Connect with us

The Center Square

U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments in key redistricting case | National

Published

on

www.thecentersquare.com – Steve Wilson – (The Center Square – ) 2025-03-24 11:03:00

(The Center Square) – The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a critical case regarding Louisiana’s redrawn congressional districts on Monday.

The state is defending the existing map and plaintiffs seek an overturn on grounds of racial gerrymander. The case could be pivotal as justices could examine the criteria required of state legislatures under the Voting Rights Act when it comes to balancing representation of minority groups with the drawing of geographically compact districts. 

The court heard arguments from Louisiana Solicitor General Ben Aguiñaga in the combined Louisiana v. Callais case. The state was required to add a second majority-minority district to the six districts by a court order last year. 

Justice Sonia Sotomayor suggested that one of the maps offered by the original plaintiffs would have been a better solution since it was more “geographically compact” than the state-drawn maps. 

During arguments, Chief Justice John Roberts described the newly-drawn District 6 as a “snake.” It stretches along the Red River from Shreveport in the northwestern part of the state to Alexandria and finally down to the majority-Black areas of Baton Rouge. 

It was drawn by lawmakers to connect multiple majority-Black areas together to create the court-required second majority-minority district. 



A map of Louisiana’s redrawn congressional districts. 




Aguiñaga responded that one of the key issues was to preserve the districts of key Republicans, U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson and U.S. Rep. Steve Scalise, the House majority leader. 

“This court has been clear that states have breathing room to take reasonable efforts to comply with the Voting Rights Act and they may also balance the many other interests that enter the redistricting calculus,” Aguiñaga said. “And so it was perfectly appropriate after two federal courts had found that Louisiana had likely violated Section 2 that the state sought to comply with those rulings and that it exercised its authority to protect favored incumbents and unite preferred communities of interest and accounting for those kinds of political considerations is squarely the Legislature’s prerogative.”

Attorney Stuart Charles Naifeh, arguing for the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, said “politics is the only reason that the state shows that map over the compact maps that were offered in Robinson,” the original case that was brought in 2022.

Edward Dean Greim, who represented Louisiana Secretary of State Nancy Landry, said

In its brief before the court, Louisiana officials say that “nobody truly wins in this ‘sordid business’ of ‘divvying us up by race.'” 

“And if Louisiana were to lose on these facts, that would underscore the injustice of forcing States to run an endless ‘legal obstacle course,’ lined with ‘notoriously unclear and confusing’ precedents,” the brief said. “More than any before it, therefore, this case presents a compelling opportunity for the Court to ‘call home’ – ‘to alter its course’ – rather than ‘continue on.'”

The case could have national ramifications. Alabama filed an amicus, or friend of the court, brief. Alabama was also the subject of a lawsuit that sought successfully to create another majority-minority Congressional district.

Several other states – Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and West Virginia – joined the Alabama brief that said constant litigation is making it impossible for legislatures to redraw congressional districts without facing a flurry of lawsuits. 

The Legislature adopted new maps under Senate Bill 8 to replace the ones drawn in 2022 during a five-day special session called by Gov. Jeff Landry in 2024 to address a court order from U.S. District Judge Shelly Dick to redraw the state’s congressional districts by Jan. 31.

Later, a group of “Non African-American” voters filed a lawsuit, saying that the new maps represented an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The U.S. Supreme Court issued a stay to stop a lower court order that would’ve required the districts be redrawn again before the November election. 



FNF Louisiana Congressional District

A map of Louisiana’s redrawn congressional districts. 




The order was issued in the case known as Robinson v. Landry. Plaintiffs in that case said Black voters were unable to vote for the candidate of their choice with only one majority Black congressional district in the 2022 maps since one third of the state’s population is Black. Dick ordered lawmakers to draw a new map.

The post U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments in key redistricting case | National appeared first on www.thecentersquare.com

The Center Square

Extended Secret Service protection canceled for Kamala Harris | National

Published

on

www.thecentersquare.com – Sarah Roderick-Fitch – (The Center Square – ) 2025-08-29 10:05:00


More than seven months after leaving office, former Vice President Kamala Harris is losing her taxpayer-funded Secret Service protection. Typically, former vice presidents receive six months of protection under the 2008 Former Vice President Protection Act, but Joe Biden extended Harris’s detail to 18 months before leaving office. This revocation coincides with Harris’s upcoming book tour promoting her memoir, “107 Days,” about her brief presidential campaign. After rumors of a California governor run, Harris announced she will not run, choosing instead to focus on public service and supporting Democratic candidates nationwide. She plans to share more about her future in the coming months.

(The Center Square) – More than seven months after leaving office, President Donald Trump is revoking former Vice President Kamala Harris’s Secret Service protection detail at the taxpayers’ expense, according to multiple reports.

