The Louisiana Senate on Thursday approved a new congressional map ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. In a 27-10 vote, the legislative chamber passed a map that would eliminate one of the state’s two Democrat-held U.S. House seats. The map heads to the Louisiana House of Representatives, where the GOP holds a two-thirds majority. Republican state senators in Louisiana approved a congressional map designed to give the party another seat, continuing the GOP’s sprint to remake districts to protect its fragile House majority. https://t.co/7o6n1JiRCG — The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) May 14, 2026 NOLA.com has more: The map approved by the full Senate removed Pointe Coupee Parish from District 5 and added it to District 6. It also split up St. Landry Parish between the 3rd, 5th and 6th Districts. The amended map also changes Tangipahoa Parish: Instead of being split between three districts, the northern part of the parish would be in District 5 and the lower part would be in District 1. District 2, the lone majority-Black district with a population center anchored in Orleans Parish, remains largely unchanged in the approved map. The seat is currently held by U.S. Rep. Troy Carter, a New Orleans Democrat. “I did draw it in a way that would help Representative Carter maintain his incumbency,” Morris said Thursday. “It would help Republicans, in a way, by concentrating more Democratic-leaning voters in that district.” Morris has said that, after the Supreme Court last month decided that redistricting plans can’t be made based on race, Louisiana is required to draw a new map. Check out the map below: A proposed congressional district map has passed the Louisiana Senate by a 27–10 vote and will now move to the Louisiana House of Representatives for consideration. If passed: +1 GOP -1 DEM pic.twitter.com/AsEJ1XcJMV — VoteHub (@VoteHub) May 14, 2026 Louisiana had suspended its congressional primaries after the Supreme Court’s ruling. “Yesterday’s historic Supreme Court victory for Louisiana has an immediate consequence for the State. The Supreme Court previously stayed an injunction against the State’s enforcement of the current Congressional map. By the Court’s order, however, that stay automatically terminated with yesterday’s decision. Accordingly, the State is currently enjoined from carrying out congressional elections under the current map. We are working together with the Legislature and the Secretary of State’s office to develop a path forward,” Gov. Jeff Landry and Attorney General Liz Murrill said in a joint statement last month. Governor Jeff Landry and @AGLizMurrill issued the following statement after yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling in Louisiana v. Callais. “Yesterday’s historic Supreme Court victory for Louisiana has an immediate consequence for the State. The Supreme Court previously stayed an… — Governor Jeff Landry (@LAGovJeffLandry) April 30, 2026 Reuters noted: Democratic lawmakers, civil rights activists and voting rights advocates have criticized the proposed map for diluting the electoral power of Black residents, who make up about one-third of the state’s population. The ​new map would likely ​result in Republicans winning ⁠five of the state’s six districts in November. “This Senate should seek to support a map that gives everyone a voice,” Democratic state Senator Katrina ​Jackson-Andrews said from the Senate floor on Thursday. Republicans, including the bill’s sponsor, state ​Senator Jay Morris, ⁠said the map was drawn solely for partisan advantage, rather than along racial lines. The current map, which includes majority-Black districts centered in New Orleans and Baton Rouge, was deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, ⁠which ​found lawmakers relied too heavily on race in crafting the ​lines. The new map includes only a single Democratic district that connects the two cities, which could pit the two Democratic ​incumbent U.S. representatives, Troy Carter and Cleo Fields, against one another.

