Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Michigan won’t have to redraw its gerrymandered maps

Michigan won’t have to redraw its gerrymandered maps

The Supreme Court, in light of its decision in June to avoid partisan gerrymander disputes, overturned a lower federal court ruling that would have required Michigan to redraw its district lines.

Drew Angerer/Getty Photos

Michigan won't have to redraw its gerrymandered congressional and state district maps, as a federal court had required in an April ruling.

The Supreme Court on Monday overturned the ruling in a one-sentence order, which was expected in light of the justice's 5-4 decision in June that prohibited federal courts from hearing cases challenging legislative boundaries on the grounds they were drawn to favor one political party over another, a practice known as partisan gerrymandering.

In Michigan's case, the Republicans had drawn the districts to cement their hold on the state and congressional districts.


Earlier this month, the court threw out a similar lower court ruling related to Ohio's map, which was ordered to be redrawn after the court found the Republican-drawn map was designed to dilute Democratic votes.

The June ruling by the high court was in cases involving a Republican gerrymander of North Carolina and a Democratic drawing of lines in Maryland.

Since that ruling, some activists have started looking to the state courts for relief from gerrymandering under the constitutions of those states, while others have turned to the state legislatures. The voters in Michigan decided in a referendum last year to take redistricting power away from the Legislature and give it to a new citizen commission.


Read More

Healthcare Jobs Surge Mask a Productivity Crisis—and Rising Costs
person sitting while using laptop computer and green stethoscope near

Healthcare Jobs Surge Mask a Productivity Crisis—and Rising Costs

Healthcare and social assistance professions added 693,000 jobs in 2025. Without those gains, the U.S. economy would have lost roughly 570,000 jobs.

At first glance, these numbers suggest that healthcare is a growth engine in an otherwise slowing labor market. But a closer look reveals something more troubling for patients and healthcare professionals.

Keep ReadingShow less
A large group of people is depicted while invisible systems actively scan and analyze individuals within the crowd

Anthropic’s lawsuit against the Trump administration over a Pentagon “supply-chain risk” label raises major constitutional questions about AI policy, corporate speech, and political retaliation.

Getty Images, Flavio Coelho

Anthropic Sues Trump Over ‘Unlawful’ AI Retaliation

Anthropic’s dispute with the Trump administration is no longer just about AI policy; it has escalated into a constitutional test of whether American companies can uphold their values against political retaliation. After the administration labeled Anthropic a “supply‑chain risk”, a designation historically reserved for foreign adversaries, and ordered federal agencies to cease using its technology, the company did not yield. Instead, Anthropic filed two lawsuits: one in the Northern District of California and another in the D.C. Circuit, each challenging different aspects of the government’s actions and calling them “unprecedented and unlawful.”

The Pentagon has now formally issued the supply‑chain risk designation, triggering immediate cancellations of federal contracts and jeopardizing “hundreds of millions of dollars” in near‑term revenue. Anthropic’s filings describe the losses as “unrecoverable,” with reputational damage compounding the financial harm. Yet even as the government blacklists the company, the Pentagon continues using Claude in classified systems because the model is deeply embedded in wartime workflows. This contradiction underscores the political nature of the designation: a tool deemed too “dangerous” to be used by federal agencies is simultaneously indispensable in active military operations.

Keep ReadingShow less