Supreme Court gives candidates more room to challenge election rules
Kent Nishimura/Bloomberg via Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court on Wednesday significantly expanded the ability of candidates for political office to challenge rules governing an election, rolling back lower court decisions that had said a candidate needed to show concrete harm in order to bring a suit.
The 7-2 decision handed a victory to Republicans in Illinois who are contesting a state policy of counting timely cast but late-arriving mail ballots up to two weeks after Election Day.
It also promises to increase litigation nationwide ahead of the midterm election.
“Candidates have a concrete and particularized interest in the rules that govern the counting of votes in their elections, regardless whether those rules harm their electoral prospects or increase the cost of their campaigns,” wrote Chief Justice John Roberts in the court’s opinion.
Roberts concluded that candidates — by virtue of running for office alone — should have the ability to bring legal challenges over rules governing how campaigns are conducted and votes are cast and counted.
Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Elena Kagan concurred with the court’s judgment in the case but on different grounds, saying candidates should need to show a “pocketbook injury” or other “actual or imminent injury” before being allowed to sue.
In dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, accused the majority of breaking from settled law and “unnecessarily thrusting the judiciary into the political arena.”
“By carving out a bespoke rule for candidate-plaintiffs — granting them standing to challenge the rules that govern the counting of votes, simply and solely because they are candidates for office — the Court now complicates and destabilizes both our standing law and America’s electoral process,” Jackson wrote.
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman James Comer (R-KY) (R), joined by Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA) (C) and Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN), speaks to reporters after former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did not appear for a closed-door deposition in the Rayburn House Office Building on Capitol Hill on January 14, 2026 in Washington, DC. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — House Republicans are set to take the next steps on Wednesday to hold former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in contempt of Congress for failing to comply with committee subpoenas related to the investigation into Jeffrey Epstein.
On Wednesday, Oversight Chairman James Comer is set to hold a markup of two resolutions finding the Clintons in contempt of Congress after they defied a subpoena for a deposition with the committee last week.
“The Clintons are not above the law, and the House Oversight Committee will move to hold them in contempt of Congress,” Comer, a Republican, said in a statement last week. “If Democrats refuse to hold the Clintons accountable, they will expose themselves as hypocrites.”
The Clintons have insisted that the subpoena is without legal merit, fighting the subpoena for months.
Last summer, Republicans and Democrats on Oversight’s Federal Law Enforcement Subcommittee approved a motion to issue subpoenas to 10 individuals, including Bill and Hillary Clinton, for testimony related to their investigation into Epstein and his associate, Ghislaine Maxwell.
Republicans have pointed at the former president’s travels on Epstein’s private aircraft in the early 2000s and the Clinton “family’s past relationship” with Epstein and Maxwell.
The contempt resolution is expected to advance out of the committee Wednesday afternoon — teeing up a full vote on the House floor days later. The timing of floor consideration won’t become clear until after the committee markup.
If Democrats oppose the floor vote, Speaker Mike Johnson can afford to lose just two Republican votes before a third GOP defector could upset passage.
The resolution, if passed, would direct the speaker of the House to refer the case to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia — under the Department of Justice — for possible criminal prosecution. A simple majority is needed to clear a contempt resolution, though it does not require passage in the Senate.
Besides defying the subpoena, neither Bill Clinton nor Hillary Clinton has been accused of wrongdoing and denies having any knowledge of Epstein’s crimes. No Epstein survivor or associate has ever made a public allegation of wrongdoing or inappropriate behavior by the former president or his wife in connection with his prior relationship with Epstein.
Last month, in response to the Epstein Files Transparency Act, the Justice Department released several photographs of former President Clinton apparently taken during his international travels with Epstein and Maxwell between 2002 and 2003.
Following that disclosure, a spokesperson for the two-term Democratic president argued that the Trump administration released those images to shield the Trump White House “from what comes next, or from what they’ll try to hide forever.”
For months, David Kendall, the Clintons’ lawyer, has continuously argued that the Clintons have no information relevant to the committee’s investigation and should not be required to appear for in-person testimony.
Comer wrote in a letter to Kendall in October that the committee is “skeptical” that the Clintons have only limited information, and argued it was up to the committee, not the Clintons, to make determinations of the value of their testimony.
“[T]he Committee believes that it should be provided in a deposition setting, where the Committee can best assess its breadth and value,” Comer wrote.
