Category: News
Trump administration says it will withhold SNAP from Democrat-led states if they don’t provide data
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s administration said Tuesday that it will move to withhold SNAP food aid from recipients in most Democratic-controlled states starting next week unless those states provide information about those receiving the assistance.
Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said at a Cabinet meeting Tuesday that the action is in the works because those states are refusing to provide data the department requested such as the names and immigration status of aid recipients. She said the cooperation is necessary in order to root out fraud in the program. Democratic states have sued to block the requirement.
Twenty-two states and the District of Columbia previously sued over the request for information, which was initially made in February. A San Francisco-based federal judge has barred the administration, at least for now, from collecting the information from those states.
The federal government last week sent the states a letter saying that it was time to comply, as other states have, but the parties all agreed to give the states until Dec. 8 to respond.
Administration says data is needed to spot fraud
About 42 million lower-income Americans, or 1 in 8, rely on SNAP to help buy groceries. The average monthly benefit is about $190 per person, or a little over $6 a day.
Rollins has cited information provided by the 28 other states — those with Republican governors plus North Carolina, saying it shows that 186,000 deceased people are receiving SNAP benefits and that 500,000 are getting benefits more than once.
“We asked for all the states for the first time to turn over their data to the federal government to let the USDA partner with them to root out this fraud, to make sure that those who really need food stamps are getting them,” Rollins said, “but also to ensure that the American taxpayer is protected.”
Her office has not released detailed data, including on how much in benefits obtained by error or fraud are being used.
Experts say that while there is certainly fraud in a $100 billion-a-year program, the bigger problem is perpetrated by organized crime, not beneficiaries.
U.S. Rep. Jahana Hayes, a Connecticut Democrat who is a co-sponsor of legislation to undo recent SNAP changes, said Rollins is trying to make changes without transparency — or without a role for Congress — and that she is mischaracterizing the program.
“Individuals who are just trying to buy food, those aren’t the ones who aren’t gaming the system in the way that the administration is trying to portray,” Hayes said in an interview on Tuesday before Rollins announced her intention.
Democratic officials question administration’s motives
Democratic officials responded to Rollins’ announcement by blasting the administration.
“The Governor wishes President Trump would be a president for all Americans rather than taking out his political vendettas on the people who need these benefits the most,” said Claire Lancaster, a spokesperson for Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, a Democrat. “Whether it’s threatening highway funding or food assistance, the President is making malicious decisions that will raise prices and harm families.”
In response to Rollins’ comments, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul tweeted, “Genuine question: Why is the Trump Administration so hellbent on people going hungry?”
SNAP has been in the spotlight recently
The program is not normally in the political spotlight, but it has been this year.
As part of Trump’s big tax and policy bill earlier in the year, work requirements are expanding to include people between the ages of 55 and 64, homeless people and others.
And amid the recent federal government shutdown, the administration planned not to fund the benefits for November. There was a back-and-forth in the courts about whether they could do so, but then the government reopened and benefits resumed before the final word.
In the meantime, some states scrambled to fund benefits on their own and most increased or accelerated money for food banks.
Mulvihill reported from Cherry Hill, New Jersey. Reporters Michael Hill in Albany, New York; Steve Karnowski in Minneapolis; and Gary Robertson in Raleigh, North Carolina, contributed.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/2025/12/02/snap-withhold-democrat-led-states/
Interfaith service brings diverse worshippers together at Thanksgiving time, raises funds for Turning Point mental health center
A longstanding annual event in Niles Township brought together people from several religions just before Thanksgiving Day, continuing a tradition and offering a universal message of hope and gratitude.
A crowd of about 140 people had been anticipated to attend “An Interfaith Community Thanksgiving Service” Nov. 25 at Central United Methodist Church in Skokie, the Rev. Stuart Barnes Jamieson, co-chair of the Niles Township Clergy Forum, told Pioneer Press.
Rabbi Robert Jury, of Tikva Center for Jewish Recovery and Healing, speaks during the “Interfaith Community Thanksgiving” service Nov. 25, 2025 at Central United Methodist Church in Skokie. (Talia Sprague/for Pioneer Press)
Melissa Versch, of Skokie Health and Human Services, speaks during the “Interfaith Community Thanksgiving” service Nov. 25, 2025 at Central United Methodist Church in Skokie. (Talia Sprague/for Pioneer Press)
Ibrahim Khan speaks during the “Interfaith Community Thanksgiving” service Nov. 25, 2025 at Central United Methodist Church in Skokie. (Talia Sprague/for Pioneer Press)
“Clergy have been doing these services around Thanksgiving. It’s kind of a tradition and that’s when you have the ecumenical service,” said Jamieson, who is pastor of Carter-Westminster United Presbyterian Church in Skokie.
According to Jamieson, the special Thanksgiving service has taken place for more than 50 years, and this year’s location is where his Niles Township Clergy Forum co-chair, the Rev. Timothy Biel Jr., serves as pastor.
“Bringing people from different faiths together” was what Jamieson cited as the impetus for the annual interfaith service, which has drawn Christians, Muslims, Jews and members of the Baháʼí Faith into a house of worship together.
Cantor Rabbi Rob Jury, clinical director of Tikvah Center for Jewish Recovery and Healing in Northbrook, was keynote speaker for the service. The theme of the service was mental health and overcoming the stigma of it.
Donations made at An Interfaith Community Thanksgiving Service this year support the mental health services at Turning Point in Skokie, which Barnes Jamieson said has a “good reputation in the community.”
The service was presented by the Niles Township Clergy Forum.
The forum is “an opportunity for area religious leaders to get together and address topics of mutual interest and support causes in the Niles Township area,” said Barnes Jamieson.
Niles Township Supervisor Bonnie Kahn Ognisanti told Pioneer Press that the forum is not affiliated with township government, but the annual interfaith Thanksgiving service has helped support the township’s Respite Center, which is housed at St. Paul Lutheran Church in Skokie.
“Last year they actually raised money for our Respite Center and bought sleeping bags for people experiencing homelessness, so it was really nice for us and our clients,” said Ognisanti.
She said the township received $1,800 from donations to the service, and the money was used to purchase 20 sleeping bags.
Ognisanti called Turning Point “a really important resource for this community.”
Niles Township includes the villages of Skokie, Lincolnwood and Golf and portions of Morton Grove, Niles and Glenview.
Ognisanti pointed out the diversity of the township, including the more than 90 languages and dialects spoken by the student body of Niles Township High School District 219, which serves Skokie, Lincolnwood, Morton Grove and Niles.
“Niles Township is at its best celebrating those differences and really leaning into each other and knowing our neighbor,” she said. “The Clergy Forum Thanksgiving service is just a wonderful opportunity to live that value. It’s what social scientists call superdiverse.”
The township, along with other Chicagoland areas, faced challenges recently due to federal immigration enforcement activity by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.
