Advisory Opinions District Map Fights Before the 2026 Midterms
14 snips
May 29, 2026 
David Lat, founder of Original Jurisdiction and legal writer, breaks down recent high-stakes court fights. He discusses Alabama’s overturned congressional maps, timing and Purcell concerns, a spurious slush-fund suit, and several Supreme Court rulings on commerce, arbitration, Batson, and the First Step Act. He also tackles judge discipline and proposals for independent review.
AI Snips
Chapters
Books
Transcript
Episode notes
Calais Changed Redistricting Law But Panels Still Act
- The Supreme Court's Calais decision narrowed use of race in redistricting, making many Section 2 claims harder to sustain.
- The Alabama three-judge panel nonetheless found both Section 2 and 14th Amendment violations and ordered new maps for 2026 primaries.
Lower Courts Push Back After Calais
- The Alabama three-judge panel reaffirmed likely Section 2 violations and intentional vote dilution under the 14th Amendment despite Calais.
- The panel emphasized Purcell concerns but argued the Supreme Court expedited Calais knowing 2026 primaries were imminent.
Stop Using Courts As First Resort For Politics
- Avoid turning political disputes into meritless lawsuits; use Congress, governors, or the White House for policy fights.
- Filing press-release motions (e.g., retired judges reopening settlements) weaponizes courts and misuses judicial titles.
