Washington
Supreme Court takes up key voting rights case from Alabama
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is taking up an Alabama redistricting case that could have far-reaching effects on minority voting power across the United States.
The justices are hearing arguments Tuesday in the latest high-court showdown over the federal Voting Rights Act, lawsuits seeking to force Alabama to create a second Black majority congressional district. About 27% of Alabamians are Black, but they form a majority in just one of the state’s seven congressional districts.
The court’s conservatives, in a 5-4 vote in February, blocked a lower court ruling that would have required a second Black majority district in time for the 2022 midterm elections.
A similar ruling to create an additional Black majority district in Louisiana also was put on hold.
Conservative high-court majorities have made it harder for racial minorities to use the Voting Rights Act in ideologically divided rulings in 2013 and 2021. A ruling for the state in the new case could weaken another powerful tool civil rights groups and minority voters have used to challenge racial discrimination in redistricting.
The case also has an overlay of partisan politics. Republicans who dominate elective office in Alabama have been resistant to creating a second district with a Democratic-leaning Black majority that could send another Democrat to Congress.
Two appointees of President Donald Trump were on the three-judge panel that unanimously held that Alabama likely violated the landmark 1965 law by diluting Black voting strength.
The judges found that Alabama has concentrated Black voters in one district, while spreading them out among the others to make it impossible for them to elect a candidate of their choice.
Alabama’s Black population is large enough and geographically compact enough to create a second district, the judges found.
The state argues that the lower court ruling would force it to sort voters by race, insisting that it is taking a “race neutral” approach to redistricting.
That argument could resonate with conservative justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts. He has opposed most consideration of race in voting both as a justice and in his time as a lawyer in Republican presidential administrations.
Tuesday’s arguments are the first Supreme Court case involving race for Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the first Black female justice.
A challenge to affirmative action in college admissions is
Indiana
ACLU: No rush to halt judge’s pause on abortion ban
Indianapolis (AP) — Attorneys for Indiana abortion rights supporters argued Monday there is no rush to suspend a judge’s decision temporarily letting abortions continue in the state. It’s the latest legal step in the fight over the state’s recent abortion ban.
Indiana’s abortion ban, which has few exceptions, was approved by the Republican-dominated Legislature in early August. But it was put on hold by a judge on Sept. 22, about a week after it took effect. Hours later, the state filed an appeal of the judge’s decision and a motion asking the Indiana Supreme Court to take up the case.
In court documents Monday, lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana called the state’s motion “hastily filed” and argued the case does not need to go to the Supreme Court. That’s because lawyers for the state “have not established that an emergency exists that justifies departure from normal procedure and deliberation by the Court of Appeals,” the ACLU wrote.
The Indiana attorney general’s office, which filed the appeal, did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday.
Indiana was the first state to enact tighter abortion restrictions after the U.S. Supreme Court eliminated federal abortion protections by overturning Roe v. Wade in June. The abortion ban divided state lawmakers and Indiana residents during a special legislative session this past summer.
The ban replaced state laws that generally prohibited abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy and tightly restricted them after the 13th week.
The ACLU filed the lawsuit in August seeking to block the abortion ban. The suit is on behalf of abortion-rights supporters including Planned Parenthood, which operates four of Indiana’s seven licensed abortion clinics; groups that operate two of the other clinics; and a doctor who performs abortions.
Nation
American Airlines CEO defends JetBlue deal to federal judge
The CEO of American Airlines said Monday that his airline needed a partnership with JetBlue because Delta Air Lines had bulked up through a merger sooner than American, had more takeoff and landing rights at New York airports, and fewer unionized workers.
Robert Isom also conceded that Delta has “run a nice, reliable airline” and enjoys some cost advantages over American.
The Justice Department and six states are suing American and JetBlue in federal court over their regional partnership in the Northeast, which government lawyers call a de facto merger. Isom defended the arrangement, which has been in effect for well over a year, as JetBlue CEO Robin Hayes did last week during a trial in federal court in Boston.
Hayes, however, once had misgivings about the deal — called the Northeast alliance, or NEA — because of American’s size advantage over JetBlue.
“I think NEA is dead as Robin isn’t supportive,” former JetBlue executive Scott Laurence texted a consultant in January 2021.
Laurence — who later jumped to American after a one-month gig at Delta — testified that Hayes worried American “had nearly unlimited resources” to tilt the alliance to its favor. Despite Hayes’ concerns, American and JetBlue announced their deal six months after Laurence’s text message.
The Justice Department is trying to convince U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin to kill the partnership, under which American and JetBlue work together to set schedules and share revenue, although they are not allowed to collaborate on prices. Government lawyers argue that the deal limits competition and will push fares higher.
American and JetBlue say the government has no evidence that the deal is hurting consumers. To the contrary, they say it will help travelers by creating a stronger competitor to Delta and United in New York and Boston.
American and JetBlue say they were unable to grow in New York on their own because they couldn’t get enough new takeoff and landing times — called slots — at congested airports. JetBlue resorted to unusual tactics including red-eye flights, and it tried to get slots from other airlines.
“How did that go?” JetBlue lawyer Richard Schwed asked Laurence.
“It went poorly,” the executive replied. “I don’t think our competitors were interested in seeing us gain more access.”
The trial is expected to last about another week, but it could be weeks or months later until Sorokin issues his ruling — there is no jury.
