Did the Supreme Court just gut a major civil rights law?

0:00This message comes from NPR sponsor Carvana. Your time is worth more than a waiting game. Carvana gives you a transparent offer for your car in minutes and picks it up from your door. Sell your car today at Carvana.com. Pickup fees may apply. WBUR Podcasts. Boston. They did something that will be damaging for minority voters going forward. The Supreme Court says Louisiana's voting map is unconstitutional, a decision that could change other voting maps across the country.

0:47It's Wednesday, April 29th, and this is Here and Now Anytime from NPR and WBUR Boston. I'm Chico Theouni. Today on the show, former FBI Director James Comey is indicted again. You cannot threaten the President of the United States. And so, yes, of course this is a serious case. And for the first time since the war on Iran began, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth goes before lawmakers to make the case for the department's trillion-dollar budget request. The$1.5 trillion budget will ensure the United States continues to maintain the world's most powerful and capable military. As we grapple with a complex threat environment across multiple theaters.

1:33But first, today, the Supreme Court released a monumental decision striking down 2024 voting maps in Louisiana, limiting the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act. In a 6-3 vote, a majority of justices wrote the congressional map that created a new majority Black district was, quote, unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The ruling could impact voting maps in states across the country and play a pivotal role in which party controls Congress. Spencer Overton has worked on voting rights issues as a senior official in the Justice Department under President Obama. He's now at George Washington University, and he breaks down the consequences of today's decision with Indira Lakshmanan.

2:17So first, let's explain this case in simple terms. A federal judge had ruled in 2022 that Louisiana's voting maps were discriminatory in a state that's one-third Black, only one in six congressional districts was majority Black. So new maps were drawn that added one more majority Black district. Those were challenged. Why did the court today strike down those new maps? Basically, the court made it much harder to use the Voting Rights Act to justify race-conscious districting. As you mentioned, Louisiana had drawn the second majority-like district. But today, the federal, the Supreme Court said that this new district was an unconstitutional, constitutional racial gerrymander because the court said that race drove the line drawing and because Section 2 did not actually require that district.

3:13Now, The court did not formally abolish Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, but it really did substantially narrow how Section 2 vote dilution claims will work. OK, well, what I'm trying to understand here in non-legalese terms is that the Voting Rights Act is supposed to confer equal rights based on race for voting. At the same time, racial gerrymandering sounds bad. But how do you do both things at once? How do you guarantee equal rights based on race to vote without racially gerrymandering? In other words, explain to us the liberal dissent from Elena Kagan and the court's two other liberals.

3:54Yeah, well, Justice Kagan basically says that the court has effectively gutted Section 2 while claiming to merely update it. I mean, her point is that the Voting Rights Act was designed to prevent minority voters from being cracked or packed or submerged, their districts being kind of divided up. She argues that the majority now allows states to avoid these traditional requirements of Section 2 by pointing to things like partisan goals or compactness, even when the result is the destruction of minority political opportunity. So she basically says this is a drastic break from the past. All right.

4:38Well, how do you expect this decision to affect voting maps for the midterms? You know, I think the next fights are going to be whether existing minority opportunity districts can survive this new test. I'm concerned that plaintiffs could challenge existing districts and suggest that they should be redrawn. I'm concerned that some incumbents or some state legislatures will use this as an excuse to dismantle congressional black caucus districts or congressional Hispanic caucus districts. So the guise and the argument will be, oh, we're doing this for political reasons or we're doing this to comply with equal protection, when in fact what they're doing is making it more difficult for voters of color to elect candidates of their choice.

5:31All right. Well, here's the big question. What does today's ruling mean for American democracy? Why should listeners care? Well, they should care on the federal level because of the U.S. House and control of the House. The question is, will this make it more difficult? Will there be political implications, partisan implications, either this year or in future elections? But more significantly, they should care on the state and local level because there are hundreds of such districts around the country. And the concern is that those districts could be either challenged or dismantled and that in the future, municipalities, states just won't draw these districts because they'll be chilled from doing so because of today's opinion.

6:21All right. How is this ruling going to affect the racial makeup of Congress going forward? Well, right now, about 28 percent of members of Congress are people of color here. that number may go down. You know, our country is about 40 percent people of color. And so that's the racial makeup. But what's more important is really the ability of voters to elect candidates of their choice. And the real concern is not just the faces and the race of politicians, but the ability of voters to elect candidates of their choice. And it's very possible that voters of color will have less opportunity to elect candidates of their choice, much less so than now.

