Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

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

An empty grocery cart in a market.

NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani proposes five city-run grocery stores. See the arguments for and against, from food deserts to bodega concerns and the $70M cost.

Getty Images, Kwangmoozaa

Government-Owned Grocery Stores: Accessible Nutrition or Government Overreach?

Issue Introduction

Over the past few years, affordability has become the most central issue affecting Americans and the quality of life in the United States. The prices of groceries and basic necessities have risen 25-30% since the COVID-19 pandemic and are projected to rise another 3.2% in 2026. At the same time, the exodus of grocery chains from rural and low-income areas has scattered food deserts throughout individual states. Recent mass closures include Grocery Outlet’s shuttering of 36 stores and continued shut-downs of many Albertsons locations. These factors have led politicians to make affordability a major campaign issue.

During his progressive campaign for mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani raised the idea of opening grocery stores owned and operated by the city government to provide New Yorkers with affordable groceries. In his April 2026 public address that marked his first 100 days in office, Mayor Mamdani announced plans for the first of five city-run grocery stores. Mamdani’s proposed initiative will use $70 million in capital funding to build five city-owned municipal stores–one in each borough–and place them under control of the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC). NYCEDC will then select third-party operating staff in accordance with city standards for affordability and proper labor practices. Public opinion following the announcement continues to be divided between uproar and support.

Keep ReadingShow less
Land of the Free, Home of the Capitalism Didn’t Fail America. America Failed to Moderate Capitalism
Monopoly's mr. monopoly in a graffiti collage
Photo by Artur Ament on Unsplash

Land of the Free, Home of the Capitalism Didn’t Fail America. America Failed to Moderate Capitalism

The signs are everywhere. For many Americans, buying power has improved only modestly despite decades of economic growth. Corporate profits are at an all-time high. We have reached a level of wealth inequality last seen almost a hundred years ago. By many measures, our capitalist economy seems to have failed to deliver broadly shared prosperity.

However, the failure isn’t with the free market as an economic approach. Instead, it’s our failure to regulate and moderate the free market, or more accurately, that we have spent 40 years undermining or removing the regulations of the New Deal that made our economy work for more Americans.

Keep ReadingShow less
Woman putting savings in a white piggy bank.

America’s economy now rewards asset ownership over wages. A policy proposal: a $35,000 Birthright Account for every child, and how it could be funded.

Guido Mieth/Getty Images

The American Dream Needs a New Economic Operating System

It is, by now, not an exaggeration to state that the traditional American Dream—work hard, buy a house, raise a family, and retire securely—is failing. It was built for a labor-based economy in which steadily rising wages allowed ordinary families to accumulate wealth. But America has become an asset-based economy, and ownership of those assets is extraordinarily concentrated.

Since the 1980s, the returns from capital have far outpaced the returns from labor. Inflation-adjusted wages for ordinary workers have risen only modestly, while the real value of equities has multiplied many times over. Housing, education, healthcare and childcare costs have soared, employment has become less secure, and defined-benefit pensions have largely disappeared. Even two-income households with respectable jobs often struggle to buy a home, build savings and accumulate enough for retirement.

Keep ReadingShow less