The Center for Christian Virtue is prepared to pursue legal action after the group’s proposal for displaying three crosses on top of its building was rejected by the city of Columbus, Ohio. The unanimous decision against CCV, a 501(c)(3) family policy organization in downtown Columbus, was made on April 28 by six members of the city’s Downtown Commission, which laid out their objections in a staff report. It’s a move that Aaron Baer, the CCV president, called “frustrating.” “Our team took great care to design artwork that fully complies with the city’s code and design standards. That’s why this decision is so troubling,” Baer told The Daily Signal. “The Columbus Downtown Commission didn’t just reject artwork, it rejected a clear expression of faith.” In a statement released on Thursday, Baer said he believes the city’s decision “raises serious First Amendment concerns,” and added that CCV looks forward to “working with the city to correct this and ensure that religious expression is treated fairly in Columbus.” In an interview with The Daily Signal, however, Baer said the commission was “very unclear” in why they rejected the group’s proposal, adding that “certainly legal recourse is not off the table here.” “We want our legal team involved to evaluate this to make sure we can properly avail ourselves of our rights,” he said. According to Baer, the crosses constitute artwork consistent with the city’s Downtown Design Guidelines. However, the report by the commission states “the application is inconsistent with the guidelines due to the style of sign proposed along the Broad St. corridor,” as well the rooftop location and number of graphics proposed. “Maybe they’re not artwork to them, but to us, there’s nothing more beautiful than things that display the love of our Savior,” Baer said. “I think for a lot of Christians this is resonating because all we’re trying to do is avail ourselves of our basic American freedoms, and the city is making us jump through all of these hoops to do that. It’s just frustrating.”

Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., on Sunday urged the Trump administration to cut off federal funding to the University of Michigan after a professor appeared to praise anti‑Israel student activists who illegally set up a campus encampment following Oct. 7, 2023. “It’s unacceptable for any university professor to praise chaos that glorified America’s enemies, justified violence, and terrorized Jewish students,” Scott wrote Saturday on X. “If this is what Americans are paying for, it’s time to cut them off COMPLETELY.” According to the university’s website, the University of Michigan received at least $1.17 billion in federal taxpayer funding during fiscal year 2024. Scott’s remarks followed comments by University of Michigan professor Derek Peterson during the school’s spring 2026 commencement ceremony, in which Peterson publicly praised pro‑Palestinian student activists who had participated in the now‑dismantled encampment. “Sing for the pro‑Palestinian student activists, who have for these past two years opened our hearts to the injustice and inhumanity of Israel’s war in Gaza,” Peterson said during the ceremony. University administrators previously determined that the encampment posed a safety risk to the campus community and violated university policies. The encampment also resulted in vandalism of campus property, according to reporting by The College Fix. “In recent days, encampment participants have also received numerous outreach attempts from U‑M administrators and DPSS leadership, asking them to leave,” campus police said in a statement at the time. “The encampment posed safety risks, both to participants and the community at large, and its presence was in violation of policies and regulations. Its removal was important to help maintain the safety and security of the U‑M campus community.” After the encampment first emerged, the homes and private property of several university regents and administrators were vandalized, The College Fix reported. In June 2024, the front of Jewish Regent Jordan Acker’s law office was spray‑painted with the phrases “free Palestine” and “divest or f— off.” In October 2024, then‑University President Santa Ono’s home was vandalized with the words “intifada,” “coward,” and “divest.” In March 2025, Provost Laurie McCauley was targeted when protesters broke a window at her home and spray‑painted “free Palestine,” “divest,” and “no honor in genocide,” according to ABC News Detroit.

