The discussion details how the Supreme Court's *Calais* decision has created a much higher bar for proving racial gerrymandering by forcing plaintiffs to distinguish racial intent from partisan advantage. This legal shift has emboldened states like Alabama to push for maps that dilute minority voting power, leading to protracted legal battles.
The episode highlights the intense back-and-forth between state legislatures and federal courts over congressional maps. In Alabama, a bipartisan three-judge panel has repeatedly found intentional discrimination, while the legislature defies court orders, escalating the conflict to the Supreme Court for urgent review.
The conversation shifts to administrative law, focusing on Supreme Court cases that challenge the *Humphrey's Executor* precedent. An overturn would remove 'for-cause' removal protections for heads of independent agencies, concentrating more power in the executive branch and allowing a president to fire them at will.
The analysis contrasts the Trump administration's rhetoric of deregulation with its actual methods. Instead of formally repealing rules through the notice-and-comment process, the strategy has been to weaken agencies by reducing staff, cutting research, and decreasing enforcement.
Keep pulling the thread on Bloomberg Law.