The Supreme Court handed down a unanimous decision Thursday in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, ruling that federal law does not block injured drivers from suing freight brokers who negligently hire unsafe trucking companies. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the opinion. All nine justices agreed. The case centers on Shawn Montgomery, a truck driver who lost part of his leg after his parked tractor-trailer was struck by another truck on an Illinois road. The driver who hit him, Yosniel Varela-Mojena, was hauling a load of plastic pots for Caribe Transport. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, the country’s largest freight broker, had coordinated the shipment. JUST IN: Supreme Court just dropped a UNANIMOUS 9-0 ruling, freight brokers can now be held LIABLE for negligently hiring unsafe trucking companies. That includes the ones flooding our roads with illegal alien and foreign drivers who don’t have proper CDLs, can’t speak English,… — Gunther Eagleman™ (@GuntherEagleman) May 14, 2026 Montgomery alleged that C.H. Robinson negligently hired the motor carrier and driver despite safety red flags. C.H. Robinson argued that a federal statute, the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act, preempted state-law claims like Montgomery’s. The Seventh Circuit agreed and tossed the case. The Supreme Court reversed that decision and sent the case back. The core of the ruling is straightforward: states retain the authority to regulate safety with respect to motor vehicles, and a negligent-hiring claim fits squarely within that retained authority. Barrett’s opinion makes clear that this exception to federal preemption applies even when the defendant is a freight broker rather than a trucking company itself. The Supreme Court laid out the case and holding this way: Shawn Montgomery sustained severe and permanent injuries after his parked tractor-trailer was struck by a truck driven by Yosniel Varela-Mojena while carrying a load for Caribe Transport in Illinois. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, a transportation broker, had coordinated the shipment. Montgomery alleged that C.H. Robinson was liable because it negligently hired the driver and carrier despite safety red flags, including a safety rating that allegedly showed problems involving driver qualifications, hours of service, inspection, repair, maintenance, and crash rate. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for a unanimous Court that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act does not preempt this type of negligent-hiring claim because states retain safety regulatory authority with respect to motor vehicles. The Court reversed and remanded the Seventh Circuit’s decision. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joined by Justice Samuel Alito, wrote separately to emphasize that the decision does not mean brokers will routinely be liable after truck accidents. That Kavanaugh concurrence is worth reading carefully. He and Justice Samuel Alito agreed with the result but wanted to make sure the ruling was not read as a blank check. Their point: just because a lawsuit can proceed past this federal-preemption barrier does not mean freight brokers will face automatic liability every time there is a crash. In one of two unanimous opinions delivered today, the Supreme Court said federal law doesn’t bar state negligent hiring claims against freight brokers. The case is Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II. Justice Barrett writes for the court.https://t.co/auGlx0eHMu — Jordan Fischer (@JordanOnRecord) May 14, 2026 The practical implications are significant. AP described the industry stakes this way: The Supreme Court allowed Shawn Montgomery to sue C.H. Robinson after he lost part of his leg in a semi tractor-trailer crash, a ruling that could have major ripple effects across the trucking industry. C.H. Robinson is the country’s largest freight broker by size, and brokers could now face more pressure to consider safety records when selecting carriers rather than focusing only on speed and price. The decision opens the door to more liability exposure for freight brokers, which sit between shippers and the trucking companies that physically move the freight. The ruling does not mean Montgomery necessarily wins his lawsuit, because C.H. Robinson is contesting the claims on the merits. AP also reported that the Trump administration and companies such as Amazon had warned that letting the suit proceed could expose logistics companies to liability under a patchwork of state laws. One logistics executive told AP that brokers may now have to pay closer attention to the safety records of carriers they contract with to haul all kinds of goods, including hazardous materials. That last point is notable. The Trump administration and Amazon both filed arguments warning against opening the door to a web of state-by-state litigation. The Court was not persuaded, at least not on the preemption question. The ruling lands at a moment when the Department of Transportation is already pushing hard on commercial-driver safety. In February, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy finalized a rule aimed at stopping unqualified foreign drivers from operating big rigs on American roads. That action followed emergency steps to end the issuance of non-domiciled CDLs to truckers with unverified driving histories, and it connected to broader enforcement of longstanding English-language proficiency requirements for commercial operators. The Department of Transportation has been moving separately on that broader trucking-safety front: DOT announced in February that Secretary Sean Duffy finalized a rule intended to stop unqualified foreign drivers from operating big rigs on American roads. The department said the reforms followed emergency action to end the issuance of non-domiciled CDLs to truckers with unverified driving histories after a surge of deadly crashes involving non-domiciled drivers. DOT framed the move as part of the Trump administration’s push to put the safety of the driving public first and restore integrity to commercial trucking. The department also connected the broader campaign to English-language enforcement for commercial motor vehicle operators, saying drivers who fail to meet longstanding English-language proficiency requirements can be placed out of service. That does not mean the Supreme Court case itself was about immigration status, CDL testing, or English proficiency. It means the ruling lands in the middle of a larger national fight over who is responsible when unsafe commercial drivers are allowed onto American roads. Those DOT policies address a different set of problems than the one the Supreme Court decided Thursday, but they share a common thread: when freight companies cut corners on safety, people get hurt on American highways. Montgomery has not won his lawsuit. He has won the right to bring it. The preemption shield that freight brokers relied on to avoid state negligent-hiring claims is gone, and every broker in the country now operates under a simple new reality: if you contract with an unsafe carrier and someone gets maimed on the highway, you can be hauled into court to answer for it. Safety vetting is no longer a paperwork detail. It is a legal obligation with teeth.

