Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Judges have no role in evaluating partisan gerrymandering, Supreme Court rules

There is no constitutional limit to the use of political muscle in drawing legislative boundaries to favor the party in power, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday.

The decision is a landmark setback for those who view partisan gerrymandering as one of the biggest problems plaguing American democracy. Rather than work with new judicial tests for the limits lawmakers can go to in crafting congressional and state legislative district lines for partisan gain, advocates of redistricting reform will instead need to redouble their efforts to drain politics out of electoral mapmaking state by state.


Partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions "beyond the reach of the federal courts," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the 5-4 majority: "None of the proposed tests for evaluating partisan gerrymandering claims meets the need for a limited and precise standard that is judicially discernable and manageable."

The justices upheld congressional districts in North Carolina drawn by the GOP and in Maryland drawn by the Democrats. The ruling also casts in doubt decisions by lower federal courts this spring that held the Republican-dominated congressional maps in Ohio and Wisconsin were unconstitutional

The five conservative justices said that federal courts should defer to the will of state mapmakers because there exists no clear standard to determine when a map is so egregiously drawn in favor of one party that it violates the Constitution.

The court's four liberal justices disagreed, saying the court was obligated to intervene in cases when the state's majority party has drawn a map for the purposes of maintaining power.

"For the first time ever, this court refuses to remedy a constitutional violation because it thinks the task beyond judicial capabilities," Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the dissenters. "The partisan gerrymanders in these cases deprived citizens of the most fundamental of their constitutional rights: the rights to participate equally in the political process, to join with others to advance political beliefs, and to choose their political representatives."

Read More

The Sanctuary City Debate: Understanding Federal-Local Divide in Immigration Enforcement
Police car lights.
Getty Images / Oliver Helbig

The Sanctuary City Debate: Understanding Federal-Local Divide in Immigration Enforcement

Immigration is governed by a patchwork of federal laws. Within the patchwork, one notable thread of law lies in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. The Act authorizes the Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) programs, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to work in tandem with local agencies and law enforcement on deterrence and enforcement efforts. Like the now-discontinued Secure Communities program that encouraged information sharing between local police agencies and ICE, the law specifically authorizes ICE to work with local and federal partners to detain and deport removal-eligible immigrants from the country.

What are Sanctuary Policies?

Keep ReadingShow less
Trump Slams Washington Commanders and Cleveland Guardians Over Name Changes

President Donald Trump speaks to the media as he departs the White House in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

Trump Slams Washington Commanders and Cleveland Guardians Over Name Changes

Washington, D.C. — President Donald Trump has reignited controversy surrounding the Washington Commanders football team, demanding the franchise revert to its former name, the “Redskins,” a term widely condemned as a racial slur against Native Americans.

In a series of posts on Truth Social this past weekend, Trump declared, “The Washington 'Whatever's' should IMMEDIATELY change their name back to the Washington Redskins Football Team.” He went further, threatening to block the team’s $3.7 billion stadium deal in Washington, D.C., unless the name change is reversed.

Keep ReadingShow less
Media criticism
News media's vital to democracy, Americans say; then a partisan divide yawns
Tero Vesalainen/Getty Images

Public Media Under Fire: Why Project 2025 Is Reshaping NPR and PBS

This past spring and summer, The Fulcrum published a 30-part, nonpartisan series examining Project 2025—a sweeping policy blueprint for a potential second Trump administration. Our analysis explored the proposed reforms and their far-reaching implications across government. Now, as the 2025 administration begins to take shape, it’s time to move from speculation to reality.

In this follow-up, we turn our focus to one of the most consequential—and quietly unfolding—chapters of that blueprint: Funding cuts from NPR and PBS.

Keep ReadingShow less
Person voting

New York City’s election has gotten a lot of attention over the last few weeks, and ranked choice voting is a big part of the reason why.

Hill Street Studios/Getty Images

New York City’s Ranked Choice Voting: Democracy That’s Accountable to Voters

New York City’s election has gotten a lot of attention over the last few weeks, and ranked choice voting is a big part of the reason why.

Heads turned when 33-year-old state legislator Zohran Mamdani knocked off Andrew Cuomo, a former governor from one of the Democratic Party’s most prominent families. The earliest polls for the mayoral primary this winter found Mamdani struggling to reach even 1 percent.

Keep ReadingShow less