Trump Action Archive

Supporting reports

• Texas Redistricting Lawsuit Filed — A lawsuit has been filed challenging the newly drawn congressional maps in Texas, alleging that the maps are a partisan gerrymander favoring the Republican Party. The plaintiffs argue that the redistricting process violates the Voting Rights Act and the U.S. Constitution by diluting the voting power of minority communities. The case has been filed in federal court, and the plaintiffs are seeking a court order to block the use of the maps in upcoming elections.
• Missouri Republicans approve mid-decade congressional redistricting eliminating Democratic seat — Missouri Republicans approved a new congressional map on September 12, 2025, that eliminates a district currently held by Democrat Emanuel Cleaver in Kansas City and redistributes voters into GOP-friendly districts, increasing Republican seats from six to seven of eight. The map now goes to Republican Governor Mike Kehoe for signature. Opponents plan to gather signatures for a statewide referendum within 90 days to force a voter decision on the maps in 2026.

Supporting reports

• Alabama petitions Supreme Court to reverse private right of action in Milligan v. Allen — Alabama filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court asking it to consider new arguments to reverse the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals' determination that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act provides a private right of action. The petition, filed in the case Milligan v. Allen, also raises the constitutional questions at stake in Louisiana v. Callais regarding whether majority-minority districts violate the Fourteenth Amendment.
• Alabama requests stay in redistricting lawsuit pending Callais decision — Alabama filed a request with the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals for a stay of a lower court's decision ordering the state to draw new congressional maps. The stay request seeks to pause the redistricting order until the Supreme Court issues its decision in Louisiana v. Callais, signaling that the outcome of that VRA case will determine Alabama's redistricting obligations.

Supporting reports

• Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals rules Section 2 contains no private right of action in Arkansas case — The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act does not provide a private right of action, meaning only the Attorney General—not private plaintiffs such as voters or voting-rights organizations—can enforce the provision. This decision effectively gutted Section 2 enforcement in Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota. The plaintiffs in that case declined to appeal to the Supreme Court, fearing it would entrench the decision nationwide.
• Eighth Circuit rules Section 208 of VRA contains no private right of action — The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act, which ensures that voters with disabilities or limited English proficiency can receive assistance casting their ballots, does not explicitly provide a private right of action. The decision upheld an Arkansas law that makes it a crime for anyone other than a poll worker to assist more than six people in casting their ballots.

Supporting reports

• Louisiana reverses legal position in Callais, joins conservative plaintiffs in attacking VRA Section 2 — After the Supreme Court's reargument order in Louisiana v. Callais, Louisiana reversed its legal strategy. Previously, the state had argued its congressional map was drawn with political rather than racial considerations. The state now joined the conservative plaintiffs in directly attacking Section 2's remedy—the creation of a second majority-Black congressional district—as unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Supporting reports

• Mississippi petitions Supreme Court to rule on Section 2 private right of action — Mississippi filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court asking it to rule on whether Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act provides a private right of action. The petition appeals a 5th Circuit Court of Appeals decision that had determined private plaintiffs do have a right to sue under Section 2.

Supporting reports

• Supreme Court schedules reargument in Louisiana v. Callais on VRA Section 2 remedy — The U.S. Supreme Court delayed issuing an opinion in Louisiana v. Callais during summer 2025 and announced a reargument scheduled for October on whether Louisiana's creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violates the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments. The case originated after Louisiana was ordered in 2024 to redraw maps with an additional majority-Black district following a successful Section 2 challenge. The reargument signals the Court may be preparing a sweeping ruling that could substantially narrow or eliminate the VRA's most powerful remaining provision.

Supporting reports

• Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians appeals to Supreme Court on Section 2 private right of action — Native American plaintiffs led by the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians are appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court after the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that private plaintiffs cannot bring Section 2 claims via Section 1983. The tribes had successfully challenged North Dakota's state legislative maps under both Section 2 and Section 1983, resulting in a VRA-compliant map used in 2024. The Supreme Court agreed to pause the 8th Circuit's ruling while it deliberates the appeal.

Supporting reports

• Department of Justice reverses position on voting rights cases under Attorney General Pam Bondi — Under Attorney General Pam Bondi, the U.S. Department of Justice has reversed its position on numerous voting rights cases, including Louisiana v. Callais. The reversal signals a shift away from federal enforcement of voting-rights protections and aligns the DOJ with conservative legal arguments attacking the Voting Rights Act.

