Voting rights at risk after Supreme Court makes it harder to challenge racial gerrymandering

  Two recent Supreme Court rulings on congressional redistricting will have starkly different consequences for Black voters in the 2024 election.

  One ruling boosted Black voting power in Louisiana, while another decision upheld a South Carolina congressional map that the lower court had declared “illegal racial gerrymandering.”

  Despite these seemingly contradictory outcomes, there is a through line.

Fighting an internal threat to our democracy

  In his recent testimony before Congress, Special Counsel Robert Mueller pointedly warned the nation about Russia’s ongoing attempts to meddle in our nation’s elections.

  All Americans, regardless of their political beliefs, should be gravely concerned about this threat from abroad. But we should be equally – perhaps even more – concerned about efforts to rig our elections from within.

  Since the U.S. Supreme Court gutted a key provision of the Voting Rights Act in 2013, partisan politicians at the state level have enacted a wave of voting restrictions that have disenfranchised hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of people.

Supreme Court’s decision in vulgar trademark case affirms core principles

  The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Iancu v. Brunetti (2019), striking down a provision of federal trademark law barring the registration of “immoral or scandalous” trademarks, affirms fundamental First Amendment principles. These fundamental principles concern viewpoint discrimination and overbreadth.

  To recap, the court addressed the trademark provision in the case of Erik Brunetti, an artist and entrepreneur who founded a clothing line named FUCT. The name obviously bears a close resemblance to a profanity.

Steve Flowers: Inside the Statehouse: Summer of SCOTUS

  During the summer the U.S. Supreme Court rendered two significant rulings. They were quite different philosophically.

  The high tribunal, in a far-reaching landmark decision, rendered same sex marriage legal in America. By granting all legal rights to same sex marriage they gave credence and official sanction to these unions. Their decisions are the law of the land. This is a significant verdict. The Supreme Court is omnipotent. Therefore, when it comes to federal benefits, such as Social Security, state laws like Alabama’s that prohibit same sex marriage are irrelevant. If a gay couple that was married in Connecticut moves to Alabama they are officially married.