“We’ve been hit very hard by ICE. This community reacted to that by standing together … and really standing arm-in-arm with immigrant communities regardless of status,” Ognisanti said.
The township leader said the tumultuous time in the area with immigration enforcement activity has made Niles Township stronger. She said the faith community can also play a role in recovering from immigration enforcement efforts.
“I am in a government role so I don’t want to speak for anyone else, but I am assuming that people take a lot of solace through their house of worship and their faith community and can lean on each other and get support there,” said Ognisanti.
The Interfaith Community Thanksgiving Service included the Skokie Community Foundation providing refreshments from Will’s Place, an area coffee house that offers job opportunities for adults with disabilities.
The forum is “a really great opportunity to come together and give thanks regardless of your religious background and just to share those commonalities,” said Ognisanti.
Jessi Virtusio is a freelancer.
Gas Prices Hit Four-Year Low, Forcing Even CNN To Admit Affordability Squeeze Easing
Gas Prices Hit Four-Year Low, Forcing Even CNN To Admit Affordability Squeeze Easing
President Trump’s Operation Affordability has focused on lower energy costs for consumers this year. The administration’s aggressive “drill baby, drill” posture has translated into rising domestic supply, sending the national average for gasoline to the brink of the psychologically important $3 level.
The latest data from the American Automobile Association shows the national average price for regular gasoline has fallen to a more than four-year low of $3.001 as of Monday.
Seasonally, the national average for regular gasoline now sits below the five-year average. This marks a clear break for consumers from the Biden years, when prices were driven higher by green policies that prioritized unattainable climate goals while jeopardizing affordability for working-class households.
Gas prices are falling so sharply that even CNN has acknowledged President Trump’s energy policies are helping ease the affordability crisis that took root under the Biden-Harris years.
CNN: “For the first time in 4.5 years, gas prices are averaging $3/gallon nationally.”
“We’ve got TWENTY states across the country where the average is actually less than $2.75/gallon.” 🔥 pic.twitter.com/MzOvbMUfiG
— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) December 1, 2025
In October, Trump told reporters at the White House that gasoline prices could reach $2.
President Trump predicts we will see $2 Gasoline very soon. 🙌
How much are you paying in Gasoline? Drop your state.
$2.84 in MDhttps://t.co/KbzRm3HYTc https://t.co/FS946iyHrR pic.twitter.com/N7u2AAQ1UK
— MJTruthUltra (@MJTruthUltra) October 22, 2025
More broadly, the Trump administration unveiled its Operation Affordability initiative last month, focusing on lowering food prices for working-class folks. This is a push that will hopefully translate into cheaper food items at the supermarket, including beef and coffee, ahead of the midterm election cycle. The administration had already worked its magic earlier this year by resolving the Biden-era egg price crisis.
Tyler Durden
Tue, 12/02/2025 – 16:40
America’s Feast-Or-Famine Reality… When $100,000 Feels Like Poverty
America’s Feast-Or-Famine Reality… When $100,000 Feels Like Poverty
Authored by Matt Smith via InternationalMan.com,
As an entrepreneur, my income has always been feast or famine. For years at the start of a new company, I would earn literally nothing. Now sure, employees had to be paid, and all the business had to move forward, but I took no compensation.
I survived on savings. Luckily I had some. Made from the years of feast. If there’s one thing that makes it hard for most people to be entrepreneurs, it’s this “feast or famine” income volatility. (Still worth it.)
During the COVID hysteria and seeing what’s coming, I decided to totally upend my life. For the first four years and up until fairly recently, I was in a period of personal income famine.
Encouraged by Doug, we launched a few new businesses, including our paid investment newsletter at CrisisInvesting.com. Things have improved. I wouldn’t call it a feast, but it’s enough to cover three hots and a cot.
What Is a Livable Income Today?
How much do you really need to make to live a reasonably prosperous life?
In our trips back to the U.S., I would often comment to my wife: “I don’t know how people can afford any of this.” Prices had gone up so much on virtually everything you can imagine, from food to housing, car insurance, health insurance. It’s insane. Insane enough that I started saying no to travel or new purchases I never would’ve given two seconds’ thought to before.
Admittedly, I’m in a position where these prices are much more of an irritant than a real impediment to my life. But I have eyes and a heart. I look around, I see what’s happening, and I’m worried. I’m worried not for myself, but for the fabric of society itself and all the individuals that are trapped. These individuals include not just random strangers, but friends and family, people I love. From my mom and dad who are retired and in poor health but who worked hard their whole lives. To my siblings whose careers are at risk of the shaky economy and who are being slowly subsumed by the steadily rising prices of all things.
Two years ago, while in the US, I thought, “how are people earning less than $100,000 a year making ends meet.”
A hundred grand is, or at least was, a lot of money. You were in a privileged status to have that kind of earnings power. And yet today, you can earn a hundred grand and be on the cusp of legitimate poverty.
Macro strategist Michael Green made this clear in his recent essay, “Part One: My Life as a Lie — How a Broken Benchmark Quietly Broke America.” I strongly encourage you to read it.
Michael wanted to know more about Americans’ poverty statistics. Perhaps he’d been asking himself many of the questions I had. How are people making it? What he discovered is shocking and disturbing, but totally believable.
According to Uncle Sam, if you’re a family of four earning $30,000 a year, you are living below the poverty line. If you’re above that line, theoretically, you’re doing okay. Not great, but you can survive. As Michael demonstrates, that simply is not true. In fact, it takes a lot more income to stay out of poverty in America today.
As a general rule, when you see a statistic, figure out how it’s calculated. That’s what Michael Green did here, and he learned that the official poverty line is calculated based upon a 1963 formula developed by Mollie Orshansky, an economist at the Social Security Administration.
The government estimated the cost of basic food diet for a family. In 1963 households spent 1/3 of their income on food. From there, the formula multiplied that amount by three to account for other living expenses.
The formula looks like this: (Food cost in 1963) * 3 + CPI = Poverty line.
For 2024 that number is $31,200.
As Michael says:
“For 1963, that floor made sense. Housing was relatively cheap. A family could rent a decent apartment or buy a home on a single income, as we’ve discussed. Healthcare was provided by employers and cost relatively little (Blue Cross coverage averaged $10/month). Childcare didn’t really exist as a market—mothers stayed home, family helped, or neighbors (who likely had someone home) watched each other’s kids. Cars were affordable, if prone to breakdowns. With few luxury frills, the neighborhood kids in vo-tech could fix most problems when they did. College tuition could be covered with a summer job. Retirement meant a pension income, not a pile of 401(k) assets you had to fund yourself. The food-times-three formula was crude, but as a crisis threshold—a measure of “too little”—it roughly corresponded to reality. A family spending one-third of its income on food would spend the other two-thirds on everything else, and those proportions more or less worked. Below that line, you were in genuine crisis. Above it, you had a fighting chance.