U.S. Border Patrol Chief Mike Banks resigned effective immediately on Thursday, telling Fox News correspondent Bill Melugin that he felt he had accomplished what he set out to do. “It’s just time,” Banks said. “I feel like I got the ship back on course. From the least secure, disastrous, chaotic border to the most secure border this country has ever seen.” The announcement came without warning. Banks informed Border Patrol staff Thursday of his retirement after 37 years in federal law enforcement, framing the move as a chance to pass the reins and return home to Texas. BREAKING: US Border Patrol Chief Mike Banks tells me he is resigning, effective immediately. “It’s just time,” Banks tells me. “I feel like I got the ship back on course. From the least secure disastrous chaotic border to the most secure border this country has ever seen. Time… — Bill Melugin (@BillMelugin_) May 14, 2026 Three Department of Homeland Security sources independently confirmed the departure to CBS News, and Fox reporter Brooke Taylor posted what she identified as Banks’ farewell email to colleagues. #FIRSTONFOX: Sources confirm to me that US Border Patrol Chief @USBPChief abruptly retires. Email he shared attached: pic.twitter.com/h1fJ2OVoXe — Brooke Taylor (@Brooketaylortv) May 14, 2026 CBS News provided additional detail on Banks’ background and his message to Border Patrol employees: Three Department of Homeland Security sources said U.S. Border Patrol Chief Mike Banks is stepping down. Banks informed staff Thursday of his retirement from Border Patrol, the agency that oversees green-uniformed agents responsible for intercepting the illicit movement of people and drugs into the United States, including along the southern border. The report identified Banks as the former Texas border czar before his appointment by the second Trump administration last year. Banks told employees it was time to retire and return home to Texas to focus on his family and ranch. He wrote that what the agency accomplished in the last year and a half was nothing short of amazing, crediting Border Patrol personnel with taking the border from a chaotic and unsecured condition to what he called the most secure border the country has ever seen. His background includes a decade in the U.S. Navy, a stint as Texas border czar, and a January 2025 appointment that came as President Trump returned to office pledging to seal the southern border and launch a nationwide deportation effort. Before taking the top job at Border Patrol, Banks served as Texas Governor Greg Abbott’s border czar, a role that put him at the center of the state’s aggressive push to supplement federal enforcement with state resources. President Donald Trump tapped him to lead the agency, and Banks took the post with a mandate to restore operational control of the southern border. By his own assessment, that mission was accomplished. Banks has consistently pointed to a dramatic reduction in illegal crossings under his tenure, and his farewell message to staff doubled down on that record. FOX 13 reported on Banks’ direct comments and the open question of his replacement: U.S. Border Patrol Chief Mike Banks is resigning effective immediately, according to Fox News’ Bill Melugin. Banks said it was just time and that he felt he had gotten the ship back on course, moving from what he called the least secure, disastrous, chaotic border to the most secure border this country has ever seen. Banks framed the move as passing the reins after 37 years and taking time to enjoy family and life. The report separated what was known from what remained unresolved: Banks was leaving his post immediately, but it was still unclear who would replace him at the top of Border Patrol. The White House was not immediately available for comment, leaving the agency’s next command decision unanswered as the resignation became public and Border Patrol prepared for a leadership transition without a named successor in place. The suddenness of the departure is the part that stands out. This was not a slow-rolled transition with a successor announced on the same day. Banks told Melugin it was effective immediately, informed his staff the same day, and was done. Neither DHS nor Customs and Border Protection had publicly responded to the announcement as of Thursday afternoon. Banks leaves with a strong case that the border is in a fundamentally different place than when the Biden administration left office. The question now is purely operational: who takes the reins at the top of an agency that, by its outgoing chief’s own words, has never been in better shape, and whether the next leader can hold that ground. Any thoughts?

