The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that a Louisiana congressional district’s boundaries relied too much on race, in a redistricting case that could impact which party controls Congress in the years ahead.  The district is represented by Rep. Cleo Fields, a Democrat. During arguments, Chief Justice John Roberts said the district was drawn like a “snake,” as it stretches more than 200 miles.   The ruling will affect how all state legislatures can draw their district maps. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the opinion for the court’s majority. “In sum, 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,” he wrote. SB8 was the state’s name for the new map. “That map is an unconstitutional gerrymander, and its use would violate the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights,” Alito wrote. Liberal groups have warned that the case, Louisiana v. Callais, could net Republicans up to 19 new seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, as the decision could impact parts of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.  The high court heard two rounds of arguments in the case, one in March 2025, then again in October. The ustices were not ready to rule after the first round and ordered a new round of arguments to focus specifically on whether Louisiana’s intentional creation of a second black district violated the 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal treatment of people under the law, or the 15th Amendment, which guarantees a citizen’s right to vote regardless of race. The dispute began after the 2020 census when Louisiana redrew six congressional districts with just one majority-black congressional district. The NAACP and others sued, alleging the new map resulting from the 2020 census violated Section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act, which bans race-based gerrymandering of districts.  The state had one majority-black district after the 2010 census, but the groups contend that the state’s black population grew after that, resulting in the need for a second district.  In 2022, U.S. District Chief Judge Shelly Dick sided with the NAACP and ordered the state to redraw the map with two majority black districts.  After the state created a new map, other state voters sued, asserting the new map violated the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment, since the boundary lines of the second district had been drawn based on race.  The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the new map.  Justice Elena Kagan wrote the dissent, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson. “The consequences are likely to be far-reaching and grave. Today’s decision renders Section 2 all but a dead letter,” Kagan wrote, referring to the Voting Rights Act. “In the States where that law continues to matter—the States still marked by residential segregation and racially polarized voting—minority voters can now be cracked out of the electoral process.” This story is developing and may be updated.

California candidates faced off Tuesday night in the fourth major gubernatorial debate of the year. Here are the top 10 standout moments of the night. On Gas Prices:   Lightning Round: Each candidate said “yes” or “no” to a gas tax. RNCResearch: MODERATOR: California has the highest gas prices in the nation, would you suspend the gas tax?Xavier Becerra says no.STEYER: NoPORTER: No pic.twitter.com/D0fsDQ4IKa— Republican Women of Mercer County (@RWOMC) April 29, 2026 Katie Porter interrupted Tom Steyer, accusing him of hypocrisy, alleging that he benefited from fossil fuel investments as he argued that fossil fuels are part of why the Palisades fires are so bad. Progressive Democratic candidate Tom Steyer told moderator Julie Watts he believed that California's high gas prices should be blamed on oil companies and the war with Iran during Tuesday’s gubernatorial debate. pic.twitter.com/SDnc42sWb3— CBS LA (@CBSLosAngeles) April 29, 2026 Tom Steyer says the war in Iran has driven up gas prices, leading to extraordinary profits for oil companies and high costs for Californians at the pump. Progressive Democratic candidate Tom Steyer told moderator Julie Watts he believed that California's high gas prices should be blamed on oil companies and the war with Iran during Tuesday’s gubernatorial debate. pic.twitter.com/SDnc42sWb3— CBS LA (@CBSLosAngeles) April 29, 2026 On Fire Management:  Steve Hilton accuses former California Attorney General Xavier Becerra of not knowing what a state of emergency is, saying, “We can’t have a governor who doesn’t understand how the government works.” Becerra hit back, calling Hilton a “talking head.” We don’t need a talking head from Fox News to run our state. I'm the only candidate who has declared a State of Emergency. pic.twitter.com/gCbnGLOls9— Xavier Becerra (@XavierBecerra) April 29, 2026 Chad Bianco criticizes Democrats for their mismanagement of the Palisades fires. “The insurance companies left because the insurance companies can’t be forced into bankruptcy by the state. They told the state. It wasn’t global warming. Stop believing that. It was a failed environmental policy that doesn’t allow fire departments to prevent defensible space… pic.twitter.com/O7onDAREHp— Insurrection Barbie (@DefiyantlyFree) April 29, 2026 On Housing Affordability: Bianco says, “We have a group of 20-year-old kids here, and we’re lying to them,” in reference to his claim that college-aged Californians won’t be able to afford living in the state. “If you want Socialism, go somewhere else” I agree. No more lying to our future leaders. Vote for the Sheriff, @ChadBianco, if you want REAL Change! pic.twitter.com/2tMBIPhukp— SuperBasedInCali (@SuperBasedInCa) April 29, 2026 On Education: A student asks candidates, “What steps would you take to tackle the rising cost of education and bring jobs back to the state of California?” Pomona College student asks California Governor's candidates about the rising cost of education and lack of job opportunities for recent graduates in the state. Candidates Tony Thurmond and Antonio Villaraigosa respond.