Comer said in a statement on Tuesday that Bill Clinton’s lawyers made an offer for Comer, Ranking Member Robert Garcia and two members of each of their staffs to have a conversation with only former President Bill Clinton in New York. A Comer spokesperson said he “rejected the Clintons’ ridiculous offer.”
“The House Oversight Committee rejects the Clintons’ unreasonable demands and will move forward with contempt resolutions on Wednesday due to their continued defiance of lawful subpoenas,” Comer wrote in the statement.
In response to Comer’s statement, Clinton spokesperson Angel Ureña told ABC News that the Clintons “never said no to a transcript.”
“Interviews are on the record and under oath. Whether it was written or typed isn’t why this is happening. If that were the last or only issue, we’d be in a different position,” Ureña said in a statement.
“You keep misdirecting to protect you-know-who and God knows what,” she said, referring to Comer.
Last week, the ex-president’s office publicly released two written declarations — dated Jan. 13 from each of the Clintons — which it said were provided to the Oversight Committee. Both Clintons denied any personal knowledge of the criminal activities of Epstein and Maxwell. Both also denied ever visiting Epstein’s private estate in the U.S. Virgin Islands.
“Once I left office, I devoted my time to the Clinton Foundation. As part of the work of the Foundation, I accepted offers from others to use private air travel for the philanthropic and life-saving humanitarian efforts,” former President Clinton wrote. “In the early 2000s, Mr. Epstein offered a plane that was large enough to accommodate me, my staff, and my U.S. Secret Service detail, in support of visiting the Foundation’s philanthropic work. As has been widely reported, I and my staff took trips on his plane from 2002-2003, visiting Foundation projects and attending conferences and meetings. I have never visited Little St. James Island, and I do not recall speaking to Mr. Epstein for more than a decade prior to his 2019 arrest.”
The former president acknowledges in his declaration that Epstein “may very well have attended” White House events during Clinton’s two terms in office and may have been among the “tens of thousands” of people photographed with him. But Clinton claimed he did “not recall encountering Mr. Epstein, or any specific interaction with him, while in office.”
Each of the Clintons contend that they had no involvement — while in office or afterward — in any criminal investigations or prosecutions of either Epstein or Maxwell.
“I did not direct, oversee or participate in the handling of the investigations or prosecutions of the Epstein or Maxwell cases,” both Clintons stated in their declarations.
Both Clintons also wrote that they could not recall the circumstances of how they met Maxwell — but remember that she later “began a personal relationship with a mutual friend.”
“To be clear, I had no idea of Mr. Epstein’s or Ms. Maxwell’s criminal activities,” former President Clinton wrote. “And, irrespective of any intent either may have ever had, I did not take any action for the purpose of helping them to avoid any type of scrutiny.”
“During my tenure in public office, from 1993 to 2013, I never had any responsibility for, or involvement with, the Department of Justice’s handling of the Epstein and Maxwell investigations or prosecutions,” Hillary Clinton wrote in her declaration.
The Virginia State Capitol in Richmond, Virginia, US, on Monday, Nov. 3, 2025. Abigail Spanberger will face off with Winsome Earle-Sears on November 4, giving the state its first female governor. (Photographer: Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
(VIRGINIA) — Virginia residents could soon vote on whether the legislature can redraw the state’s congressional map mid-decade, a key development in a larger push by both parties to redraw U.S. House seats in their favor ahead of the 2026 midterms.
Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger on Friday signed a bill that sets an April 21 statewide vote on a constitutional amendment that would allow legislators to redraw congressional districts in the middle of the decade. Congressional maps are usually only drawn after the release of data from the census.
Democrats have framed the potential redraw as a response to how Republicans have redrawn U.S. House seats in their favor through mid-decade redistricting already in Texas, North Carolina, Ohio and Missouri. Democrats have netted potential seats in California and Utah so far, but have fewer opportunities overall to redistrict.
Spanberger’s bill signing came the day after Democrats in Virginia’s state legislature unveiled the proposed congressional map that they hope to implement in time for the 2026 midterms, which could allow Democrats to potentially flip up to four GOP-held seats if implemented.
The map itself will not be voted on in the April referendum, but Democrats indicated they wanted to have a map proposal made public beforehand so that voters could know what may be passed into law if the referendum goes in their favor.
Democratic legislators will need to get through ongoing legal challenges as well, as a state court in Virginia ruled last month that the constitutional amendment is illegal because of the procedures the Democrats used to move the amendment through the legislature. The case is being taken up by the state’s Supreme Court.
Republicans opposing the Democratic-led redistricting effort slammed the proposed map as a partisan gerrymander.
