Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Majority of Supreme Court appears opposed to fully embracing ‘independent state legislature theory’

Sen. Amy Klobuchar; Moore v. Harper

Sen. Amy Klobuchar speaks to demonstrators gathered in front of the Supreme Court on Wednesday. The justices spent the day hearing oral arguments in Moore v. Harper.

Olivier Douliery/AFP via Getty Images

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday in a North Carolina case that could eliminate the power of governors and state courts to check the authority of legislatures when it comes to elections — although a majority of the justices seemed skeptical of endorsing the so-called independent state legislature theory.

Republicans in the North Carolina legislature are arguing in Moore v. Harper that the Constitution’s elections clause provides legislatures the authority to set election rules for Congress and the presidency, without any intervention from state courts to ensure the rules are in compliance with the state’s Constitution.

Opponents claim a ruling in favor of ISL would grant legislators full capacity to gerrymander electoral maps and pass voter suppression laws. While the nature of justices’ questions and comments do not guarantee a decision one way or another, enough conservatives appear to be thinking more in line with liberal members of the court rather than their most right-leaning colleagues.


Prior to today’s oral arguments, four of the conservative justices — Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas — seemed to have embraced ISL, with Justice Amy Coney Barrett not yet siding with either side. Chief Justice John Roberts and the liberal justices — Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayer — have expressed opposition to ISL in the past.

Alito, Gorsuch and Thomas supported ISL in their comments and questions Wednesday, although some court watchers believe Kavanaugh and Barrett may go for a lesser application – if not outright oppose the theory.

David Thompson, the attorney representing the North Carolina legislature, got right to the heart of his position during oral arguments: “The elections clause requires state legislatures specifically to perform the federal function of prescribing regulations for federal elections. States lack the authority to restrict the legislatures' substantive discretion when performing this federal function.”

(The background: During the redistricting process, North Carolina legislators drew a congressional map that was eventually thrown out by the state’s Supreme Courts, which ruled it was a partisan gerrymander in violation of the state Constitution. However, Republican lawmakers appealed the ruling, stating that the U.S. Constitution gave them the authority to determine all aspects of election laws, subject only to possible congressional oversight. They also argued that the state court did not have the jurisdiction to redraw the map after it was enacted by lawmakers.)

Thompson continued his argument by pulling evidence from Massachusetts’ 1820 Constitutional Convention. He concluded that “the Founders tasked state legislatures with federal functions that transcend any substantive limitation sought to be imposed by the people of the state.”

Kagan made clear her apprehension toward the lack of accountability that would result if the court rules in favor of ISL.

“I think what might strike a person is that this is a proposal that gets rid of the normal checks and balances, on the way big governmental decisions are made in this country,” she said. “And you might think that it gets rid of all those checks and balances at exactly the time when they are needed most."

Conservative justices have been using “originalist” arguments in many of their decisions, arguing that the language used by the Framers should be the basis for court rulings. Jackson, who has embraced a form of originalism, said the Founders sought to limit the powers of state legislatures by implementing checks and balances.

Alito, looking specifically at the North Carolina gerrymandering situation that spurred the case, said the state Constitution would take precedence over the state’s legislature. He also questioned the role of the state’s Supreme Court and whether this judicial branch had the jurisdiction to take over the drawing of electoral maps.

“There must be some limit on the authority of state courts to countermand actions taken by state legislatures when they are prescribing rules for the conduct of federal elections,” he said.

Roberts seemed to be staking out a compromise position that would both limit court authority but retain a governor’s veto power. Kavanaugh and Barrett also sounded similar themes, indicating the court is unlikely to rule in favor of the most stringent application of ISL.

Barrett seemed the least tied to a single argument and, if Kavanaugh sides with the other conservatives, she would be the tie-breaker when the court issues its decision next summer.

Read More

Homelessness and Mental Illness: How Trump’s New Executive Order Could Backfire

A homeless woman sets her tent up in an encampment in Skid Row on July 25, 2025 in Los Angeles, California. The U.S. President Donald Trump signed an executive order for changes to make it easier for states and cities to remove outdoor encampments get people into treatment for individuals struggling with mental health issues or addiction.

Getty Images, Apu Gomes

Homelessness and Mental Illness: How Trump’s New Executive Order Could Backfire

In late July, President Trump signed an executive order urging local authorities to find ways to force homeless individuals with mental illness into hospitals. On its face, some observers might find this move appealing. Homelessness has skyrocketed across American cities, generating headlines about homeless encampment waste and public substance use. And mental health care, which many of these individuals need, is difficult to access—and arguably easier to obtain in a hospital. But Trump’s order may in fact undermine its own aims.

Research shows that psychiatric hospitalization has little impact on “Crime and Disorder on America’s Streets,” as the executive order puts it, and which it purports to address. Instead, while the order and other Trump Administration policies may remove homelessness from public view, they neither house nor heal those suffering from it.

Keep ReadingShow less
Understanding the Debate on Reparations for Native Americans

Native American reparations are designed to remedy the U.S. government’s historical treatment of indigenous tribes, ranging from monetary compensation to land redistribution and recognition of cultural rights.

Getty Images, anilakkus

Understanding the Debate on Reparations for Native Americans

Native American reparations are designed to remedy the U.S. government’s historical treatment of indigenous tribes, ranging from monetary compensation to land redistribution and recognition of cultural rights.

Hallmarks of Support for Reparations for Indigenous Peoples

Keep ReadingShow less
The Climate Bill Is Here—and Republicans Just Handed You the Check

Climate change isn’t a distant threat. It’s an everyday expense. And for millions of Americans, the costs are already piling up.

Getty Images, Andriy Onufriyenko

The Climate Bill Is Here—and Republicans Just Handed You the Check

Introduction

Donald Trump ran on fighting inflation. Instead, he’s helped push prices higher—and made life more expensive for everyday Americans. As climate disasters disrupt farms, raise food prices, and strain household budgets, GOP leaders are attacking the science and policies that could help us adapt. From wildfires in California to droughts in Arizona and floods in Texas, extreme weather is turning climate denial into a hidden tax on working families.

Keep ReadingShow less
Pharma Industry and Ballard Partners Dominate the Lobbying Space in Second Quarter of 2025
Douglas Rissing/Getty Images

Pharma Industry and Ballard Partners Dominate the Lobbying Space in Second Quarter of 2025

Pharmaceutical and health products companies continued to dominate the lobbying space in the second quarter of 2025, spending $105.4 million to influence public policy. That industry has spent more on lobbying than any other, during every quarter but one, since 2010, according to an OpenSecrets analysis of disclosure reports.

That total was down from the industry’s first-quarter total ($121.4 million) but still 38 percent more than the second biggest spender, the electronics industry.

Keep ReadingShow less