I used you really enjoy watching Tucker Carlson’s show, rarely missed an episode. But over the past 3-6 months he’s simply become unwatchable, at least to me. He’s angry, hostile, rude, antagonistic, anti-Trump, anti-MAGA, oftentimes anti-American and it has made watching his show almost impossible to me. And all of that’s to say nothing of his obsession with Israel. Look, I get it and I even agree with Tucker on many things.  I think he often asks good questions.  I definitely do not agree with everything Benjamin Netanyahu has done or the current nationstate government of Israel. But the extremes to which Tucker takes everything these days, and the underlying hostility that just drips out against his guests are a huge turnoff and make watching his show very uneasy (at best) and impossible (at worst). The latest was his interview last night of Kevin O’Leary. Rarely have I ever seen a host so rude and openly hostile to his guest, but that’s what you got last night in this one. I’m sure Kevin O’Leary is not some pristine angel, but he sure did handle himself with class and wit and he totally outperformed the rude and pedantic Tucker Carlson. I’ve been unable to watch his show for months now, but when I saw O’Leary was the guest, I thought finally could tune in and watch this one.  Maybe this would finally not be 2 hours full of unyielding hatred of Israel.  And we did finally get off the topic of Israel for one show, kind of, but the new hatred it was replaced with was off the charts. In one interview, Tucker made very clear he wants the U.S. to lose to China in the AI race, he does not agree with or support our representative form of government, he does not believe in our Constitution or think that it is effective, same for the Supreme Court, he does not believe local and state governments should compete against each other to try to win new construction projects in their cities and states….and I could go on and on and on. It’s clear Tucker does not like living here and does not like anything about the American way of life, but repeatedly asking O’Leary about these concepts which are far outside his control was laughable and quite frankly low class. It was just one “gotcha” question after another, many of which have nothing to do with O’Leary or data centers or AI at all. Almost none of the questions were designed to reveal truth or to have an open and honest conversation or even debate, rather they were weaponized with the intensity and animus that even the most hardened prosecutor in a court of law would be impressed with. And he’s also now devised a new really low-class method of further trashing his guest when they can’t defend themselves…. What he does now is pre-records the interview and then before airing it, he does a segment where it’s just him and he sets up the interview and trashes the guest and tells you how terrible they are and preframes your mind before even watching that the guest is evil. With friends like these, who needs enemies! Anyway, watch for yourself if you want.  I kind of wish I had opted out. I don’t know who this new guy is, full of anger and hatred and animus and spite and piss and vinegar, but I sure do miss the old Tucker. I wish that guy would come back. This new guy sucks.