7:07That's George Washington University law professor Spencer Overton. Thank you so much for joining us. Thanks so much. Coming up next, James Comey is once again indicted by the agency he once worked under. Stay with us.

7:31You don't have to wear a cape to be a hero. You could wear rubber boots or goggles or a very special pocket watch or a belt made of seaweed. It's really up to you. That's why our new climate podcast, The Midnight Rebellion, is an interactive adventure with up to 80 different story outcomes. Try them all in your podcast feed. Former FBI Director James Comey faces his second indictment from President Trump's Justice Department. Yesterday, a federal grand jury indicted Comey for posting an image of seashells that spelled out the numbers 8647. Some interpret that to mean the elimination of the 47th president, Donald Trump.

8:14Here's acting Attorney General Tom Blanche on CBS. Anybody that tries to put forward some narrative that this is just about seashells or something to the contrary is missing the point. You cannot threaten the president of the United States. And so, yes, of course, this is a serious case. For context, let's bring in former federal prosecutor Paul Butler. He's now a law professor at Georgetown University. Here's his conversation with Scott Tong. So last year, James Comey posted on Instagram a picture of these shells with the caption, cool shell formation on my beach walk. There was outrage by critics and he took it down quickly.

8:50Can you explain the legal argument here that Comey made a threat to take the life of the president? The First Amendment protects political speech. You can say that you dislike the president, and you can say that you hope that he is removed from office. What the First Amendment does not protect is what's called true threats. And that's a serious expression that you intend to commit an act of violence. And so the Department of Justice says that this image of seashells constitutes a true threat. And Mr. Comey says that it was a political expression and that when he learned that it might be interpreted as inviting violence, he actually removed the post.

9:48Yesterday, after this indictment came down, Comey posted a video response I'm still innocent, I'm still not afraid, and I still believe in the independent federal judiciary, so let's go We know Comey has clashed in the past with President Trump In your view, how strong or not strong is this particular case? This is an exceptionally weak case let's say that the post is ambiguous that uh when comey posted it he says he meant that he wanted trump to be removed from office through a political process and doj says it meant that comey wanted trump violently removed from office scott even if the post is ambiguous that would make it hard for a jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt uh that comey was threatening the life of the president.

10:46We know that the words fight, fight, fight, that's used a lot. Trump has said that in terms of his political expression. Even at the White House correspondent dinner on Saturday before the unfortunate incident, the president's spokesperson said that shots would be fired. So those kinds of metaphors are used a lot in political speech, and they typically aren't construe to mean violence. Oh, okay. So this number 86 is interpreted differently, right? Kind of in language. Some say it's not about violence at all. I can refer to somebody who is unwelcome, for instance. That kind of distinction, what this means, what it might not mean, will that be important in this case?

11:33It will absolutely be important. Apparently, it's a big term in the restaurant world. It means to get a plate off the table to 86 it. And again, what's important to understand in the criminal process is that 12 jurors have to agree beyond a reasonable doubt in order to convict someone of a crime. Comey will also argue to the judge that this shouldn't go to a jury in part because it's political speech. He's going to make a First Amendment argument. But, Scott, he's also likely to say that the Department of Justice is out to get him. There was a previous prosecution that failed. And so he's likely to argue that this prosecution is selective, it's vindictive, and that's a reason that it shouldn't even be heard by a jury.

12:30Yeah, I understand. Now, briefly, Comey has directly criticized candidate Trump in 2024. Is that commentary relevant here? Well, the Department of Justice says that it has evidence that Comey intended this to be a violent threat, but it is not revealing what that evidence is. If there are other remarks that support its claim that Comey is trying to get the president killed, then the judge is likely to admit that. But we'll have to see what the actual evidence in the case is. Paul Butler is a law professor, Georgetown University, former federal prosecutor. Thanks so much. Always a pleasure.

13:20Coming up, why is the Trump administration proposing a whopping$1.5 trillion in the next defense budget? We'll tell you why after the break. Thank you.

14:00Today, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth appeared before a congressional committee for the first time since the war on Iran began. The focus of the hearing at the House Armed Services Committee was about money. The$25 billion the Pentagon estimates this war has already cost the U.S. and the record$1.5 trillion the Trump administration wants to include in the 2027 military budget. Maybe less surprising, Democrats took the opportunity to grill Hegseth while some Republicans praised his leadership. Washington Post national security reporter Tara Kopp was watching and joined Scott to talk about it. Any big moments from this hearing as you watched it?

