Posted on 04/29/2026 7:18:03 AM PDT by CFW
The Supreme Court will release opinions from the October 2025 term at 10:00 this morning.
Scotusblog will be live-blogging the opinion release and we will be following along.
There are 37 decisions pending; 27 have already been released.
Below is the link to the cases heard by the Court this term.
One case of interest is the Louisiana v Callais case which is related to the Voting Rights Act and the only case pending from the October sitting. I don't think Justice Alito has written an opinion for that month's hearings. Actually, I don't think Alito has authored but one opinion this term. That's promising!
There are several other cases of importance pending on issues such as the 2nd Amendment, men in women's sports, and election day voting.
(Excerpt) Read more at scotusblog.com ...
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you,
Jim
The ruling was just released. SC strikes down Racial.. Can you summarize for us less legal competents?
I’m late, I know.
We had two opinions this morning, in First Choice Women’s Resource Centers and Callais. Here are the opinion links.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-781_pok0.pdf
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-109_21o3.pdf
For later.
L
First decision is First Choice Women’s Resource Center v. Davenport. It is by Gorsuch and it is unanimous.
This is a case about whether a nonprofit can challenge a subpoena demanding the identities of its financial supporters in federal court.
The lower court had held that First Choice had not yet suffered any injury from the subpoena and therefore did not have a legal right to sue, known as standing.
The court today holds that First Choice has established an injury to its First Amendment rights of association and therefore has a right to sue.
Second case is the Louisiana Voter Case
Alito reads it and it seems that it doesn’t declare Section 2 (racial districts) as unconstitutional but basically defangs it completely. Kagan is not happy and wrote the dissent.
Seems that people are saying this frees up 20+ congressional districts to stronger Republican competition
In the Louisiana v Callais case:
This was a case about Louisiana’s efforts to redistrict after the 2020 census.
In his majority opinion, Justice Alito writes: “Compliance with Section 2, as properly construed, can provide such a reason. Correctly understood, Section 2 does not impose liability at odds with the Constitution, and it should not have imposed liability on Louisiana for its 2022 map.
Compliance with Section 2 thus could not justify the State’s use of race-based redistricting here.”
Seems they’re dumping all the big decisions today to minimize the impact.
suck it leftists
Held: Because the Voting Rights Act did not require Louisiana to create an additional majority-minority district, no compelling interest justified the State’s use of race in creating SB8, and that map is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.
(Alito is reading his opinion from the bench. Kagan dissents and will read her dissent from the bench as well).
ALITO, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS, GORSUCH, KAVANAUGH, and BARRETT, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which GORSUCH, J., joined. KAGAN, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOTOMAYOR and JACKSON, JJ., joined.
(I’m trying to read the Opinion on one sip of coffee. I was up at 3:00 this morning and then fell back asleep and didn’t wake up until right at 10:00 this morning. Thus the late thread).
No more gerrymandering special Black congressional districts.
Bye bye Bennie Thompson you can pack you bags
What!
How is this possible? Multiple posters have said that AJ Barrett is awful as Justice.
Here is what the case was about:
“The dispute began back in 2022, when Louisiana’s Legislature adopted a congressional map with one majority-Black district out of the six seats allotted to the state, although roughly one-third of the state’s population is Black. A group of Black voters went to federal court, where they argued that the 2022 map violated Section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act, which prohibits election practices that result in a denial or abridgement of the right to vote based on race.
A federal district court agreed with the Black voters that the 2022 map likely violated Section 2, barred the state from using the map for future congressional elections, and directed the state to draw a new plan with a second majority-Black district. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld that ruling.
In 2024, the Louisiana Legislature drew a new map, known as S.B. 8, that created a second majority-Black district. A different group of voters, who describe themselves as “non-African American,” contended that the 2024 map was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander – that is, that it impermissibly sorted voters based primarily on their race, in violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. A three-judge district court agreed with them and barred the state from using the map in congressional elections.”
Today SCOTUS ruled that you can’t use race to create a voting district stating “No compelling interest justifies SB8 because §2 did not require the State to create a new majority-minority district.”
So a PUNT and a WIN?
A point is being made that Kagan is not “respectfully” dissenting on the LA VRA case... it’s evident that she’s royally pissed.
We don’t care, of course, but it’s noted for the record.
What!
How is this possible? Multiple posters have said that AJ Barrett is awful as Justice.
She is 50/50 but got this one right and joined the majority.
The First Choice case is an important one as well, it was by Gorsuch and was unanimous.
As an aside, the court is now hearing orals on the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) cases (Mullin v. Dahlia Doe (Syria) and Trump v. Miot (Haiti)).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.