Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

High Court expected to expedite census & citizenship case

The Supreme Court appears headed for an accelerated timetable for deciding whether it's constitutional to ask a citizenship question on the 2020 census.

Both sides have formally asked the justices to take up the question this spring, bypassing the mid-level appeals courts so that a final ruling comes before this summer's scheduled start of the presses for millions of census forms. The dispute stands as one of the potential landmark "good government" cases of this term, because the outcome will significantly shape the next apportionment of congressional seats among the states, the redrawing of every House and state legislative district, and the distribution of tens of billions in federal aid for the next decade.


The census dispute is on the agenda for the justices to discuss Friday at their next private conference, Constitution Daily reports. If the court decides to take the case right away, oral arguments would likely be April 24 (the last scheduled day this term for those proceedings) or at a special session in May.

Those opposed to asking the citizenship question say it would produce a significant undercount next April in areas with large Latino populations because undocumented immigrants will be afraid to complete the census, which is supposed to count everyone living in the United States. When announcing its intent to ask the question last year, the Trump administration explained that it wanted to gather data that could aid in enforcing federal voting rights law.

Based on current population trends, California looks to be the state most clearly threatened by an undercount. Growth has been slower there than in many other states, so much so that it's already close to the cusp of having one of its 53 House seats taken away – which would be the first time in the state's 160-year history that its delegation would shrink.

Two other states with significant Hispanic populations, Illinois and Rhode Island, are each already at strong risk of losing a seat that might be saved with a particularly strong response rate.


Read More

The Iranian regime does not fear Trump

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a signing ceremony for the “Secure America Act” in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, D.C., on June 10, 2026.

(Ken Cedeno/AFP via Getty Images/TCA)

The Iranian regime does not fear Trump

Back in 2012, President Barack Obama issued a statement at a press conference that would change his presidency and his legacy forever.

It was a year into what would become Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad’s brutal and protracted war on his own people, a war that would cost hundreds of thousands of lives, empower Iran and Russia, and destabilize much of the region.

Keep ReadingShow less
 Constitution of the United States

A look at America's growing crisis of trust, rising inequality, technology's impact, and how founding principles can help renew democracy.

Tetra Images / Getty Images

People Are Hurting: The U.S. Needs to Return to Our Founding Principles

There are many ways in which our country is currently struggling, both from a government perspective and from the people's perspective. There is no shortage of articles or studies detailing the ways in which the country and its leaders are failing us.

A recent article by Nicholas Kristof in The New York Times discussed the report of the State of the Nation Project—written by a bipartisan group of experts—that assessed the state of our country on 31 measures. Bottom line, it found that too many people do not feel good about their lives, about other people, or our institutions. This is a nationwide phenomenon; the worst performers may be red states in the South, but liberal states in the North and West have the same problems. And it's not a function of prosperous versus less-prosperous states.

Keep ReadingShow less
 Shadow on a wall of Judge hitting gavel in court, concept of justice, law, and legal protection

The Trump Justice Department faces scrutiny over alleged prosecutorial misconduct, political pressure, and threats to the rule of law and judicial integrity.

Aitor Diago / Getty Images

Is There Anything That Trump’s Justice Department Lawyers Won’t Do?

There was a time when working for the United States Department of Justice might have been a lawyer’s dream. Speaking on behalf of the United States, working with people who were dedicated to preserving the rule of law and upholding the highest standards of professionalism, not a bad gig.

As Harvard Law School once explained, the department offered lawyers an unparalleled “opportunity to serve the public in a meaningful way while carrying out the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) mandate to ‘pursue justice’ every day…” Not a bad gig.

Keep ReadingShow less
If the GOP Closes Its Primary, Taxpayers Should Close Their Wallets

wallet with dollar bills, on top of an American flag

hartcreations/Getty Images

If the GOP Closes Its Primary, Taxpayers Should Close Their Wallets

A recent court ruling allowing the Colorado Republican Party to decide how and whether to close its primary elections comes at a pivotal moment for the state’s election system. For nearly a decade, Colorado has had an open primary; one designed to reflect the state’s growing share of independent voters. The decision now raises a fundamental question: should taxpayers continue to fund an election that restricts large numbers of the public?

Colorado’s primary elections are not private affairs. They are administered by the state, financed by taxpayers, and conducted through public infrastructure. Ballots are printed and mailed by government offices. Election workers are trained and compensated with public funds. In every functional sense, primaries are public elections.

Keep ReadingShow less