Former vice presidents are entitled to six months of taxpayer-funded Secret Service protection upon leaving office, according to the 2008 Former Vice President Protection Act. Former President Joe Biden extended Harris’ detail to last 18 months prior to leaving office.

Former Vice President Dick Cheney requested a six-month Secret Service protection from then-President Barack Obama, who granted the request.

The latest news of Harris’s taxpayer-funded protection revocation comes as the former vice president is about to embark on a book tour, set to visit 15 cities nationwide promoting her memoir, “107 Days,” chronicling her ill-fated, short-lived presidential campaign.

After losing her presidential bid to Trump in November, rumors swirled about her possible bid for governor of California.

In July, Harris quashed the possible candidacy, saying she was focusing on “public service.”

“But after deep reflection, I’ve decided that I will not run for governor in this election,” Harris, 60, said in her statement on X. “For now, my leadership – and public service – will not be in elected office.”

“I look forward to getting back out and listening to the American people, helping elect Democrats across the nation who will fight fearlessly and sharing more details in the months ahead about my own plans,” she added.

The post Extended Secret Service protection canceled for Kamala Harris | National appeared first on www.thecentersquare.com



Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.

Political Bias Rating: Center-Right

The article primarily reports on the revocation of former Vice President Kamala Harris’s Secret Service protection, presenting facts about the relevant policies and past actions by presidents without overt editorializing. It includes direct quotes from Harris and factual context surrounding her political decisions and activities. However, the source “The Center Square” is known for conservative-leaning reporting, and subtle framing—such as emphasizing taxpayer expense and mentioning Harris’s “ill-fated” campaign—may suggest a slight center-right bias. The language is not overtly critical but does lean toward a perspective that questions the justification of extended protections and highlights perceived political vulnerabilities rather than offering neutral or favorable coverage. Overall, the content reports on ideological positions and actions of political figures but with a subtle right-leaning framing rather than a neutral or left-leaning stance.

Continue Reading

News from the South - Florida News Feed

Report: Proven ideas, demonstrated wins need permanence | Florida

Published

on

www.thecentersquare.com – By David Beasley | The Center Square contributor – (The Center Square – ) 2025-08-28 15:41:00


In 2006, Florida voters created a Government Efficiency Task Force, chaired by the governor and including state leaders, meeting every four years to recommend cost-saving measures. Florida TaxWatch now urges a new Florida Government Efficiency Act requiring the governor to submit efficiency recommendations annually with the budget. TaxWatch argues that efficiency should be embedded in state law, not just the constitution, for ongoing accountability and sustained savings. The Task Force has identified 172 proposals, estimating $15.14 billion in savings, but recent efforts lack follow-through and public tracking. The proposed law aims to convert periodic initiatives into consistent government efficiency improvements.

(The Center Square) – In 2006, Florida voters amended the state’s constitution to create a Government Efficiency Task Force.

The 15-member group, chaired by the governor, includes the speaker of the House and other state leaders, and convenes every four years. It has recommended changes that would potentially save taxpayers billions of dollars.

A taxpayers group, Florida TaxWatch, this week called for a new state law, the Florida Government Efficiency Act that would require the governor to include efficiency and cost-reduction recommendations each year in the annual budget recommendation.

“Florida TaxWatch firmly believes that, if government efficiency is important enough to the taxpayers to be enshrined in our state constitution, then it should be important enough to the Legislature to be enshrined in Florida statutes,” Jeff Kottkamp, the group’s vice president and general counsel said in a statement.

Florida TaxWatch included the assessment in a report, Government Efficiency Is Not Something We Should Do Every Four Years.

It outlines the history of the constitutional amendment and some of the cost-savings that the Government Efficiency Task Force has recommended over the years.

It also praises second-term Republican Gov. Ron Desantis’ recent executive order creating Department of Government Efficiency teams within state agencies, mirroring a similar effort in the federal government.

“Florida has proven ideas, demonstrated wins, and active tools; now it needs permanence,” TaxWatch said in a statement. “By embedding efficiency into the annual budget cycle – backed by transparent tracking and regular reporting – the state can convert sporadic initiatives into sustained savings and better service delivery for taxpayers.”

The group notes, however, that recommendations issued every four years by the state’s Government Efficiency Tax Force have not always been followed.

Successes that led to documented savings include streamlining of business permits and an overhaul of the state’s internet technology.

“In total, 172 proposals have been identified across task force terms with estimated savings of $15.14 billion, but recent cycles have shown diminished scope and public tracking,” TaxWatch said.

The Florida Government Efficiency Act has the potential to be more effective, TaxWatch said.

It would require the Legislature to consider the governor’s efficiency recommendations each year as part of the budget process, “creating ongoing accountability rather than four-year burst,” Florida TaxWatch said.

The post Report: Proven ideas, demonstrated wins need permanence | Florida appeared first on www.thecentersquare.com



Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.

