Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

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

Reagan’s handshake has become a chokehold under Trump

WASHINGTON, DC- MAY 06: U.S. President Donald Trump (R) meets with Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney (C), alongside Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs of Canada Dominic LeBlanc in the Oval Office at the White House on May 6, 2025 in Washington, DC.

(Getty Images)

Reagan’s handshake has become a chokehold under Trump

VANCOUVER, British Columbia — As the Los Angeles Dodgers face off against Canada’s Toronto Blue Jays for the World Series, the first couple of games featured an advertisement that shot around the world. All because when U.S. President Donald Trump noticed it, he reacted like an on-again/off-again girlfriend had just keyed his car.

“The Ronald Reagan Foundation has just announced that Canada has fraudulently used an advertisement, which is FAKE, featuring Ronald Reagan speaking negatively about Tariffs,” Trump wrote online, announcing the termination of “all trade negotiations with Canada.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Crisis Not Averted: How Government Shutdown Exposes America’s Food Insecurity

Young volunteers assembling grocery bags filled with food donations, providing essential support to individuals facing hunger and hardship

Getty Images/Fillipo Bacci

Crisis Not Averted: How Government Shutdown Exposes America’s Food Insecurity

As the longest government shutdown in history continues, the Trump administration informed U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. of Rhode Island that it would pay out 50% of the SNAP benefits in November to the 42 million Americans who rely on food stamps.

This announcement comes just days after McConnell ruled that the administration could not halt the SNAP program.

Keep ReadingShow less
Why Mamdani and Sliwa Appeared Twice on the New York City Ballot

Person voting

Chris Graythen/Getty Images

Why Mamdani and Sliwa Appeared Twice on the New York City Ballot

As New Yorkers headed to vote for their next mayor and other local officials, those unfamiliar with New York elections found a surprise: Zohran Mamdani, Curtis Sliwa, and several other candidates were listed twice. The mayor-elect appeared as a Democratic Party candidate and as a Working Families Party (WFP) candidate; Sliwa appeared as a Republican candidate and, as the owner of multiple cats, as the candidate for the Protect Animals party.

Soon enough, questions and rumors started circulating online about this double-listing. Some people were just confused. Why were candidates listed twice? Would a vote for Mamdani on the WFP count for the Democrats? But others, like Elon Musk, said it was a scam, hinting that it might be a fraudulent ploy to help Democrats cheat their way to victory.

Keep ReadingShow less
Trump's Quiet Coup Over the Budget

U.S. President Donald Trump, October 29, 2025.

(Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

Trump's Quiet Coup Over the Budget

In “The Real Shutdown,” I argued that Congress’s reliance on stopgap spending bills has weakened its power of the purse, giving Trump greater say over how federal funds are used. The latest move in that long retreat is H.R. 1180, a bill introduced in February 2025 by Representative Andrew Clyde (R-GA). The one-sentence bill would repeal the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 in its entirety—no amendments, no replacement, no oversight mechanism. If continuing resolutions handed the White House a blank check, repealing the ICA would make it permanent, stripping Congress of its last protection against executive overreach in federal spending and accelerating the quiet transfer of budgetary power to the presidency.

The Impoundment Control Act (ICA) was a congressional response to an earlier constitutional crisis. After Richard Nixon refused to spend funds Congress had appropriated, lawmakers across party lines reasserted their authority. The ICA required the president to notify Congress of any intent to withhold or cancel funds and barred them from doing so without legislative approval. It was designed to prevent precisely the kind of unilateral power that Nixon had claimed and that Trump now seeks to reclaim.

Keep ReadingShow less