But everything changed between 1963 and 2024.”
So what’s changed? Housing is now incredibly expensive. Healthcare has become the largest household expense for many families. Childcare ballooned into a $70b industry and a huge expense for families with children. College went from affordable to where now the average of a four-year degree might cost you the net worth of the median American household.
But that’s not all, the requirement for a second income became mandatory in order to provide the standard of living that we were able to achieve before. But a second income means secondary costs. It means two cars become a requirement which means even more insurance. And who’s going to watch the children while both parents are at work? That’s where the $70 billion a year child care industrial complex comes in, consuming a huge portion of American family budgets.
All these new costs are like the price of admission to the American economy and have fundamentally changed the composition of household spending since 1963. The one upside, I guess, is that food costs are no longer a third of household spending. For most families, it’s just 5 to 7 percent. While housing is 35 to 50%, health care takes 20%, and child care can eat 20 to 40% of a family’s budget.
And so we get to the problem with that poverty line model created in 1963. Michael puts it this way:
“If you keep Orshansky’s logic—if you maintain her principle that poverty could be defined by the inverse of food’s budget share—but update the food share to reflect today’s reality, the multiplier is no longer three.
It becomes sixteen.
Which means if you measured income inadequacy today the way Orshansky measured it in 1963, the threshold for a family of four wouldn’t be $31,200.
It would be somewhere between $130,000 and $150,000.
And remember: Orshansky was only trying to define “too little.” She was identifying crisis, not sufficiency. If the crisis threshold—the floor below which families cannot function—is honestly updated to current spending patterns, it lands at $140,000.
What does that tell you about the $31,200 line we still use?
It tells you we are measuring starvation.”
Since the official poverty line for a family of four is $31,200 and the median income is roughly $80,000, we’re led to believe that a family that’s earning 80k a year is doing fine. Or at least surviving, as a stable middle class family.
But as Michael demonstrates above, a family of four living with $80,000 a year would in fact be living in deep poverty according to 1963 methodology.
Yesterday I talked to a friend whose family income was $160,000 a year. They’re living right on the financial edge. Have they made some bad financial decisions? Yes. Did they take on debt they shouldn’t have? Yes. But they are not living large. And there is always this feeling that they are on the brink of falling down.
Ask yourself, does it make more sense, based upon your personal experience, that $140,000 a year in America today is the actual poverty line and living below that line puts you at risk of poverty and destitution? Above that like you’re more likely to be reasonably secure.
Michael’s analysis didn’t stop with updating the 1963 methodology to today’s reality. He went further:
“I wanted to see what would happen if I ignored the official stats and simply calculated the cost of existing. I built a Basic Needs budget for a family of four (two earners, two kids). No vacations, no Netflix, no luxury. Just the ‘Participation Tickets’ required to hold a job and raise kids in 2024.
Using conservative, national-average data:
Childcare: $32,773
Housing: $23,267
Food: $14,717
Transportation: $14,828
Healthcare: $10,567
Other essentials: $21,857
Required net income: $118,009
Add federal, state, and FICA taxes of roughly $18,500, and you arrive at a required gross income of $136,500.
This is Orshansky’s ‘too little’ threshold, updated honestly. This is the floor.”
According to Michael, families are in a trap. To reach the median household income of $80,000, most families need two earners. But the moment you add a second earner to chase that income, you trigger the child care expense. And that child care expense is crushing. Roughly $32,000 a year.
In practice, the second earner is working to pay the stranger watching their children so they can go to work in some soul-crushing job merely to earn an extra $1,000 to $2,000 a month.
In two different models, updating the 1963 methodology for today’s household food-share percentages puts the poverty threshold at $130,000 to $150,000 a year. The second, a line item of reasonable expenses calculated by Michael gets us to $135,000 a year.
I found his analysis extremely convincing and spent a portion of our Crisis Investing VIP call last Monday discussing it with the group. I was looking for pushback from the dozens of people on the call. I got none. They all agreed. The real poverty line in America is $140,000 a year.
In his article, Michael Green goes on to explain some justification for numbers he uses to calculate the gross income needs and provides plenty of backup for his numbers. If anything, he’s being conservative.
The Cost of Participation
In addition, he makes the point that the cost to simply participate in the economy is far higher than is estimated.
He uses the example of the hedonic lie, why a phone costs $200, not $58. He says to function in a 1955 society, to have a job, call a doctor, and be a citizen, you needed a telephone line. That participation ticket cost $5 a month. Adjust it for standard inflation, that $5 should be $58 today. But he says you cannot run a household in 2024 on a landline. To function today, to two-factor authenticate your bank account, to answer work emails, to check your child’s school portal, which is now digital only, you need a smartphone plan and home broadband. So today, that cost of participation for a family of four is not $58, it’s at least $200 a month. Quite the “upgrade.”
He goes on to cover the skyrocketing health care costs, which in 1955 were $10 a month or $115 adjusted for inflation. But today, the average family’s premium is over $1,600 a month, which is four times the rate of inflation.
Up until very recently, I maintained health insurance for my family, even though we hadn’t been to the U.S. in well over a year and rarely used insurance at all. But that insurance cost me nearly $3,000 a month. I cancelled it and saved myself a bundle.
Insurance must be one of the biggest scams out there. $3,000 a month for health insurance I never used, and if I did, the deductibles would be at least $10,000. And car insurance, after decades and decades of paying at least $10,000 a year in auto insurance for all my vehicles. I never had a single claim. And yet, even this year, for my cars in storage in the U.S., my insurance went up.
Taxes, too, are a requirement of participation in the economy. In 1955, the Social Security tax was 2% on the first $4,200 of income. The maximum contribution was $84 a year. Adjusted for inflation, that’s about $960. But today, a family earning the median $80,000 pays over $6,100. That’s six times the rate of inflation.
Taxes, insurance, child care, the fact that the median car in America sells for over $50,000, car insurance, cell phones, and housing expenses consuming 35% to 50% of income—these are the costs of participation, the entrance fee you must pay simply to earn a living and maybe, just maybe, reach escape velocity someday.
For a median family, the “Cost of Participation” in the economy is roughly $50,000 a year.
The Broken Welfare System
Michael goes on to explain the sinister ways in which the welfare system locks people in to certain levels of income and makes it virtually impossible for them to escape.
“The family earning $65,000—the family that just lost their (childcare) subsidies and is paying $32,000 for daycare and $12,000 for healthcare deductibles—is hyper-aware of the family earning $30,000 and getting subsidized food, rent, childcare, and healthcare.
They see the neighbor at the grocery store using an EBT card while they put items back on the shelf. They see the immigrant family receiving emergency housing support while they face eviction.
They are not seeing ‘poverty.’ They are seeing people getting for free the exact things that they are working 60 hours a week to barely afford.”