The United States Senate took a major step on Thursday toward confirming a massive slate of President Donald Trump’s executive branch nominees, voting 51-46 to invoke cloture on 49 appointees bundled together under Senate Resolution 690. The package includes U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Marshals, ambassadors, and senior officials across the Departments of Defense, State, Transportation, Commerce, and Energy, among other agencies. It is one of the largest single-vote nominee advances in recent memory. Eric Daugherty flagged the development on X, noting the significance of moving 49 Trump appointees forward “in one fell swoop.” JUST IN: The US Senate has just ADVANCED a whopping 49 Donald Trump appointees in one fell swoop, 51-46 That includes US ATTORNEYS across America, crucial for law and order! Get them fully confirmed ASAP pic.twitter.com/PFvksBhfk2 — Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) May 14, 2026 The official Senate Cloakroom account confirmed the 51-46 cloture result shortly before Daugherty’s post started spreading. Invoked, 51-46: Motion to invoke cloture on the en bloc nominations provided for under the provisions of S.Res.690. — Senate Cloakroom (@SenateCloakroom) May 14, 2026 The procedural vehicle was Senate Resolution 690, which authorized en bloc consideration of all 49 nominations listed on the Executive Calendar. The resolution itself had a rocky path. It cleared an earlier cloture vote on April 30 by a vote of 51-46, then was formally adopted on May 11 in an even tighter 46-45 vote, with nine senators not voting. The official GovInfo text of S.Res.690 shows exactly what was packed into the 49-nominee bundle: GovInfo says S.Res.690 authorizes en bloc consideration in Executive Session of certain nominations on the Executive Calendar and states that it shall be in order to move to proceed to the en bloc consideration of 49 nominations. The first six listed are Andrew Benson for U.S. Attorney for Maine, William Boyle for U.S. Attorney for Eastern North Carolina, Kevin Holmes for U.S. Attorney for Western Arkansas, Brian David Miller for U.S. Attorney for Middle Pennsylvania, Richard Price for U.S. Attorney for Western Missouri, and Darin Smith for U.S. Attorney for Wyoming. The package later lists additional U.S. Attorney nominees for Middle Alabama, Western Louisiana, Northern Texas, Central Illinois, Utah, Northern Alabama, and Middle North Carolina. It also lists U.S. Marshal nominees for Northern Iowa, South Dakota, Maine, Western Louisiana, Eastern Missouri, Southern Florida, Montana, and Minnesota, plus senior administration, ambassadorial, transportation, energy, defense, commerce, development bank, and regulatory nominees. Those are not ceremonial positions. U.S. Attorneys are the chief federal prosecutors in their districts. They lead enforcement of federal criminal and civil law, and they play a central role in carrying out the administration’s priorities on issues like illegal immigration, drug trafficking, and violent crime. U.S. Marshals handle fugitive operations, prisoner transport, witness security, and asset forfeiture. In other words, getting Trump’s people into these seats means the President’s law-and-order agenda can actually be carried out at the ground level across the country. The official Senate Roll Call Vote 114 page shows how narrow the adoption vote was before Thursday’s cloture step: The Senate roll call page states the question was “On the Resolution (S. Res. 690).” The vote took place May 11, 2026, at 5:31 PM, and the official result was “Resolution Agreed to.” The measure title was “An executive resolution authorizing the en bloc consideration in Executive Session of certain nominations on the Executive Calendar.” The vote count was 46 yeas, 45 nays, and 9 not voting. The grouped vote summary shows all recorded yeas were Republicans, while the nays were Democrats and independents who caucus with Democrats. Several Republicans were not voting, including Bill Hagerty, Cindy Hyde-Smith, Ashley Moody, Lisa Murkowski, Pete Ricketts, and Jim Risch, but the GOP still had enough votes to carry the package. That vote put the 49-nominee structure in place before Thursday’s cloture vote moved the nominations another major step toward final confirmation. The political split could not have been clearer. Every Democrat and Democrat-aligned independent who voted on S.Res.690 opposed the package structure. Republicans carried it anyway. That matters because the nominee backlog has been one of the quiet pressure points of Trump’s second term. A president can sign orders, set priorities, and demand action from Washington, but an administration still needs confirmed officials in the field to prosecute cases, run federal districts, manage marshals offices, represent the United States overseas, and execute agency policy. The cloture vote does not finalize confirmations. It limits remaining debate and sets up the final confirmation stage. But the hardest procedural hurdle has now been cleared. Without the en bloc mechanism, each of these 49 nominees could have consumed separate floor time, turning basic staffing into a slow-motion blockade. By pushing the nominees together under S.Res.690, Senate Republicans cut through that bottleneck and moved dozens of Trump appointees closer to the finish line at once. Now comes the part Daugherty emphasized: get them fully confirmed. For Trump supporters, the stakes are simple. The law-and-order agenda does not run on speeches alone. It runs through U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Marshals, agency leaders, and executive branch officials who are actually in the job, holding the line, and carrying out the President’s mandate.