From Callais to Chaos: The New Redistricting Wars

From Callais to Chaos: The New Redistricting Wars

TPPF's National Election Protection Project Director Josh Findlay provides a timely deep dive into the seismic changes in redistricting following the Supreme Court’s decision in Louisiana v. Callais.  Josh, a veteran election lawyer who served as the RNC’s first National Director of Election Integrity, breaks down how Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act has shaped congressional maps for decades. We explore the shift away from race-based districting as the predominant factor, the practical fallout in states like Louisiana, Alabama, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Georgia, and the controversial push for mid-decade redistricting.  We also get into the Purcell principle, the tension between race and partisan considerations in map-drawing, standing and mootness issues in election litigation, and what the post-Callais landscape means for the 2026 and 2028 election cycles. With up to 70 congressional seats potentially in play, this episode offers critical insight into the new frontier of election integrity battles.

$440 Million Cruise Ship Showdown + Supreme Court DIGs Death Penalty Case

What happens when cruise lines dock at “stolen” Cuban property? In Havana Docks v. Royal Caribbean, the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that using confiscated Havana docks triggers massive liability under the LIBERTAD Act — even after the original property interest expired. Justice Thomas’s majority opinion drops a history lesson from 1905 to the Cuban Revolution. Plus: The Court DIGs (dismisses as improvidently granted) the Hamm v. Smith death penalty case after 23 relists — a messy Atkins v. Virginia intellectual disability fight with borderline IQ scores. And a quick hit on states suing states: Florida & Texas vs. California on driver’s licenses and Justice Thomas’s fiery original jurisdiction dissent. Originalist takes on property rights, cruel and unusual punishment, and why the Court sometimes says “never mind.”

Still Standing? Mifepristone Lights Up the Shadow Docket

When the FDA openly admits it skipped its own procedural rules to fast-track the Biden administration’s post-Dobbs agenda, who exactly has the right to drag them into court over it? This week on Rightly Decided, Laura Beth Latimer, Nathan Seltzer, and Chance Weldon bypass the cultural hair-on-fire reporting surrounding the mifepristone litigation (Danco v. Louisiana) to talk about what’s actually keeping appellate lawyers awake at night: Article III standing. We’re tracing the legal gymnastics of standing—from the controversial "special solicitude" granted to states in 2007’s Massachusetts v. EPA, all the way to Louisiana's current attempt to force the federal government to enforce the law. What we’re covering:  * The 10,000-Foot View: How the Biden Administration's post-Dobbs push to "pull every lever" led to bypassing the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and FDA patient safety protocols.  * The Standing Problem: Why an emergency room doctor doesn't have the standing to sue the FDA, but Louisiana thinks it does.  * Shadow Docket Chaos: What a "stay of a stay" actually means on the ground for drug manufacturers and state laws.  * The Dissents: Why Justice Alito wanted to hit the brakes, and Justice Thomas’s one-page mic-drop invoking the Comstock Act to point out a problem of criminal proportions. If you want to understand the actual mechanics of how the administrative state gets challenged in federal court, let’s get into it.

Damocles' Donor List & Racial Gerrymander Mayhem

This week, the crew wades into two fresh-from-the-Court opinions (with a healthy dose of side-eye and sword-of-Damocles metaphors). First up: Can a pro-life pregnancy center sue in federal court when the New Jersey AG demands their donor list (First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Davenport)? The Supreme Court delivers a unanimous, common-sense smackdown on standing that’ll warm the hearts of First Amendment (and standing) fans everywhere. Then it’s time for a deep dive into Louisiana’s Voting Rights Act showdown (Louisiana v. Callais). Expect spirited conversation about racial gerrymandering, partisan map-drawing, cracking and packing, constitutional avoidance, and why Section 2 of the VRA isn’t quite as simple as the media says it is.

Written in Stone: Stare Decisis and the 10 Commandments

In a razor-thin 9-8 en banc decision, the Fifth Circuit upheld Texas’ law requiring the Ten Commandments to be posted in every public school classroom. Laura Beth Latimer is joined by Chance Weldon and Nathan Seltzer to break down Nathan v. Alamo Heights ISD. We discuss why the court held that Stone v. Graham no longer controls after the Supreme Court killed the Lemon test in Kennedy v. Bremerton, and what the new historical “hallmarks of establishment” test means going forward. We cover: — Vertical stare decisis and when lower courts can move past undermined precedent — The six historical hallmarks of religious establishment — Issues of coercion, compelled financial support, and compulsory school attendance — Offended-observer standing and the limits of Article III jurisdiction A sharp, originalist discussion on religion in public schools and the future of Establishment Clause jurisprudence—with a likely Supreme Court appeal ahead. What do you think—did the Fifth Circuit go too far, or get it right?