Supporting reports

• Supreme Court lifts injunction on ICE roving patrols in Los Angeles — The Supreme Court's conservative majority temporarily lifted a lower court injunction that had restricted "roving" immigration patrols in the Los Angeles area. The lower court had found that federal ICE agents were indiscriminately targeting people based on race, language, employment, or location. The lifting of the injunction allows ICE to resume these patrols without the prior civil rights constraints. Immigration advocates characterized the decision as effectively legalizing racial profiling and warned it could trigger broader erosion of civil rights protections nationwide.
• Supreme Court lifts order barring race-based immigration enforcement — On September 8, 2025, the Supreme Court lifted an order that had previously barred the Trump administration from stopping people solely on the basis of race, language, or job. Immigration advocates expect this ruling will enable further acceleration of deportation raids targeting Southeast Asian communities.
• Supreme Court lifts restraining order on ICE immigration raids in Los Angeles — The U.S. Supreme Court's conservative majority granted a stay against a lower-court restraining order that had barred ICE agents from conducting "roving patrols" in Los Angeles based on race, language, or occupation. U.S. District Judge Maame E. Frimpong had found "mountain of evidence" that enforcement tactics violated the Constitution and amounted to racial profiling. The 6-3 decision allows the Trump administration to resume sweeping immigration operations without the judicial restrictions, marking a major victory for the administration's mass deportation campaign.
• Supreme Court lifts restrictions on immigration patrols in Los Angeles — The U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6–3 decision lifting a temporary restraining order that had barred federal immigration agents from stopping people in Los Angeles based on race, ethnicity, language, employment type, or location. Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence cited race as a "relevant factor" in forming reasonable suspicion. The ruling immediately enabled the Department of Homeland Security to resume "roving patrols" across the LA area, where prior sweeps had detained U.S. citizens and separated families. Civil rights advocates and local officials condemned the decision as legalizing racial profiling.
• Supreme Court lifts temporary restraining order on ICE racial profiling in Los Angeles — The U.S. Supreme Court voted 6-3 to reverse a temporary restraining order that had banned ICE from stopping people based on race, language, or job. U.S. District Judge Maame E Frimpong had granted the order after finding "mountain of evidence" of constitutional violations through racial profiling. Justice Kavanaugh's majority opinion held that ethnicity can be a "relevant" factor in immigration enforcement. ICE immediately resumed sweeping raids in Los Angeles, with the agency announcing it would "flood the zone" in the city.
• Supreme Court ruled racial profiling legal in immigration detentions — The Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that racial profiling is permissible when conducting immigration detentions. Justice Kagan's dissent documented that ICE in Los Angeles was stopping individuals based solely on four factors: race, language spoken or accent, location, and type of work. The District Court had previously ruled such stops constituted illegal racial profiling. The decision applies nationwide. Justice Kagan warned that the ruling undermines Fourth Amendment protections for people based on appearance, accent, or low-wage employment.
• U.S. District Court judge issued order prohibiting race-based immigration stops; Supreme Court enjoined the ruling — On July 11, 2025, a U.S. district court judge issued an order prohibiting federal agents from stopping individuals as potential undocumented immigrants based primarily on apparent race or ethnicity, speaking Spanish, working in agriculture or construction, or combinations thereof. On September 8, 2025, the Supreme Court enjoined that ruling, allowing federal agents to continue targeting people based on perceived race, language, or occupation. Justice Brett Kavanaugh's majority opinion dismissed concerns about Constitutional violations, while Justice Sonya Sotomayor dissented, warning that "constitutional freedoms are lost."
• Supreme Court Grants Stay in Noem v. Perdomo — The Supreme Court granted the federal government's request for a stay in the case of Noem v. Perdomo. This decision allows Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to continue conducting immigration enforcement actions in Los Angeles, California, without the restrictions imposed by a lower court order. The lower court had previously ruled that the federal government must stop conducting detentive stops without reasonable suspicion. The Supreme Court's decision was made in a 6-3 vote, with Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting.
• Supreme Court paused ruling preventing ICE racial profiling — The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 unexplained decision, paused a lower court ruling preventing federal immigration officials from stopping suspects in Los Angeles based solely on factors like race, occupation, accent, or speaking Spanish. Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, writing that the decision allows "the Government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low wage job."
• US Supreme Court lifts restrictions on ICE racial profiling in immigration enforcement — The US Supreme Court's conservative majority lifted judicial restrictions on Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations in Los Angeles, allowing federal agents to stop people if they appear Latino or speak Spanish. Immigration advocates characterized the decision as effectively legalizing racial profiling. The ruling reversed the temporary restraining order that had provided relief to Los Angeles communities and reinstated the government's ability to conduct indiscriminate enforcement operations based on perceived immigration status indicators.
• Supreme Court shadow docket decision permitting racial profiling — The Supreme Court issued a shadow docket decision that allows racial profiling. The decision was characterized as ominous in its implications for civil rights and equal protection. No additional procedural or factual details were provided in the source text regarding the specific case, parties, or scope of the ruling.