Like it or not, we’re motivated by financial incentives. If you’re earning $30,000 a year and getting subsidized food, rent, child care, and health care, and you choose to put your nose to the grindstone and increase your income by 25% to, say, $40,000, the loss of benefits would actually end up costing you $200. A $10k raise equals a $200 loss.
And it gets worse from there. If through great effort you can push your income up from $30,000 to the $65,000 level, you lose the vast majority of benefits ending up worse off on a net basis.
So here you are at $65,000, well below the median and far, far below the real poverty line in America and taking home an income that would generate the same rewards as earning just $30,000/yr and collecting the benefits from Uncle Sam.
102,500,000 Americans Opted Out
As Michael points out, this should dispel your curiosity about why workforce participation rates are so shockingly low in America today. This is a measure of the working age population that is not employed and not actively looking for work. That’s 36% of the working-age population in America who are not employed and not even looking for a job. Over 100 million people.
It’s easy to scorn these people as freeloaders. But the fact is, maybe they’ve just done the math, and working harder just isn’t worth it. The bar they have to exceed is seen as too high, too out of reach. The $50,000 ticket to participate in the economy? Unachievable in their minds.
When will it become clear that the system is broken? This system which most of us are sending our kids into is setting them up to fail. Personally, I’m not sending my kids into this system. We’re following The Preparation.
The Real Poverty Line (And Why You Feel Poor)
Wrapping up with the great Michael Green again:
“The real poverty line—the threshold where a family can afford housing, healthcare, childcare, and transportation without relying on means-tested benefits—isn’t $31,200.
It’s ~$140,000.
Most of my readers will have cleared this threshold. My parents never really did, but I was born lucky — brains, beauty (in the eye of the beholder admittedly), height (it really does help), parents that encouraged and sacrificed for education (even as the stress of those sacrifices eventually drove my mother clinically insane), and an American citizenship. But most of my readers are now seeing this trap for their children.
And the system is designed to prevent them from escaping. Every dollar you earn climbing from $40,000 to $100,000 triggers benefit losses that exceed your income gains. You are literally poorer for working harder.
The economists will tell you this is fine because you’re building wealth. Your 401(k) is growing. Your home equity is rising. You’re richer than you feel.”
* * *
If Michael Green is right—and if your own experience tells you he is—then simply “working harder” inside this rigged system is not a plan, it’s a slow bleed. That’s why Doug Casey created Crisis Investing. It’s the research service built for times exactly like these—times when the mainstream narrative hides the real risks, and when the greatest opportunities appear precisely where most people aren’t looking. If you want guidance grounded in hard analysis, global perspective, and decades of success navigating turbulent cycles, this is where you’ll find it. If you feel the pressure building and want a clear path forward—one designed to help you not just endure the coming storms but potentially turn them to your advantage—you can subscribe to Crisis Investing right here.
Tyler Durden
Tue, 12/02/2025 – 16:20
‘We have fair maps’: Indiana redistricting bill passes out of committee despite criticism
After about three hours of public testimony against mid-census redistricting, the House Elections and Apportionment Committee approved a bill allowing for redistricting to move forward for consideration by the House in an 8-5 vote.
The lone Republican ‘no’ vote came from State Rep. Tim Yocum, R-Clinton, who voted with the four Democratic committee members against mid-census redistricting. Democrats proposed five amendments to the bill, including one that would require a study committee on when to hold redistricting, but they all failed 4-9.
Former Lt. Governor and Ivy Tech president Sue Ellspermann, pictured here in 2024, was one of many people who testified in opposition to the Republicans’ redistricting plans in a Tuesday, Dec. 2, 2025 hearing in Indianapolis. (Kyle Telechan/for the Post-Tribune)
Throughout the committee hearing, no Republican committee member — besides bill author State Rep. Ben Smaltz — addressed the bill.
The House convened its session shortly after the hearing, voting 63-24 to accept the committee report on House Bill 1032. After the session, State Rep. Earl Harris, D-East Chicago, said the House is scheduled to hear House Bill 1032 on second reading Thursday and third, and final, reading Friday.
Ahead of the committee vote, Committee Chairman Timothy Wesco, R-Osceola, said he supports mid-census redistricting because of actions former President Barack Obama and Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, both Democrats, to encourage partisan drawing of Congressional maps. Obama filmed an advertisement supporting California’s redistricting ballot measure, which was created after Texas redrew its maps, and Pritzker has been supportive of redrawing maps in Illinois if Indiana’s redistricting efforts are successful.
House Bill 1032, authored by Smaltz, R-Auburn, would allow the legislature to amend congressional districts “at a time other than the first regular session of the general assembly convening immediately following the United States decennial census.”
The bill also establishes new Indiana Congressional district boundaries, and states that any challenges to the new maps will be heard by the state’s Supreme Court. The bill states that the current Congressional Districts won’t expire before Nov. 3, 2026.
Under the bill, the Secretary of State’s Election Division will assist counties with implementation of the new maps.
In the committee meeting, Smaltz said Indiana is taking up mid-census redistricting because of actions across the country, including Texas, California, Virginia and Missouri. The constitution allows for Congressional Districts to be drawn with political consideration in mind, he said.
“We have drawn these maps to create a Republican political advantage,” Smaltz said.
President Donald Trump and his administration has asked Republican-led states to undertake mid-census redistricting to maintain the Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Redistricting typically occurs every 10 years after the release of census data. The Indiana constitution dictates that the legislature should take up redistricting every 10 years after census data is released.
In response to Trump’s request, Texas conducted mid-census redistricting to give Republicans five more seats, to which California responded with voter-approved mid-census redistricting to create five more seats.
In August, Vice President JD Vance met with Indiana Republicans to discuss redistricting in Indiana. Ultimately, after more meetings and discussions with federal officials, Gov. Mike Braun called for a special session to address redistricting.
Ahead of Organization Day, Nov. 18, Senate President Pro Tempore Rodric Bray, R-Martinsville, announced the Senate does not have the votes to pass new maps and canceled the Senate’s December session.
Officials with the Indiana House have maintained that they have the votes to pass new maps, and at the end of Organization Day House Speaker Todd Huston, R-Fishers, told his chamber to be prepared to come in December to address redistricting.
On Nov. 25, the special session became official as Huston announced the House would convene on Dec. 1 and Bray said the Senate would follow on Dec. 8.
A few hours before gaveling in Monday, the House released its proposed map that splits the current First District, held by U.S. Rep. Frank Mrvan, D-Highland, into two, which effectively puts the northern half of Porter County into the Second District. The new First District stretches from Lake County toward central Indiana.
The Seventh District, currently held by U.S. Rep. André Carson, D-Indianapolis, was divided into four sections, with the majority of Marion County split into the districts held by U.S. Rep. Jefferson Shreve, R-Indianapolis and U.S. Rep. Erin Houchin, R-Salem.
The new map was drawn by a group that works with the Republican NationalmCommittee, Smaltz said.