A federal judge appointed by President Joe Biden, with an activist past, last week blocked the Trump administration’s termination of protected status for Yemeni immigrants to the United States. Before serving on the bench, Judge Dale Ho of the Southern District of New York, who once jokingly said he has been caricatured as a “wild-eyed sort of leftist,” was a lawyer for both the American Civil Liberties Union and the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, where he litigated against voter ID laws and against verification of citizenship for voter registration. On Friday, he temporarily halted the Department of Homeland Security from terminating the temporary legal status of about 3,000 Yemeni immigrants. The termination was set to take effect next week. Last week, the Supreme Court heard arguments about ending temporary protected status for immigrants from Haiti and Syria. “They are ordinary, law-abiding people who have been granted status to be here because the Government has repeatedly determined, in accordance with the TPS statute, that Yemen is subject to an ongoing armed conflict, and that, due to that conflict, requiring them to return would pose a serious threat to their safety,” the judge wrote in a 36-page opinion. From 2013 to 2023, Ho was the director of the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project, where he supervised voting rights litigation. He was the first ACLU lawyer to be appointed directly to a federal judgeship since Ruth Bader Ginsburg, according to the Asian American Bar Association of New York. From 2009 to 2013, he was assistant counsel for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. In 2018, he successfully litigated against a Kansas law requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote. In 2020, he argued against a Trump administration policy not to count illegal immigrants in the U.S. Census. After Biden nominated Ho in 2023, the Judicial Crisis Network, a conservative legal group, cited his past litigation against voter ID laws and against allowing the Census Bureau to confirm citizenship. During his Senate confirmation in 2023, Republicans brought up Ho’s past comments, including a 2013 interview in which he described himself as a “wild-eyed sort of leftist” and said he is “accused of sometimes seeing racial discrimination everywhere I look.” Ho told senators he was only describing a caricature others have of him and would be an impartial judge.

Last month, the Justice Department targeted a central hub of the Left’s cancel culture machine that weaponized the federal government under President Joe Biden. Just over a week later, Democrats received a “whistleblower” report claiming that the DOJ rushed the indictment against the Southern Poverty Law Center. To my eyes, this looks like a deep state operation to undermine the government’s case and prop up the SPLC’s flagging reputation. A federal grand jury indicted the SPLC on wire fraud, bank fraud, and conspiracy charges for sending money to “field sources,” members of the very white supremacist groups the center claims it exists to dismantle. The SPLC did not deny funding members of the Ku Klux Klan and the Aryan Nations, but insisted the funds were part of an informant program that it used to prevent violent attacks. Reps. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., and Mary Gay Scanlon, D-Pa., told the media they sent letters to Kevin P. Davidson, acting U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Alabama, and Associate Deputy Attorney General Aakash Singh, claiming some insider information that’s rather convenient for their narrative. They cited “whistleblower information” in stating that Singh ordered Davidson’s office “to rush through the indictment of the SPLC, despite serious concerns about the strength of the case.” ‘Systematic Flaws’ Raskin and Scanlon mentioned “systematic flaws” in the indictment. They accused Singh of attacking “a preeminent civil rights organization, the SPLC, for the ‘crime’ of attempting to study, investigate, and expose white nationalist groups.” The Democrats noted that the FBI also uses paid informants, and they echoed the SPLC’s claim that it fed information to the FBI that it received from informants. “Should the FBI itself be indicted as a co-conspirator?” they asked. Raskin and Scanlon suggested the DOJ brought the case because “the SPLC has publicly opposed and exposed numerous organizations that support the president and do his bidding—like the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, and the Three Percenters—and called them hate groups.” The Democrats insinuated that Trump is on the side of the KKK. “No one is accusing the Trump administration of working for the white nationalist groups, but they do seem to have the same enemies,” they wrote. Big Problems With the Democrats’ SPLC Defense When reached for comment, Davidson told The Daily Signal that he has yet to receive any letter from the Democrats. “As I have not received a letter, four days after the media received it, I will simply state that the evidence in the case supports every word in the indictment and I look forward to litigating the case in court,” the acting U.S. attorney told The Daily Signal. That doesn’t exactly sound like a man who harbors “serious concerns about the strength of the case.” In fact, Democrats should be the ones harboring serious concerns about the SPLC’s ability to defend itself. The indictment doesn’t just claim that the SPLC paid “field sources” inside the KKK and other white nationalist groups—it also states that the SPLC was supervising the “racist postings” of an organizer of the Charlottesville “Unite the Right” rally. Raskin and Scanlon also failed to mention that, while the SPLC reportedly did hand over some information from “field sources” to law enforcement, it kept the program secret. Perhaps the largest omission, however, involves the fact that the SPLC doesn’t just face charges for allegedly misleading donors—it also faces charges for lying to banks. If the indictment correctly quotes the key financial documents—and neither Raskin nor Scanlon suggests it does not—the Justice Department has the SPLC dead to rights on bank fraud. A Deep State Effort? Last year, an RMG Research poll found that 75% of Washington, D.C.