Supreme Court’s EXPLOSIVE ruling deals NEW blow to midterms

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXzYff5upG4

 

This is why Republicans don’t want to teach history

  https://www.youtube.com/shorts/5ZYQvF00xJI

US supreme court ‘demolishes’ Voting Rights Act, gutting provision that prevented racial discrimination

The US supreme court has ruled that Louisiana will have to redraw its congressional map, in a landmark decision that effectively guts a major section of the Voting Rights Act. 

In a 6-3 decision along partisan lines, the court rendered ineffective section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the last remaining powerful provision of the 1965 civil rights law that prevents racial discrimination in voting. Section 2 has long been used to ensure minority voters are treated fairly in redistricting...

 https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/29/supreme-court-louisiana-congressional-map-case-ruling

 

Black lawmakers decry supreme court voting decision: ‘We’re going backwards’

The lawmakers who represent Alabama’s two Black congressional districts, who are now at risk of losing their seats after the supreme court effectively decimated the Voting Rights Act, said the decision sends the US “backwards”…

 https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/29/black-lawmakers-supreme-court-voting-rights-ruling

 

Supreme Court calls Louisiana's House map an 'unconstitutional racial gerrymander' : NPR

Although the court kept Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act intact, Wednesday's decision all but guts the landmark law that came out of the Civil Rights Movement and protected the collective voting power of racial minorities when political maps are redrawn…

 https://www.npr.org/2026/04/29/nx-s1-5754657/supreme-court-louisiana-redistricting

 

History Minute (096): Civil rights enforcement blocked by the Supreme Court and President Hayes

The guarantee of civil rights promised by the Civil Rights act of 1875 was short-lived. 

Numerous White business owners simply ignored the law in the South, and to a degree, also in the North. Federal enforcement efforts were weak and inconsistent. The severe economic depression of 1873 drew people’s attention, and Northern Whites tired of the many Federal government interventions in the South. 

Then in 1876, the Presidential election was close and the results disputed. As a compromise to settle the election, Republican Rutherford B. Hayes agreed to remove the last Federal troops from the South in exchange for dropping challenges to his being sworn in as President. Once the troops protecting civil rights were gone, a political coalition known as the Redeemers swung into action.

(Note: You may be accustomed to thinking of Democrats as pro-civil rights and Republicans as a party with a lot of white supremacists in their ranks. However, the opposite was true in the 1870’s; I point this out lest anyone be confused while reading the below paragraphs.)

The Redeemers comprised former White Southern Democrats — Confederates, wealthy planters, merchants, and others — who aimed to “redeem” the South by overthrowing Republican state governments, which were largely backed by freed Black people, Northern “carpetbaggers” and Southern “scalawags”.  They sought to restore white supremacy, limit Black civil rights, and reestablish Democratic Party dominance. They pledged a return to pre-Civil War social order. Their legal tactics included poll taxes, literacy tests, and violence through paramilitary groups like the White League and Red Shirts.  By 1877, Redeemers controlled nearly all Southern governments and went about passing Jim Crow and segregation laws.

As lawsuits were filed by Black people asserting their rights when barred from main floor seating in theaters, denied seats in the ladies section of a train, or refused hotel rooms, business owners asserted that the Federal government had no right to tell them what to do. When multiple such cases made their way to the Supreme Court, and consolidated as the Civil Rights Cases, the Court struck down as unconstitutional a substantial part of the the Civil Rights Act of 1875, saying it could be applied only to state actions, not those of private businesses or individuals.

The message to business owners was that they were free to discriminate. This paved the way for Jim Crow — a comprehensive system of laws and customs that mandated segregation and subjugation of Black Americans.

Read More:

• https://uslawexplained.com/civil_rights_act_of_1875
• https://www.perplexity.ai/search/who-were-the-redeemers-in-the-lGg00EKYRGi9jYTMckpMUg
• https://www.history.com/articles/carpetbaggers-and-scalawags
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws

 

History Minute (095): The Civil Rights Act of 1875 enacted

 In 1875, President Ulysses S. Grant signed into law the Civil Rights Act. It had two critical sections:

• Section 1: “…all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges of inns, public conveyances on land or water, theaters, and other places of public amusement; subject only to the conditions and limitations established by law, and applicable alike to citizens of every race and color, regardless of any previous condition of servitude.”