Under the new map, the state’s First, Second, Third, Seventh and Nineth Districts will have 753,948 Hoosiers and the state’s Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Districts will have 753,947 Hoosiers, Smaltz said.
The new map divides seven counties, while the current map divides eight counties, and the new map divides nine townships, while the current map divides 13 townships. Smaltz said.
Committee member State Rep. Matt Pierce, D-Bloomington, said the “whole point of this exercise” is to give Indiana Republicans all nine of the state’s congressional seats in the U.S. House of Representatives as opposed to the current makeup of seven Republicans and two Democrats.
Hoosiers have been discussing mid-census redistricting since August, Pierce said, and as of last week, it appeared that the issue wouldn’t be brought up. Pierce alluded to the change stemming from President Donald Trump threatening to support primary opponents of incumbent Republicans who oppose mid-census redistricting.
The new maps “don’t guarantee” a 9-0 Republican Congressional makeup for Indiana in the U.S. House of Representatives, but rather “an advantage,” Smaltz said. When it comes to political pressure, Smaltz said he hasn’t felt any pressure to pass new maps.
“I have had plenty of time, adequate time to consider,” Smaltz said. “I was not force, coerced, or otherwise arm twisted into doing this. I felt like the administration was very professional in allowing me to get there on my own.”
On Monday, Smaltz said he and his family were threatened for his support of mid-census redistricting. But, Smaltz said that political pressure “is part of politics.”
“It’s part of the process,” Smaltz said.
Committee member State Rep. Cherrish Pryor, D-Indianapolis, said threatening violence is not a normal part of the political process.
Pryor asked Smaltz what consideration was given to the racial makeup of each district. Smaltz said political advantage was considered when creating the districts.
Committee member State Rep. Carolyn Jackson, D-Hammond, asked Smaltz what has changed since 2021, when Indiana last conducted redistricting, to warrant new maps. Smaltz said it was the “movement across the country is becoming the new norm of redrawing maps.”
More than 60 people testified, only two in favor of mid-census redistricting, for more than three hours in committee Tuesday. Those who opposed the measure criticized the state’s Republican leadership for proposing a redistricting bill to appease Trump and urged them to vote no.
Former Lt. Gov. Sue Ellspermann addressed the committee, stating that Hoosiers “aren’t asking for” redistricting.
“We have fair maps, ones which have performed — some might say overperformed — for the Republican majority. The plea to redraw Indiana’s maps is coming out of Washington, D.C.,” Ellspermann said. “Some may argue that they have the right to ask and, in that case, we certainly have the right to answer no.”
Megan Robertson, the interim director of Indiana Conservation Voters, said she grew up in Porter County, or the First Congressional District, and lives in Indianapolis, or the Seventh Congressional District. She was shocked to see that the First District will be split into two while the Seventh District will be split into four.
The new map comes from a group in Washington, D.C., that doesn’t know Indiana, Robertson said. It’s upsetting that the committee is voting on the map the day after it was made public, she said, and that the legislature is poised to approve the maps in two weeks.
“We’ve got lots of issues we could be addressing. We’re here today because Washington, D.C. thinks they know better than we do. They think they know better than Hoosiers, and they think they know better than you all did when you voted to pass these bills in 2021,” Robertson said.
Before the vote, Pryor said she was disappointed that the maps were drawn in a way to dilute the votes of minority voters.
Ahead of the vote, Pierce said he was saddened by the action his Republican colleagues would take at the request of a sitting U.S. President.
“What’s happening here is not normal,” Pierce said.
‘I’m shocked’: Chicago appeals judge rips lower court’s ruling to release immigration arrestees
A federal appeals judge on Tuesday had blunt criticism for a lower court judge’s order to release hundreds of immigrants on bond whose arrests during “Operation Midway Blitz” are being challenged under a consent decree that limits so-called warrantless detention.
During arguments before a three-judge panel of the 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, Judge Thomas Kirsch II called out U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Cummings for failing to make a determination on who among the 450 or so detainees still locked up in the U.S. would qualify as a class member in the lawsuit.
“He just determined that they were a potential class member and released them,” said Hirsch, who was nominated to the 7th Circuit during the waning days of the first Trump administration. “And then he issued a 24-hour stay…I have no idea where that comes from in federal law do you?”
Hirsch also said he was “shocked” that Cumming’s ruling to extend the consent decree by four months treats the agreement “as if it’s a contract between two private parties — it’s not.”
At several points during the arguments, Hirsch also wondered if Cummings’ order was to stand, what would prevent any current presidential administration from going around the country near the end of its term and entering into consent decrees to “entrench its policies on the next administration.”
In response, Keren Zwick, an attorney for the plaintiffs, told Kirsch his analysis seemed off-point. Besides, she said, the consent decree at issue was largely negotiated by lawyers for the first Trump administration.
“The hypothetical parade of horribles that you are envisioning is not what is going on in this case,” she said.
The arguments came three weeks after Cummings ordered the release of hundreds of detainees — the vast majority arrested during Operation Midway Blitz — on a $1,500 bond and some form of monitoring, including electronic ankle monitors, pending the outcome of their immigration proceedings.
The Trump administration, meanwhile, immediately asked for a stay from the 7th Circuit, arguing Cummings made a “bevy of legal errors” that put public safety at risk and “cripple” immigration enforcement.
At issue is a 2022 consent decree known as the Castañon Nava agreement, which bars agents from making warrantless immigration arrests unless they have probable cause to believe someone is in the U.S. unlawfully and that the person is a flight risk.
It was originally supposed to sunset in March. Instead, after the new Trump administration began ramping up immigration enforcement efforts in January, lawyers for the National Immigrant Justice Center and ACLU alleged dozens of violations, mostly involving “collateral arrests,” or the detaining of individuals who are not targets.
In his Oct. 7 order extending the consent decree until February, Cummings said ICE had improperly told its field offices over the summer that the consent decree had been canceled. He also called into question the recent immigration raid on an apartment building in South Shore, where agents in military gear burst through doors and zip-tied residents regardless of citizenship.
Cummings also took particular issue with a practice by ICE agents of carrying blank I-200 warrant forms with them on missions and filling them out at the scene.
Department of Justice attorney Benjamin Hayes said the government was seeking a stay on both the extension of the consent decree as well as Cummings’ release order pending a full appeal.
The 7th Circuit panel that heard arguments Tuesday included Hirsch, who previously served as U.S. attorney in Hammond, Indiana, as well as a pair of Democrat-nominated judges: John Lee, an Obama nominee, and Doris Pryor, who was nominated by President Joe Biden in 2022.
Lee said he found the Castañon Nava case unique because the Trump administration seemed to be arguing the district court should not enforce a consent decree that “the government entered into eyes wide open.”
“The court is not kind of making things up on its own,” Lee said.
Lee cited a PowerPoint presentation disclosed during the litigation showing agents were being instructed to “go out with blank I-200 (warrants) to get around the requirements of the consent decree.”
