Roundtable: Government Shutdown

Welcome to the Fulcrum Roundtable.

The program offers insights and discussions about some of the most talked-about topics from the previous month, featuring Fulcrum’s collaborators.

Keep ReadingShow less