This meant that private business owners of public accommodations such as theaters, trains, hotels, and restaurants, could not legally refuse service to customers merely because they were Black. All commercial and social life access had to be offered without regard to skin color.

• Section 2: “…any person who shall violate the foregoing section…shall for every such offense forfeit and pay the sum of five hundred dollars to the person aggrieved thereby, to be recovered in an action of debt, with full costs; and shall also, for every such offense, be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not less than five hundred nor more than one thousand dollars, or shall be imprisoned not less than thirty days nor more than one year…”

This meant that if a business owner discriminated against you, they could be found guilty of a misdemeanor, imprisoned for at least 30 days, pay a fine of at least $500 (a huge amount in 1875) — and pay you directly another $500 for each instance of discrimination.

This Civil Rights Act also prohibited racial discrimination in the selection of jury members, or the fact that they had dark skin or were previously enslaved. This was important because in the South, all-white juries habitually acquitted White defendants accused of crimes against Black citizens. A more impartial justice system was the intended outcome. 

Read more: https://uslawexplained.com/civil_rights_act_of_1875

 

Federal judge dismisses attempt to obtain Michigan voter data in latest rejection of DOJ

In an opinion issued Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Hala Y. Jarbou, a Trump nominee, said the laws cited by the Justice Department in its complaint, including the Civil Rights Act of 1960, do not require the disclosure of the records it sought...

https://www.michiganpublic.org/politics-government/2026-02-11/federal-judge-dismisses-attempt-to-obtain-michigan-voter-data-in-latest-rejection-of-doj 

 

Trump administration exploits landmark civil rights act to fight universities’ diversity initiatives | Trump administration | The Guardian

"The decision was about admissions practices, it did not say that diversity didn't matter or that diversity was unlawful," echoed Wiley, noting that what has been dubbed "DEI" is actually a diverse set of practices aiming to promote equity. "What this administration is doing essentially is taking one supreme court opinion about college admissions and trying to turn it into a sword against everything it doesn't like, whether it's lawful or not."

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/may/01/trump-administration-civil-rights-act 

 

An Odd Way to Do History (Senator Sheldon Whitehouse; Making the Case podcast)

Welcome to the new ‘wild, wild west’ of Supreme Court false fact-finding! (WANTED: A Supreme Court that doesn’t abuse the fact-finding process to reach the results it wants.)

In this episode of Making the Case, Senator Whitehouse is joined by Professor Allison Orr Larsen, an expert on judicial fact-finding at the William and Mary Law School. Some of the Supreme Court’s worst decisions, like Citizens United and Shelby County, got to their results by making stuff up. Following Senator Whitehouse’s recent article in the Ohio State Law Review, this episode unpacks how the Supreme Court‘s false fact-finding expeditions broke traditional rules to render decisions agreeable to the Court’s right-wing, special-interest benefactors.
Interview: 

https://www.podbean.com/ew/dir-ryvk5-1d65ac83

'Corruption. Plain and Simple': Ginni Thomas Took Secret Payments Ahead of Landmark Voting Rights Case

"This is corruption. Plain and simple," said Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) in reaction to the latest revelation. "And each day that passes, the Supreme Court is looking less like a bench and more like an auction house. Thomas should resign immediately and Roberts should see to it that he does."

https://www.commondreams.org/news/no-mention-of-ginni-thomas-corruption

Payments made to Justice Thomas' wife raise more ethical questions about...

For the fourth time in a month, a report raises questions about Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and his rich friends. This time it’s money going to Ginni Thomas, the justice's wife. According to the Washington Post, Leonard Leo directed pollster Kellyanne Conway to give Ginni Thomas “another $25k” and bill it to a nonprofit that Leo advised. John Yang discussed the report with Emma Brown.

Interview: 

https://youtu.be/c5ocmJXKfD8

Ben Shapiro Is Wrong About: The Civil Rights Act

https://youtu.be/804oV8PXxoM