Where is the line between operating in good faith and trying to duck a court order? Lee asked.
“It seems to me odd that the government — whoever has the White House at the time — can just say, ‘Oh well, I think this sheet of paper is good enough,’” Lee said.
Toward the end of the 45-minute session, Hirsch asked Zwick, the plaintiffs’ attorney with the National Immigrant Justice Center, whether issuing a stay of the consent decree extension would automatically trigger a stay on the release order as well.
“I think you’re probably right,” Zwick acknowledged.
The panel took the case under advisement and an opinion is expected to be fast-tracked.
jmeisner@chicagotribune.com
Orland Park settles former police sergeant lawsuit, annexes homes
The Orland Park Village Board voted Monday to annex properties over the objection of some residents and settled a lawsuit filed by former police Officer William Sanchez.
The board voted 5-2 to annex property east of Wolf Road between 171st and 175th streets, despite opposition by a group of residents who came out for the meeting.
“Annexation doesn’t really give much value in terms of immediate benefit to the neighborhood,” Fathi Mahmoud said. “Keep in mind that a lot of residents did move in based off of unincorporated terms of living.”
Mahmoud said those living in the area have “operated independently for decades,” paying for and maintaining their own water and septic systems without any issues.
“We’re not asking the village for any help,” Mahmoud said.
Orland Park Director of Development Services Steve Marciani said the village sought control over the unincorporated area after previously annexing land north of it. A major goal of the original annexation was to prevent a repossessed car lot from opening.
“It’s all or nothing,” Marciani said about acquiring the land, that includes more than a dozen homes along 110th Court. “For us to get control of the property so that we can properly maintain and control the quality of the development on Wolf Road, the properties on 110th Court have to come in with this.”
Several neighbors, including Thomas O’Neal, brought up concerns about increasing water and sewage costs after being incorporated.
Thomas O’Neal speaks out in opposition Monday about the Orland Park Village Board’s plan to annex territory between 171st Street and 175th Street on Wolf Road. (Olivia Stevens/Daily Southtown)
“There’s a lot of concerns in the community in regards to bringing this area into Orland,” O’Neal said. “We all enjoy that small country feel we get to enjoy every morning out there.”
Trustees Cynthia Katsenes and William Healy voted against the annexation. Mayor Jim Dodge directed Orland Park staff to work out an agreement with the residents of the land parcel “so that they see some benefits from coming into the village.”
Separately, the village voted to take control of the site of a former gas station at 9401 159th St. and the adjacent site of a former fast food restaurant at 9441 159th St.
Village Manager George Koczwara said the former gas station has been vacant since March 2020 and is an eyesore.
Orland Park Village Manager George Koczwaras answers board members’ questions during a meeting on Dec. 1, 2025. (Olivia Stevens/Daily Southtown)
“At this point, the only maintenance that’s been done to that property is being done by the village,” Koczwara said.
The village was unable to negotiate a deal with the property owners, leaving them to resort to eminent domain to encourage future development, Koczwara said.
Katsenes opposed the village taking control of the two properties, saying eminent domain “is having government coming in and taking property that isn’t theirs.”
Trustee Joanna Leafblad spoke in defense of the measure, saying the state of the corner where the former businesses lie “is something that’s harmful to the residents.”
“Property owners can’t come to Orland Park and just buy property and then make us take care of it for them while they just sit back and ignore it,” Leafblad said. “It’s not responsible property ownership.”
The board approved taking control of both properties, with Katsenes voting against both proposals and Trustees Healy and Michael Milani voting against acquiring the former fast food restaurant only.
Police officer settlement
The village also voted to settle a lawsuit filed by former police Sgt. William Sanchez, who alleged he was fired in early 2024 after complaining to supervisors and the village’s Human Resources Department that he was denied a promotion to lieutenant “because of his racial identity as a Hispanic Latino.”
The village agreed to reinstate Sanchez as sergeant and supervisor of the Police Department’s traffic safety division as of Tuesday, as well as pay him $524,000 in exchange for the lawsuit’s dismissal, according to the settlement agreement.
Sanchez was also given 200 hours of accrued vacation time to be used as of Sept. 13, 2026 and 128 hours of accumulated sick time. The village also agreed to take down from its website a news release with information regarding an investigation into Sanchez.
The agreement states the settlement was “based on a cost of defense economic decision of the village, and more importantly, its insurance carrier,” and not a reflection of the merits of the lawsuit.
Koczwara said the village spent about $460,000 litigating the matter before settling. The agreement was approved 5-2, with Healy and Katsenes voting against it.
Sanchez was one of two police officers who filed federal lawsuits against the village earlier this year.
An arbitrator ruled in January that Sanchez was not fired for just cause and ordered the village to reinstate him to his former position and “make him whole for all losses suffered.”
ostevens@chicagotribune.com
Steel City wins state tutoring grant support
Gary’s Steel City Academy charter school has received state Indiana Learns funding for ILEARN tutoring services for up to 91 students.
“We got this grant last year and saw exponential growth of an 81% IREAD pass rate,” said Steel City executive director Katie Kirley on Tuesday. “We know this program yields a huge impact.”
Indiana third graders who don’t pass the IREAD must repeat third grade unless they qualify for an exemption.
Last year’s tutoring program, funded by the Indiana Department of Education and Indianapolis-based nonprofit Mind Trust, focused on IREAD improvement, said Kirley.
This year’s tutoring sessions target ILEARN skills for students in grades 4-8.
Kirley said the school will offer 23 one-hour after-school sessions a week based on performance data in areas where students struggle.
Teachers and Kirley herself are doing the tutoring, which began Nov. 24. Each student will receive about 15 sessions.
Students can sign up through Dec. 19.
The program runs into April as students prepare to take the ILEARN exam.
“Winning a competitive grant like this from Indiana Learns is a game-changer for Steel City Academy students, and we’re excited at what our students will accomplish with the help,” Kirley said.
While enrollment is capped at 91 students, Kirley said she expects to attract about 70 students, up from 58 last year.
She said the school began seeing stronger growth on the English/language arts portion of ILEARN last year, with an 8% increase.
Launched in 2022 with federal pandemic assistance to counter learning loss, the tutoring program was disrupted last spring when funding ran out because of its popularity.
The Department of Education announced the resumption of the tutoring program last month.
Carole Carlson is a freelance reporter for the Post-Tribune.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/2025/12/02/steel-city-wins-state-tutoring-grant-support/
Community news: La Grange’s St. Cletus volunteers distribute 300 turkeys on Thanksgiving
La Grange’s St. Cletus volunteers distribute 300 turkeys on Thanksgiving
Thanks to the generosity of St. Cletus Parish in La Grange, 300 families had a Thanksgiving meal and nonperishable food to enjoy.
