Texas’ redrawn Congressional map blocked by court in shocking blow to GOP, and what a story it is. The news hit like a thunderclap, especially for a party that’s been riding high on its ability to reshape the political landscape. The whole plan was about shifting power, about getting a leg up in the midterms by strategically redrawing district lines. They were aiming for five more seats, a significant boost to their numbers, a real power play. But the court, in a move that’s sent ripples through the political world, has slammed the brakes on their carefully laid plans.
The court’s decision, handed down by a panel of judges in El Paso, essentially throws a wrench into the gears of the upcoming primary election.… Continue reading
A federal court has blocked Texas from using a redrawn U.S. House map, which was a key part of Trump’s efforts to maintain a Republican majority. The court ruled that the map racially gerrymandered the districts, reducing the influence of minority voters and violating the Voting Rights Act. The decision, made by a panel of judges, grants the critics’ request to block the map, forcing the state to use the 2021 map for upcoming elections. The ruling suggests the state intentionally manipulated district lines to create more majority-Hispanic and Black districts, despite the elimination of coalition districts.
Read More
The Supreme Court made a horrible mistake when it gave Trump absolute power. It’s hard to even call it a mistake, really. More like a deliberate dismantling of the checks and balances that have, until recently, defined American democracy. This wasn’t an accident; it was a carefully orchestrated maneuver, a long game played by a conservative movement that has, for decades, prioritized reshaping the judiciary. And the consequences are terrifyingly clear.
What’s really chilling is the Supreme Court’s rationale, as articulated by Chief Justice Roberts. He argued that a president must be able to “carry out his constitutional duties without undue caution” and take “bold and unhesitating action.”… Continue reading
The Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from Cambridge Christian School, ending a nine-year legal battle over the school’s right to offer a prayer over a stadium loudspeaker at a 2015 football championship. The case involved the Florida High School Athletic Association, which denied the school’s request. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had previously ruled that announcements over the loudspeaker constituted “government speech,” thus not violating free-speech rights. This decision effectively upholds the appeals court’s ruling and resolves a dispute regarding free speech rights in a government setting.
Read More
President Donald Trump is seeking to overturn the jury’s verdict in a civil lawsuit where he was found liable for sexually abusing E. Jean Carroll and later defaming her. His legal team argues that the $5 million verdict was based on “indefensible evidentiary rulings,” allowing “inflammatory propensity evidence.” Trump’s lawyers claim the trial judge warped federal evidence rules to support Carroll’s claims, which they call a “politically motivated hoax.” The appeal to the Supreme Court follows a denial by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, who upheld the original verdict.
Read More
Former President Trump took to social media late Monday night, warning the Supreme Court of a catastrophic financial “drubbing” exceeding $3 trillion if it were to strike down his tariffs on imports. He claimed these tariffs were responsible for triggering trillions in U.S. manufacturing investments and described their potential demise as a national security event, which would be “non-sustainable”. Trump’s post contradicted the legal arguments made by the Solicitor General, who attempted to downplay the revenue-generating aspect of the tariffs, which are ultimately paid by American businesses and consumers.
Read More
The Shopping Trends team at CTV News operates independently, offering curated product recommendations to readers. The team may receive a commission for purchases made through the provided links. This allows them to generate revenue while offering valuable shopping insights. Details on their relationship with the newsroom can be found on their about page.
Read More
Amidst the ongoing government shutdown, the Trump administration has returned to the Supreme Court seeking to halt full payments in the SNAP program, despite lower court rulings to the contrary. The administration’s request follows a whirlwind of legal action regarding food aid for 42 million Americans, with states facing uncertainty on how to proceed. While the Supreme Court has temporarily paused full payments, the outcome remains uncertain as Congress considers a funding package to resolve the shutdown. Several states are voicing concerns about “catastrophic operational disruptions” should the government not reimburse them for benefits already authorized, leaving millions waiting for their SNAP payments.
Read More
The Supreme Court has rejected an appeal by Kim Davis, the former Kentucky county clerk, who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples due to her religious beliefs. Davis’s appeal, which sought to overturn the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision, drew attention amidst concerns about the court potentially revisiting the landmark ruling. Though Davis argued her religious freedom was violated, the court did not address the larger question of overturning the Obergefell decision, as the court has a conservative majority and Justice Alito, who authored the abortion ruling, indicated he was not pushing for Obergefell to be overturned. The justices dismissed the appeal without comment, leaving the 2015 decision intact.
Read More
The Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal from Kim Davis, the former Kentucky county clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, leaving the landmark Obergefell v. Hodges decision intact. This decision comes amidst concerns from LGBTQ advocates about the conservative court potentially revisiting the 2015 same-sex marriage ruling, especially after the overturning of Roe v. Wade. While the court did not explain its reasoning, the denial of the appeal maintains the constitutional right to same-sex marriage, leading to relief among LGBTQ+ advocates. The case focused on technical questions regarding religious protections, but the primary concern was whether the court would reconsider the Obergefell decision.
Read More
Matt Underwood 
John Q. Hosedrinker