Alabama has no obligation to follow a vacated order, and had every right to challenge a district court's order until it is settled by the Supreme Court.
What the Roberts court has just wreaked goes beyond handing an extra House seat to the GOP in the upcoming election.
Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin had a troubling exchange with Democratic Senator Chris Murphy in which he refused to commit to following all court orders on immigration.“‘ICE has likely violated more court orders in January 2026 than some federal agencies have violated in their entire existence.’ That’s not a Democratic-appointed judge, that is a Republican-appointed judge describing the scale of illegality,” Murphy said in a Senate Appropriations hearing on Tuesday afternoon. “You always struck me as somebody who cared about the rule of law, and so maybe the easiest question is this: When DHS gets a court order telling them that something they are doing is either illegal and unconstitutional … can you commit to us that if a court judges something ICE is doing, something DHS is doing as illegal, unconstitutional, [or] tells you to stop, that you will comply with the court order?”Mullin refused to give a yes-or-no answer, dodging the question at least four times. CHRIS MURPHY: Can you commit to us that if a court judges something ICE or DHS is doing as illegal or unconstitutional and tells you to stop, that you will comply with the court order?MARKWAYNE MULLIN: We will never break the Constitution and we're not going to break the law,… pic.twitter.com/PESeUu577W— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 2, 2026Mullin: Ranking member Murphy, I will tell you that we will never break the Constitution, and we’re not going to break the law, but we’re going to enforce our nation’s laws. And we’re gonna enforce the laws that you guys passed and that we implement. We will never go outside that, and if we do, we’ll hold each other accountable for that.Murphy: But that doesn’t sound like the same thing as committing that you will obey a court order. Obviously, the entire structure of the federal government gives the power to the courts to divine whether you are obeying the law or not. I think it’s an easy thing to say—will you, will you not implement court orders?Mullin: If we didn’t think courts were politicized, then I would probably be able to answer that, but we see courts over and over again that use their bench for their political opinion, not just the rule of law.Murphy: So you’ll pick and choose which court orders you obey based upon whether—Mullin: Don’t put words in my mouth.Murphy: Then what are you saying, then?Mullin: What I’m saying is, we’ll enforce the law, and we’re never going to break the Constitution.Murphy: You just said that you will not follow every court order, because—Mullin: Chris, senator, don’t start putting words in my mouth. That’s not what I said. I said I will never break the Constitution.Murphy: Will you implement court orders when they tell you to stop?Mullin: You’re making an assumption on court orders I haven’t seen.Murphy: Will you or will you not?Mullin: I’m going to enforce the law, and I’ll never break the Constitution.
After widespread bipartisan outcry, the Justice Department says it is permanently abandoning plans for a $1.776 billion “anti-weaponization” fund. Widely branded as a “slush fund,” it was expected to reward President Donald Trump’s supporters, including those who attacked the Capitol on January 6, 2021. The fund was announced in May as part of a settlement in Trump’s personal lawsuit against the IRS over the leak of his tax data. That case was recently reopened, after dozens of former federal judges filed a motion alleging that Trump’s actions were “collusive.” As Nancy Gertner, one of the judges who joined the motion, explains, “What happened in this case was, essentially, Trump was suing himself. There was no question that Trump was on both sides of the 'v.'” Gertner and her fellow judges are represented by attorney Matt Platkin, who says, “It is illegal for the president to ask for any IRS audit to be opened or closed. That is a federal crime.”