Meals included chicken or turkey and traditional Thanksgiving fixings such as premade stuffing, green bean casserole, potatoes and homemade cookies or recipients could pick their own sides to cook. Households included senior citizens, working families and individuals and immigrants. The St. Cletus Food Pantry has been helping more people than ever, with 185 households served in November.
The Social Concerns Ministry at the parish has greatly expanded its fundraising in the last three years, tripling the direct financial help offered to parishioners and neighbors in need. In 2025, it distributed more than $100,000, which helps people pay utility bills or cover rent.
Triton College competing for Aspen Prize
Among those competing for the $1 million Aspen Prize for Community College Excellent is Triton College in River Grove.
It’s among 200 colleges chosen based on student outcome data, and the winner will be named in spring 2027. In the next 20 months, colleges will be assessed on “student outcomes data, ranging from student transfer and completion rates to employment and wages after graduation” and “whether they have engaged in scaled practices that led to high and improving student outcomes,” according to a news release.
“Triton College is pleased to be recognized for our commitment to valuing the individual, educating and serving our community,” President Mary-Rita Moore shared via the release. “This recognition affirms that strong student outcomes are achievable when access and academic excellence come together.”
Darien Lions collecting toys for kids
The Darien Lions Club hosts a holiday toy drive through Dec. 12, and items can be dropped off between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. weekdays at Darien City Hall, 1702 Plainfield Road.
New, unwrapped toys will be accepted (except plush toys) for infants up to 1 year old and children 6 to 12 years old. All items will go to needy children in the community. Information is at www.darienlions.org.
Bolingbrook hospital breaks ground on cath lab addition
A recent groundbreaking ceremony for a 15,000-square-foot addition to the UChicago Medicine AdventHealth Bolingbrook campus drew a host of hospital and community leaders and local officials.
The new catheterization labs are designed to “improve response times for cardiac emergencies” and to improve the ability to care more efficiently for patients, according to a news release. It also will include expanded access to advanced interventional radiology procedures, which will help patients facing cancer diagnoses.
Dignitaries at the ceremony included UCHicago Medicine AdventHealth Bolingbrook CEO Kenneth Rose, Will County Center for Economic Development CEO Doug Pryor, Bolingbrook Mayor Mary Alexander-Basta, medical staff incoming president Dr. Arnon Rubin, as well as several others.
Church hosts Hinsdale Hallelujah on Dec. 6
A Hinsdale Hallelujah comes to the stage at 6 p.m. Dec. 6 at Hinsdale Seventh-Day Adventist Church, 201 N. Oak St. in Hinsdale.
This performance of Handel’s “Messiah” and Mozart’s “Coronation Concerto” features a combined choir of professional and volunteer singers from across the Chicago area as well as a professional orchestra.
No tickets are necessary, although an offering will be taken. Details are at 630-323-0182.
Lessons and Carols set at Elmhurst U.
The public is invited to celebrate the joy of the season with the annual Festival of Lessons and Carols at Elmhurst University, set for 4 and 7 p.m. Dec. 5 in Hammerschmidt Memorial Chapel, 190 Prospect Ave. in Elmhurst.
The free program, which began in 1961 at the campus, includes nine readings from scripture that tell the story of the birth of Christ. Elmhurst University choirs will sing songs to accompany each reading.
Doors open 30 minutes before each start time. The 7 p.m. service will be livestreamed at elmhurst.edu/bluejaytv.
Western Springs theater group performs ‘Rudolph’
“Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer,” a musical based on the classic holiday television special, will be performed from Dec. 5 to 14 at Theatre of Western Springs, 4384 Hampton Ave. in Western Springs.
Shows are at 7 p.m. Fridays, 11 a.m. Saturdays and 2:30 p.m. Saturdays and Sundays. Tickets cost $17 for general admission for adults and $13 for children 18 and younger. Some fees apply for print and email tickets and credit card purchases. ve no additional fee. Buy tickets at app.arts-people.com or 708-246-4043.
Meet live reindeer at Elmhurst park
A holiday tree-lighting ceremony takes place from 5:30 to 7:30 p.m. Dec. 4 at Wilder Park, 175 S. Prospect Ave. in Elmhurst.
The free event, offered by the Elmhurst Park District, includes holiday activities such as carnival games, a meet-and-greet with real reindeer and with Mickey and Minnie Mouse, photos with Santa and Mrs. Claus, on-stage performances, and cookies, ornament craft and story time inside the mansion.
The Chicago Donut Company, Travelin’ Toms Mobile Coffee Truck and Sugar Mama’s Mini Donuts will have food trucks at the park. Information is at 630-993-8900.
Send news to pioneerwest@tribpub.com.
Top 5 Supreme Court Cases To Watch In December
Top 5 Supreme Court Cases To Watch In December
Authored by Sam Dorman and Stacy Robinson via The Epoch Times,
The month of December is set to be a big one for the Supreme Court, which has scheduled oral arguments in hot-button issues such as President Donald Trump’s ability to fire people, campaign spending, and the death penalty.
Its eventual decisions are expected to better define Congress’s power, while creating potentially long-lasting impacts for Americans’ civil liberties.
Here is a breakdown of the cases.
1. Trump’s Ability to Fire Bureaucrats
For months, Trump has been asking the Supreme Court to block lower court orders halting his ability to remove high-level bureaucrats. While the justices have granted him tentative relief on their emergency docket, they’ve yet to fully weigh in on the president’s removal authority.
That’s expected to change after Dec. 8, when the Supreme Court is hearing oral argument over Trump’s attempt to fire Federal Trade Commission (FTC) member Rebecca Slaughter.
In March, Slaughter received a letter in which Trump said her “continued service on the FTC is inconsistent” with his administration’s priorities. Slaughter sued, alleging that Trump violated not only federal law but Supreme Court precedent as well.
With the FTC Act, Congress specified that presidents could fire people only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance”—none of which Trump identified in his letter to Slaughter.
Instead, he cited Article II of the Constitution, which vests the executive power within the president. Slaughter and a district court both disputed this argument on the basis of a nearly 90-year-old precedent called Humphrey’s Executor v. United States.
In that case, a unanimous Supreme Court rejected President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s argument that the FTC Act intruded on his authority. In his majority opinion, Justice George Sutherland said that commissioners exercise “quasi-judicial” and “quasi-legislative” functions, and therefore can receive extra protection from Congress.
Trump is asking the Supreme Court to either overrule Humphrey’s Executor or hold that it doesn’t apply to Slaughter’s firing. He also wants the Supreme Court to say that lower courts lack authority to reinstate fired officers.
Slaughter, meanwhile, argues that Trump is misinterpreting his power under the Constitution and that Humphrey’s was settled law. According to the legal doctrine of stare decisis, judges should avoid overturning precedent unless it’s found to have several major flaws.
2. Pro-Life Donors
After the Supreme Court’s draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade was leaked, pro-life pregnancy centers faced a wave of pressure from politicians and activist groups.