-area federal employees who made at least $150,000 a year and who voted for Kamala Harris in 2024 would disobey a lawful Trump order if they consider it bad policy. While many of these bureaucrats may have left the government since then, it stands to reason that someone with this mindset might be behind the Democrats’ letter. After all, the SPLC had a rather large footprint in the Biden administration. SPLC leaders and staff cultivated relationships with the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, the FBI cited the SPLC in targeting “radical-traditional Catholics,” President Biden appointed an SPLC attorney to a top federal judgeship, and SPLC staff briefed DOJ prosecutors. It stands to reason that some left-leaning Justice Department holdovers from the Biden administration might be none-too-happy to see the SPLC facing an indictment. ‘The Right Side of History’ Raskin and Scanlon didn’t just go public to condemn the indictment—they did so to make a statement. They suggested the SPLC is on the “right side of history” against the Trump administration. With all due respect, they only think so because they cherry-picked the data. Sure, the SPLC did noble work in the beginning, but it has long since transformed into a far-left smear factory. Its “hate map” doesn’t just include the KKK and the Proud Boys—it also includes mainstream conservative and Christian groups, including Moms for Liberty, the Family Research Council, PragerU, Defending Education, and even Turning Point USA. Perhaps Davidson didn’t get the letter because the Democrats thought twice about sending it. They should take a closer look at the indictment and ask if they really want to be defending the SPLC.

The redistricting war of 2026, which had appeared to conclude in a stalemate between Democrats and Republicans after Florida’s special session, is anyone’s to win. In the wake of the Louisiana v. Callais ruling, Republicans in the South are on the move, ready to redraw maps the courts had previously blocked efforts to change. The outcome of the renewed tit-for-tat redistricting war could determine which party controls the House of Representatives in 2026. The Southern Scramble Republican Gov. Jeff Landry of Louisiana has already signed an executive order calling off the state’s May 16 House primaries to allow for redrawing the state’s map, declared a racial gerrymander by the high court. Louisiana has two Democrat-held districts, held by Reps. Troy Carter and Cleo Fields. Tennessee Republican Gov. Bill Lee has also called a special session to redistrict after the ruling. Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn. is the only Democrat U.S. House member from the Volunteer State. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld South Carolina’s current congressional map in 2024. In light of the Court’s most recent decision on the Voting Rights Act, it would be appropriate for the General Assembly to ensure that South Carolina’s congressional map still complies with all…— Gov. Henry McMaster (@henrymcmaster) May 1, 2026 In South Carolina, where Rep. Jim Clyburn holds the only Democrat seat, Gov. Henry McMaster has proposed a new redistricting session. Meanwhile, in Alabama, which has two Democrats Reps.—Shomari Figures and Terri Sewell—Gov. Kay Ivey has called a special session for redistricting, despite an injunction preventing the state from mid-decade districting. Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall is challenging the injunction. In Georgia, Republican Gov. Brian Kemp has ruled out redistricting before the 2026 midterms, but not for 2028. Mississippi’s House primaries have already happened, but the state will soon have a session which could include the redistricting of federal House districts. Democrats’ Response Democrats appear ready to respond to potential pro-Republican redistricting after Louisiana v. Callais. State-level Democrat politicians, as well as the party’s voting base, have displayed discipline in backing retaliatory redistricting. The passing of Virginia’s redistricting referendum being a prime example. On the day of the high court’s ruling, Gov. Kathy Hochul, D-N.Y., said she was “working with the Legislature to change New York’s redistricting process so we can fight back.” The Supreme Court has been chipping away at our elections for years. It is clearly carrying out Donald Trump’s will with this decision. New York has always led the fight for voting rights and we’ll lead again.I’m working with the Legislature to change New York’s redistricting… https://t.co/OUIVD9vMl7— Governor Kathy Hochul (@GovKathyHochul) April 29, 2026 In keeping with its constitution, New York relies on an independent commission that maps out its districts.  The Empire State’s House delegation has 19 Democrats and seven Republicans. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., said in a recent interview with Politico that Democrats “will be prepared to respond in states like New York, Illinois and Maryland, as well as in Colorado, in advance of the 2028 election” in order to maximize their seats.