Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Rucho v. Common Cause, No. 18-422, 588 U.S. 684 (2019) is a landmark case of the United States Supreme Court concerning partisan gerrymandering. [1] The Court ruled that while partisan gerrymandering may be "incompatible with democratic principles", the federal courts cannot review such allegations, as they present nonjusticiable political questions outside the jurisdiction of these courts.
United States v. Trump, No. 23-624 (2023) (certiorari before judgment) United States v. Trump, 91 F.4th 1173 (D.C. Cir. 2024) (immunity). Questions presented; Whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office ...
In the past, federal courts have deemed extreme cases of gerrymandering to be unconstitutional, but have struggled with how to define the types of gerrymandering and the standards that should be used to determine which redistricting maps are unconstitutional. In 1995 the Supreme Court came to a 5–4 decision during Miller v.
– President Donald Trump took a victory lap in a speech before House Republicans Monday evening, touting the executive orders he signed during his first week in office and riffing on some of his ...
President-elect Donald Trump on Sunday, in his first rally-like speech since the November election, threatened to retake control of the Panama Canal, pushed back on criticism of Elon Musk’s ...
The term gerrymandering is a portmanteau of a salamander and Elbridge Gerry, [a] [5] Vice President of the United States at the time of his death, who, as governor of Massachusetts in 1812, signed a bill that created a partisan district in the Boston area that was compared to the shape of a mythological salamander. The term has negative ...
A key argument Republican lawmakers have made in this case is that the N.C. Supreme Court overstepped its bounds by throwing out the legislature’s maps as unconstitutional gerrymandering based ...
President Trump's argument that the CSR payments were a "bailout" for insurance companies and therefore should be stopped, actually results in the government paying more to insurance companies ($200B over a decade) due to increases in the premium tax credit subsidies. Journalist Sarah Kliff described Trump's argument as "completely incoherent."