Along with other attorneys general, New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin accused pregnancy centers of misleading consumers. In attempting to investigate potential legal violations, Platkin subpoenaed a group of faith-based pregnancy centers collectively known as First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc.
First Choice has alleged that Platkin’s subpoena unconstitutionally chills its right to free speech and association by seeking information about its donors. The organization brought a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, which allows private entities to sue governmental entities in federal court over violations of their civil rights.
What followed was a complicated trail of litigation that questioned state authority and ultimately, whether First Choice would ever be able to bring a challenge in federal court. The Supreme Court is expected to address those issues and others during oral argument on Dec. 2.
First Choice asked the Supreme Court to intervene after multiple federal courts said its case wasn’t “ripe” or ready for adjudication. At first, a district court said it wasn’t ripe because Platkin hadn’t attempted to enforce the subpoena. After Platkin did so in state court, the district court again said the case wasn’t ripe. Its reasoning was based on the idea that the state court had to first threaten contempt for not complying with the subpoena.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit eventually said that it wouldn’t force the district court to hear First Choice’s constitutional claims brought under Section 1983. Again, the case was described as unripe—this time because the appeals court said the state court was able to deal with First Choice’s constitutional claims.
First Choice told the Supreme Court this created a “Catch 22” due to a legal doctrine known as res judicata, which prevents the relitigation of an issue that was already decided by another court. “Once a state court adjudicates First Choice’s federal constitutional claims, res judicata will almost certainly bar First Choice from ever having those claims decided by a federal court,” the group said in briefing to the Supreme Court.
Platkin’s briefing to the Supreme Court has focused instead on whether First Choice had established that it faced a reasonably objective chill of its First Amendment rights.
“Any risk that donors’ identities will be produced is speculative and remains wholly contingent on a future state-court order requiring production,” he said.
3. Campaign Spending Limits
The high court will soon hear a case that may impact the 2026 midterm elections by judging whether the First Amendment allows Congress to limit coordinated spending between political committees and candidates.
The case, known as National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) v. Federal Election Commission (FEC) originated with Republicans, including then-Senate candidate J.D. Vance.
They focused on the Federal Election Campaign Act, which imposes a series of limits on political spending—including on individual contributions, expenditures by political parties, and coordination between both parties and candidates. That last category was the one Vance and the NRSC said violated their First Amendment rights, specifically because the FEC sought to enforce it in a way that would restrict their advertising activities.
Since the law’s passage in 1971, it has been updated with various provisions and the Supreme Court has wrestled with whether its limits violate the First Amendment. In doing so, it has attempted to balance interests in free speech with the federal government’s interest in preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption.
In multiple cases, the court has clarified that the First Amendment allows Congress to limit individual contributions to candidates but not independent expenditures on things like ads that support the candidate. Political parties similarly can spend independently of the candidate but Congress can limit how those two coordinate expenditures.
In 2001, the Supreme Court said that that type of coordination opened a back door for individuals to use parties as middle men and circumvent limits on contributions.
That ruling was made in a case known as FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee and was cited by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit when it rejected Republicans’ lawsuit last year. During oral argument on Dec. 9, the Supreme Court is expected to address whether, as Republicans have suggested, it should overrule the 2001 decision.
It’s unclear how the court will rule and the only current justice who was on the court during the 2001 decision is Clarence Thomas, who dissented.
Rather than overturning the 2001 decision, the court could also say the Constitution protects the particular type of activity that Republicans are seeking to perform. Whereas the previous decision focused on a party’s ability to pay a candidate’s bills, Republican committees in the current case are seeking to run ads while getting input from candidates.
The case is a bit unusual because the FEC has joined Republicans in criticizing the 2001 decision, arguing that it didn’t apply to the current case. In the FEC’s place, Democratic committees intervened and argued that coordinated expenditures were “constitutionally equivalent” to contributions while posing a risk of quid pro quo corruption.
4. The Sidewalk Preacher’s Suit
Another case, Olivier v. City of Brandon, involves the First Amendment but in a less direct way. Under Section 1983, Americans can sue governments for violating their First Amendment right and other constitutionally protected rights.
During oral argument on Dec. 3, the high court is expected to hear arguments over how and when convicts can use that law.
The issue arose after Christian street preacher Gabriel Olivier was arrested in 2021 for protesting—including calling passersby names such as “Jezebel”—outside a concert venue. The content of his speech wasn’t so much an issue as where he spoke. The City of Brandon, Mississippi, said he violated its ordinance requiring protesters to carry out their demonstrations in a designated area.
Olivier pleaded no contest to the charges, was fined, and received a suspended sentence of 10 days. It wasn’t until after his sentencing, however, that he filed a civil suit under Section 1983, asking courts to declare that the city ordinance violated the First and 14th Amendments.
The suit was dismissed by lower courts because of a previous Supreme Court precedent, Heck v. Humphrey, which said plaintiffs cannot bring claims under Section 1983 if they “would necessarily imply the invalidity of a prior conviction.”
Olivier appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing he was not looking to overturn his previous conviction but just wanted protection from future prosecutions.
He also said his situation was different from the Heck case.
In that case, the defendant was imprisoned, and was able to bring a habeas petition challenging his detention. Olivier told the court that since he was not imprisoned, he was never able to bring a habeas challenge, which he said would have been the appropriate legal mechanism for challenging the ordinance’s constitutionality.
The city disagreed, stating that “the question in Heck cases is whether a civil judgment would undermine a prior criminal judgment, not whether someone is locked up or out of jail.”
5. IQ and the Death Penalty
Joseph Clifton Smith was sentenced to death for brutally murdering a man in 1997. But after a Supreme Court decision in 2002, Smith alleged that his death sentence was unconstitutional because he was mentally disabled.
That decision, in a case known as Atkins v. Virginia, held that executing a mentally disabled criminal was “cruel and unusual punishment.”
Smith’s case has led the Supreme Court to review how lower courts are supposed to weigh multiple IQ scores in order to determine if someone has an intellectual disability.
“Like most States, Alabama requires that offenders prove an IQ of 70 or less to satisfy the intellectual functioning prong of Atkins v. Virginia,” Alabama said in a petition to the court. “This case was not close: Smith scored 75, 74, 72, 78, and 74 on five full-scale IQ tests.”
Although all five of Smith’s IQ scores were higher than 70, four were low enough that the margin of error made it possible that his actual score was lower than 70. A panel of appellate judges said that in order to use IQ to maintain the death penalty, the state had to have evidence strong enough to foreclose the possibility of his actual IQ being lower than 70.
Alabama and the Trump administration sought Supreme Court review, arguing that the appeals court was requiring too much and that courts should consider the cumulative effect of multiple IQ scores.
Tyler Durden
Tue, 12/02/2025 – 15:40
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/top-5-supreme-court-cases-watch-december