#california #cagovdebate pic.twitter.com/rk6uVrjip3— CBS LA (@CBSLosAngeles) April 29, 2026 On Homelessness:  When asked whether they would recommend mandatory treatment for homeless individuals refusing housing during a yes-or-no lightning round, candidates all responded “yes.” California Governor's Debate lightning round: Are you in favor of forcing treatment for unhoused individuals who repeatedly refuse to accept paths to long-term housing? #california #cagovdebate #cagovernor #cagov_debate pic.twitter.com/ZRkmrw03XE— CBS LA (@CBSLosAngeles) April 29, 2026 Steve Hilton says his goal is to “enforce the law [and] get people into drug and alcohol treatment.” He called for increased funding for the homeless in order to “treat them in mental health facilities, not jail.” The homelessness crisis in California is unacceptable and cruel!Commonsense change is what we need to solve it—enforce the law and get people the help they need! pic.twitter.com/5F4lORToE8— Steve Hilton (@SteveHiltonx) April 29, 2026 On Governance: Bianco says he’s “not scared of anything,” but then said, “But actually, I’m terrified that one of these people is going to be your next governor.” I told a reporter I’m not afraid of anything, but I was wrong. I’m scared to death one of these people will be our next governor. pic.twitter.com/En5n2fyHlG— Sheriff Chad Bianco (@ChadBianco) April 29, 2026 This debate took place just five weeks before the June primary, where Californians will vote on their top two candidates.

The Supreme Court delivered a unanimous rebuke to New Jersey Democrat Attorney General Matthew Platkin for his demand that a pro-life pregnancy center hand over its donor information. Platkin had issued a subpoena to First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, seeking to prove that the pregnancy center was misleading donors. The Supreme Court cited NAACP v. Alabama (1958), which secured the precedent that donors have a First Amendment right to contribute to causes anonymously. “Since the 1950s, this court has confronted one official demand after another like the Attorney General’s,” Justice Neil Gorsuch, an appointee of President Donald Trump, wrote in the unanimous opinion. “Over and again, we have held those demands burden the exercise of First Amendment rights. Disputing none of these precedents but seeking ways around them, the attorney general has offered a variety of arguments. Some are old, some are new, but none succeeds.” In response to the Supreme Court’s overturning of the abortion precedent Roe v. Wade (1973) in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022), Platkin established a “Reproductive Rights Strike Force.” That strike force issued a “consumer alert” accusing pro-life pregnancy centers of “seek[ing] to prevent people from accessing comprehensive reproductive health care” by “provid[ing] false or misleading information about abortion.” Pro-life pregnancy centers like First Choice offer various services to women facing crisis pregnancies, such as counseling, food, shelter, clothing, and baby items in an attempt to convince them not to undergo abortions and to prepare them to take care of their babies. These centers compete with abortion centers, and Democrats have suggested that they engage in misleading advertising to do so. Platkin’s office had not received any complaints from the public about First Choice, but staff served a subpoena on the pregnancy center in 2023, regardless. The subpoena mentioned the state’s Consumer Fraud Act and commanded First Choice to produce documents within 30 days, demanding the names, phone numbers, addresses, and places of employment of all individuals who contributed to the pregnancy center by specific means. The attorney general later claimed his office intended to contact donors to determine if they had “been misled” by First Choice. Gorsuch noted that Platkin’s apparent theory involved the idea that First Choice had misled donors into thinking that it provides abortions. First Choice sued, seeking an injunction to block the subpoena. Both the district court and a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit dismissed First Choice’s claim. As Gorsuch explained, the case centers on whether the threat of Platkin taking further action against First Choice qualified as an “injury-in-fact,” giving the pregnancy center standing to sue in court. First Choice could sue to prevent enforcement of the subpoena so long as it faces “a credible threat of enforcement.” Gorsuch agreed with First Choice’s claim that “the attorney general’s subpoena itself—and specifically its demand for donor information—has caused it to suffer an actual and ongoing injury to its First Amendment rights by deterring donors from associating with it.” This case follows a recent trend of Democrat attorneys general seeking donor information in a way that contradicts the Supreme Court’s ruling in NAACP v. Alabama. In 2021, the Supreme Court upheld the rights of Americans for Prosperity against California Democrat Attorney General Rob Bonta.