14:42It was just very contentious throughout. Secretary Hagseth took any questions on the cost or any challenging assertions that there was a lack of direction or they haven't accomplished what strategic objectives the president may want as just an attack and really cornered those who tried to get answers from him. And what I noticed really is typically in these hearings, we do come away with new facts, new knowledge on a military operation or cost of a program. And the secretary was not providing any. I want to play a cut from the hearing. This is Democratic House member John Garamendi. He told Hexeth that Hexeth and President Trump, in his view, have been lying to the American people.

15:32Let's listen. You have misled the public about why we are at war. You and the president have offered ever-changing reasons for this war. While the military has executed this war with tactical success, the strategy has been an astounding incompetence. So, Tara, what back and forth was there on fundamentally why the U.S. went to war? That kind of kicked off from the very beginning. One of the early lawmakers noted that the national defense strategy that was released this January found that Iran was very weakened and vulnerable. And so there are numerous questions as to why then the U.S. would need to send tens of thousands of troops to the Middle East, which at that, you know, when we were initially going into war, it was described as an urgent, imminent threat that they were going to reconstitute a nuclear weapon and the U.S.

16:30was not going to allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. And now what we've seen is that we're in this moment of time where the U.S. has a blockade on Iran's blockade. Many ships are not flowing through the Strait of Hormuz. Iran is not agreeing to come back to the negotiating table on terms that this administration is pressing for. and the president himself is saying that the blockade could go on for months. That will be billions of dollars in cost to taxpayers. It means military personnel deployed overseas for longer. And where we were at in the hearing at the point that I jumped on to join this show, there's still not a clear answer as to where this is going.

17:13Yeah. Hexeth was also asked at the hearing about his leadership in this war. He has said the U.S. should give no quarter, no mercy to enemies. He's fired many top leaders in the course of this war, including the Army Chief of Staff. How did the secretary respond? Anytime his authority or his decisions were questioned, and the whole, you know, I've covered these types of hearings for 20 years, and some of the exchanges become barbs, and some of the exchanges become theater. And to be fair, when one of the questions seemed like they are there for political theater, it 100 % provokes the defense secretary.

17:52That said, there were genuine questions that I do not think were meant as theater that he took as theater anyway and became very defensive. And so then you have, you know, an hours long hearing that doesn't really get to the root of, you know, what these lawmakers need to know to be able to make decisions on funding the military and on the way ahead and to inform the American public. Yeah. Was the secretary asked how long this war is going to go on? He was asked, but it was more in the context of, you know, you and the administration said it was going to be four weeks, said it was going to be six weeks.

18:27And here now we're at operations for two months and we're going into our third month. And while we are at a ceasefire right now, so we don't have ongoing military operations right now besides surveillance and regular patrols. We don't have manned aircraft flying over Iran, for example. We are not striking targets, but that could resume at any minute. and all of the ships in the region have been restocked to resume if necessary. So there is right now no end state. That always draws a very fiery pointed and defensive response from the secretary, immediately accusing anyone who questions it of whether, you know, this is not Iraq, this is not Afghanistan, this is not an endless war.

19:08But right now there is no projected end. Yeah. The Pentagon is asking for a significant budget increase. in the next fiscal year. What did the secretary say about what the Defense Department wants to spend it on? So the bulk of the$1.5 trillion request, which is just eye-popping because I've covered, you know, I covered the early years of Iraq and Afghanistan where we first crossed the 400 million threshold, or 400 billion. He said it's necessary and don't question it. And, you know, that's where we're, and there are plenty of lawmakers that want to question it. Tara Kopp is national security reporter for The Washington Post.

19:48Tara, thanks so much for the time. Thank you for your time.

20:03Here and Now Anytime comes from NPR and WBOR Boston. Today's stories were produced by Lynn Mennegon, Jill Ryan, and Wilder Fleming. Today's editors were Mikaela Rodriguez, Michael Scotto, and Kat Welch Technical direction from Caleb Green and Andre Peralta Our theme music is by Mike Moschetto, Max Liebman, and Chris Bentley Our digital producers are Alison Hagen and Grace Griffin And the executive producer of Here and Now is Alan Price Thanks for listening, we'll see you tomorrow