“Only those who crave complete political control and are willing to silence millions of Virginians will attempt to defend this abomination,” Jason Miyares, the former Republican Attorney General of Virginia who is a co-chair of the Virginians for Fair Maps group, wrote on X on Thursday.
Meanwhile, in nearby Maryland, Democrats are split over whether the state should take part in the mid-decade redistricting scramble.
Maryland’s House of Delegates recently passed a bill containing a new congressional map that could allow Democrats to flip the state’s lone GOP-held congressional district.
But that effort, championed by Maryland’s Gov. Wes Moore, is held up in the state Senate, where Senate leader Bill Ferguson has said he remains opposed to mid-decade redistricting. Ferguson told reporters on Tuesday that it “is a path towards mutually assured destruction.”
ABC News’ Ford McCracken and Halle Troadec contributed to this report.
Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA) discusses rising health insurance premiums as U.S. House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-LA) (L) and House Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-MN) look on during a press conference in the U.S. Capitol Building on December 10, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Heather Diehl/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — House Republicans — led by Speaker Mike Johnson — unveiled Friday a narrow health care package to address rising costs, but the plan does not extend the expiring enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies.
The GOP proposal — which will receive a vote on the House floor sometime next week — would expand the availability of association health plans and what are known as “CHOICE arrangements”; impose new transparency requirements on pharmacy benefit managers to lower drug costs; and appropriate money for cost-sharing reductions to reduce premiums in the individual market.
Association health plans allow employers to band together to purchase coverage.
Notably, the 111-page measure would not funnel additional money into health savings accounts.
“While Democrats demand that taxpayers write bigger checks to insurance companies to hide the cost of their failed law, House Republicans are tackling the real drivers of health care costs to provide affordable care, increase access and choice, and restore integrity to our nation’s health care system for all Americans,” Johnson said in a statement Friday.
Republicans are also discussing staging a vote on an amendment to the health care package that would extend the ACA subsidies. The specifics of the amendment are still being discussed, according to GOP leadership aides.
The Rules Committee plans to mark up the bill at 2 p.m. on Tuesday. The House would then have to vote on an amendment related to extending the subsidies and then the underlying bill before sending it over to the Senate.
Speaking to reporters on Friday, President Donald Trump said he wants a health care plan that would directly funnel aid to patients, adding that money should be given to people for health care through an insurance account.
“I think what most Republicans want to see– what is what I want to see, and I leave it to them, and hopefully they’re going to put great legislation on this desk right here: we want to see all of the money that’s been squandered and given to insurance companies because Obamacare is horrible health insurance,” Trump said.
He added, “And we want the money to go to the people. They’ll go in the form of an insurance account, health care account, or any other form that we can create with a lot of different forms. We want to give the money to the people and let the people buy their own great health care, and they’ll save a lot of money, and it’ll be great,” he continued.
But Trump also kept the door open, slightly, on extending ACA tax credits, saying he was going to “look into” the possibility of doing so with the assurance that an extension deal would come with some caveats that Republicans want.
House GOP leadership aides hope to pass the health care package next week — the last legislative week of 2025 that the House is expected to be in session for.
“The Lower Health Care Premiums for All Americans Act will actually deliver affordable health care — and we look forward to advancing it through the House,” Johnson said.
Even if the measure does clear the House, the Senate is not likely to take any further major action on health care next week, leaving those enhanced premium subsidies all but certain to lapse.
House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries called the Republican proposal “toxic legislation” that doesn’t address the coming hike in ACA premiums.
“House Republicans are not serious about ending the healthcare crisis they have unleashed in this country,” Jeffries said in a statement. “After promising legislation for months, this 11th hour measure fails to extend the Affordable Care Act tax credits that tens of millions of Americans rely on to afford their healthcare.”
Jeffries said Democrats are willing to work with Republicans on extending the subsidies, saying: “We are ready to work with anyone in good faith on the other side of the aisle who wants to prevent the Affordable Care Act tax credits from expiring at the end of the month.”
Ahead of the measure being introduced Friday, nearly a dozen House Republicans had publicly defied Johnson by trying to force a vote on extending the expiring subsidies.
As of Thursday, 11 Republicans had signed on to two discharge petitions — one filed by a Republican and the other by a Democrat — that would extend the subsidies.
In the Senate, two competing health care proposals aimed at addressing the expected premium spikes — one championed by Democrats and the other by Republicans — failed to advance earlier this week.