Republican Sen. Josh Hawley’s GUARD Act is expected to have the votes to pass the Judiciary Committee on Thursday, a source familiar with the matter told The Daily Signal. The Guidelines for User Age-verification and Responsible Dialogue, or GUARD Act, bans AI chatbot companions for minors. The bill has bipartisan support; three Democrat senators co-sponsored the bill. Parents of children who were coached to commit suicide by AI chatbots and victims of AI will be in the room on Thursday during the committee’s markup, The Daily Signal has learned. “We look forward to the GUARD Act passing,” a Hawley spokesperson told The Daily Signal. “These families deserve justice after their children lost their lives to AI chatbots.” The bill also mandates that AI chatbots disclose “non-human status” and creates new criminal prohibitions on companies making chatbots for minors that solicit or produce sexual content.  Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, introduced an alternative bill with co-sponsor Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, on Tuesday that limits chatbots for children under 13, rather than 18. It also does not require tech companies to implement an age verification functionality. The bill requires AI chatbot companies to offer ​family accounts so parents could access their children’s chat logs and set ​time limits. The bill would preempt state laws that conflict with it, but would allow states to pass their own laws protecting kids under 13 from chatbots. Cruz, who chairs the Senate Commerce Committee, has fought for preempting state AI laws in the past, including an attempt to put broad preemption powers into the “One Big, Beautiful Bill.” The Senate overwhelmingly rejected that attempt. Hawley’s GUARD Act is a critical part of Sen. Marsha Blackburn’s TRUMP AI Act, which the Tennessee Republican intends to be the legislative vehicle to pass President Donald Trump’s National Framework on AI. Trump signed an executive order on Dec. 11 ordering the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy to recommend federal AI legislation preempting state laws in conflict with the administration’s policy. As parents are rallying around Hawley’s bill, Cruz’s bill is earning the support of the AI industry, including OpenAI. “This bill reflects many of the provisions we have advanced with Common Sense Media in the proposed California Parents and Kids Safe Ai Act and represents a strong step toward a much needed federal framework,” the company told Punchbowl News.

School choice and student transportation have a lot of Venn diagram overlap. A 2009 survey of parents in Denver and Washington, DC, found that more than a quarter of respondents reported not enrolling their child in the school they preferred due to transportation difficulties.  The Heritage Foundation recently released a report on modernizing student transportation for an era of school choice. Currently we have a Flintstones student transportation system in a world that increasingly needs Jetsons type solutions. Changes in policies and practices can modernize student transportation for the needs of a 21st century choice-based system. Students require new ways to get to schools and other places of learning.  Only one in ten American K-12 students either walked or biked to school in 2017, whereas  nearly half of students did so in the 1960s. The consolidation of students into large and increasingly distant schools has gone poorly in terms of both academics and transportation. However, one of the positive trends involves the creation of new schools. Every time a new micro-school, charter school, or private school opens, a small universe of students can either walk or bike to the school.   American taxpayers all pay for district yellow-school-bus systems, but in most states the buses run almost exclusively for the benefit of students attending their zoned district schools. In recent years, the yellow bus system has been struggling as ridership declines and districts struggle to hire drivers.  A federal law from 1986 requires states to develop a requirement that bus drivers have a commercial drivers license, but the private sector demand for such drivers has greatly increased, creating district shortages.   Under the current system, school districts decide where children go to school based on zip codes. This has grown antiquated in many states. Increasingly what families need is a system taking smaller groups of students to more schools, rather than a smaller group of buses taking students to the same place.  Repealing federal and state laws and rules preventing schools from using passenger vans for student transport to and from school would be a good starting point. While defenders of the increasingly failing status quo argue that only buses are safe enough to transport students, most students now get to school in a personal vehicle. In practice, no small number of families use small two-seat sport cars to get their students to school. If schools used more vans, parents could use fewer Miatas, and car lines could begin to shrink.  Another solution comes from New York City, where 700 schools co-locate within district facilities. Policymakers developed this practice to enable charter schools to operate within a city with extremely costly real estate. This policy makes sense—taxpayers invested in school buildings to educate students, and the New York City public schools had a surplus of underutilized and vacant space that was not accomplishing that mission. Lawmakers built student transportation into co-location; students retain their right to ride district buses regardless of which school they attend in a building with co-located schools. Florida lawmakers recently drew upon the success of the NYC experience in passing a “Schools of Hope” program to bring in high quality charter schools into areas with poorly performing district schools and available space.  Policymakers should think much more boldly about co-location. A baby-bust started in 2008, which makes vacant and underutilized district space increasingly common. State policymakers should pass statewide co-location statutes to create standardized lease agreements for not just charter schools, but also for private and micro- schools.  If the yellow buses won’t take students where they want to go to school, we should let educators open schools that families will want to attend in the buses and buildings their tax dollars already purchased.  States have developed other solutions. Ohio and Pennsylvania require district buses to transport students to non-district schools within their attendance boundaries. Arizona created a competitive grant program to have schools develop innovative solutions. Self-driving vehicles may eventually revolutionize student transportation but have only recently ventured out onto freeways and (for now) remain more expensive than ride-sharing services with human drivers. While potentially revolutionary, these technologies have yet to mature.  Another potential solution is to give families their allotment of transportation funds in a use-restricted account to allow them to develop their own solutions.  Lawmakers and administrators should not be watching yellow-bus ridership decline while costs increase and an ever-smaller percentage of students get transportation help. One-size fits few applies just as much to student transportation as it does to schools.