The US Supreme Court late Tuesday gave Alabama a green light to use an aggressively gerrymandered congressional map that a lower court said was “tainted by intentional race-based discrimination.”The unsigned decision, from which the high court’s three liberal justices dissented, enables Alabama’s Republican-dominated government to replace its current congressional map, which has two majority-Black districts, with a map that the US Supreme Court struck down in 2023. That map has just one majority-Black district.In her dissenting opinion, liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that “just as Alabama doubled down on racial discrimination, the court today doubles down on chaos.”“In addition to being wrong on the merits, the court’s decision inflicts two grave harms on the public,” wrote Sotomayor. “It debases the democratic process by upending Alabama’s entire election in the name of permitting Alabama to discriminate against Black Alabamians. It also corrodes the rule of law by rewarding Alabama’s gamesmanship and outright defiance of court orders.”The liberal justice noted that in order to switch to the map previously struck down by the high court, Alabama election officials “will have to reassign hundreds of thousands of voters across the state to new congressional districts.”“Three of Alabama’s counties will be particularly hard hit because they are split across two congressional districts,” Sotomayor noted. “These counties have about 600,000 registered voters between them (roughly 15% of the state’s total number of registered voters).”Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey, a Republican, postponed US House primary elections in the wake of the Supreme Court’s April decision in Louisiana v. Callais, which severely narrowed the 1965 Voting Rights Act’s protections against racial discrimination and paved the way for Alabama and other states to impose new maps ahead of the 2026 midterms. “The Supreme Court’s shameful ruling allowing Alabama to move forward with a gerrymander that was drawn with the explicit intent to dilute Black voting power—as found by a panel of judges that included two Trump appointees—is an absolute affront to the founding principles of our democracy, and wipes out whatever was left of the court’s credibility,” said Marina Jenkins, executive director of the National Redistricting Foundation. “This country deserves better, and we must continue to work toward federal legislation that not only bans partisan and racial gerrymandering but also ensures that our rights cannot be undermined by captured courts.”The ruling drew condemnation from the two Democrats in Alabama’s US congressional delegation. Rep. Shomari Figures, who was elected to the US House under the independently drawn map that Alabama Republicans are working to replace, said in a statement that “the Supreme Court has now confirmed that there is no longer a Voting Rights Act in America, and states are essentially free to discriminate against minority voters with no consequences.”“This is a dangerous ruling that sets the state and this nation back decades,” said Figures.Rep. Terri Sewell called the ruling “just the latest in a pattern of outrageous Supreme Court decisions that help Republicans desperately cling to power ahead of the midterm elections while diluting Black voices and erasing decades of hard-fought civil rights progress.”“No matter how hard Alabama state officials may try, they will not succeed in silencing our voices,” said Sewell. “We will not go back to the Jim Crow era. The fight for fair representation continues.”
Even after Callais, Congress has the power, under the guarantee clause, to stamp out state efforts to decimate Black representation.
Mojtaba, 56, hasn't been seen in public since the war started on Feb. 28 with surprise US-Israeli airstrikes that reportedly injured him and killed his father, the late Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.
Republicans just got another victory at the U.S. Supreme Court.The highest court in the land approved the redistricted congressional map for Alabama in a 6-3 decision released late on Tuesday evening. All three liberal justices dissented.'Our message to communities remains the same — the best way to express dissent is by showing up at the ballot box this election season.'One of Alabama's majority-black districts will be eliminated by the new map.The dissent, written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, accused the majority justices of "unleashing chaos" with the decision, likely confusing voters at this late stage in the election season."Just as Alabama doubled down on racial discrimination, the Court today doubles down on chaos," Sotomayor claimed. "Because I choose to defend the rule of law and the right of all Alabamians to participate equally in democracy, I respectfully dissent."Alabama Republican Gov. Kay Ivey released a statement in support of the decision."The U.S. Supreme Court confirmed what I have said all along, and that is that Alabama knows our state, our people, and our districts best," she wrote. "Today's decision is a win for the people of Alabama and our elections."Democrats were outraged over the decision."The Supreme Court has now confirmed that there is no longer a Voting Rights Act in America, and states are essentially free to discriminate against minority voters with no consequences," said Rep. Shomari Figures (D-Ala.), whose district was eliminated by the redistricting."Once again, the right-wing Supreme Court has put its blatant partisanship on full display, allowing Alabama Republicans to change the rules in the eleventh hour and use a racist congressional map that federal courts have found — on two separate occasions — intentionally discriminates against Black Alabama voters," read a statement from Rep. Terri Sewell, a Democrat from Alabama.RELATED: Federal court strikes down Alabama redistricting effort — GOP to APPEAL at Supreme Court "This is just the latest in a pattern of outrageous Supreme Court decisions that help Republicans desperately cling to power ahead of the midterm elections while diluting Black voices and erasing decades of hard-fought civil rights progress," Sewell added.She went on to accuse Republicans of taking America "back to the Jim Crow era," an accusation that was repeated by the NAACP."This is a Court that is stripping Black voters of power and voice at a speed that would put Jim Crow jurists to shame," said Kristen Clarke, general counsel of the NAACP. "Our message to communities remains the same — the best way to express dissent is by showing up at the ballot box this election season."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Second Lady Usha Vance is demanding that Supreme Court Justices be respected after they've faced fury from both sides of the aisle.