Political Bias Rating: Center-Right

The article primarily reports on the activities and recommendations of a taxpayers group, Florida TaxWatch, which advocates for increased government efficiency and cost savings. The tone is generally favorable toward fiscal conservatism and efficiency measures, praising efforts by a Republican governor and emphasizing taxpayer savings. While it does not explicitly argue a partisan viewpoint, the framing positively highlights conservative fiscal policies and government downsizing initiatives, which aligns with center-right ideological perspectives. The coverage refrains from strong partisan attacks or overt ideological language, but the focus on government cost-cutting and the endorsement of a Republican official subtly reflects a center-right bias.

Continue Reading

The Center Square

Embattled Fed governor sues Trump over ‘illegal’ firing | National

Published

on

www.thecentersquare.com – Brett Rowland – (The Center Square – ) 2025-08-28 09:03:00


Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, appointed by Biden, sued after Trump fired her over alleged mortgage fraud, claiming her removal was “unprecedented and illegal.” Trump dismissed Cook following accusations by Federal Housing Finance Agency Director William Pulte that she falsely listed two homes as primary residences to secure lower mortgage rates. Cook’s lawsuit argues the firing threatens the Fed’s independence and lacks sufficient cause, as required by law. The case names Fed Chair Jerome Powell and the board as defendants. The dispute arises amid Trump’s push for lower interest rates, with experts warning that undermining Fed independence could harm the economy.

(The Center Square) – A Federal Reserve governor accused of mortgage fraud filed a lawsuit Thursday alleging her firing was “unprecedented and illegal.”

Trump fired Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, appointed by President Joe Biden, on Monday after Federal Housing Finance Agency Director William Pulte alleged she committed mortgage fraud.

Pulte said Cook owns properties in Georgia and Michigan but had separately listed both as her “primary residence” on different mortgage agreements. A primary residence can mean lower mortgage rates. 

Cook hit back on Thursday with a lawsuit. She said the independence of the central bank was at risk.

“The operational independence of the Federal Reserve is vital to its ability to make sound economic decisions, free from the political pressures of an election cycle,” Cook’s attorney, Abbe David Lowell, wrote in the suit.

He said allegations of wrongdoing don’t meet the requirement for “cause” to terminate. 

“This case challenges President Trump’s unprecedented and illegal attempt to remove Governor Cook from her position which, if allowed to occur, would the first of its kind in the Board’s history,” Lowell wrote in the lawsuit. “It would subvert the Federal Reserve Act, which explicitly requires a showing of ’cause’ for a Governor’s removal, which an unsubstantiated allegation about private mortgage applications submitted by Governor Cook prior to her Senate confirmation is not.”

U.S. courts have never weighed in on what constitutes “for cause” when removing a Federal Reserve board of governors member because it hasn’t ever happened. 

Cook’s suit names Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell and the board of governors as defendants.

The lawsuit comes amid Trump’s high-profile campaign to get the Federal Reserve to lower key interest rates. Trump has said the U.S. should have the lowest rates in the world, but the Federal Open Market Committee has taken a wait-and-see approach on rates over concerns about how Trump’s tariffs would affect the economy. 

Trump said he has the authority to fire Cook “for cause” and did so appropriately. 

On Monday evening, Trump posted a termination letter to Cook on his Truth Social account.

“The American people must be able to have full confidence in the honesty of the members entrusted with setting policy and overseeing the Federal Reserve,” the president wrote. “In light of your deceitful and potentially criminal conduct in a financial matter, they cannot and I do not have such confidence in your integrity.”

The Federal Reserve said it would abide by a court decision.

Last week, Powell hinted that the Fed may lower interest rates at its next meeting.

Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court indicated it might treat the Federal Reserve differently than other independent agencies.

The nation’s highest court said the president and the Federal Reserve’s relationship differed from other independent agencies.

“The Federal Reserve is a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States,” the high court wrote in an emergency ruling in May.

One of Wall Street’s top bankers also warned against a move on the Fed. 

“Playing around with the Fed could have adverse consequences, the absolute opposite of what you might be hoping for,” JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon said during an earnings call. “It is important that they be independent.”

The post Embattled Fed governor sues Trump over ‘illegal’ firing | National appeared first on www.thecentersquare.com



Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.

Political Bias Rating: Centrist

The article primarily reports on the situation regarding the firing of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook without promoting a particular ideological stance. It provides information on the accusations, Cook’s response through a lawsuit, and the broader context involving President Trump’s approach to the Federal Reserve. The language remains neutral, presenting statements from both sides—Trump’s justification for the firing and Cook’s legal challenge—without emotionally charged or partisan phrasing. It also incorporates perspectives from institutional and financial figures, giving a balanced overview of the issue. Thus, the piece adheres to factual reporting on political actions and ideological positions without contributing its own bias.

Continue Reading

Trending