Supreme Court blocks ruling that ordered New York to redraw its congressional maps
The U.S. Supreme Court as seen on February 24, 2026 in Washington. (Win McNamee/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court of the United States on Monday blocked a New York state court ruling that had ordered the Empire State’s congressional map redrawn ahead of the 2026 midterms.
A state judge in New York ruled earlier this year that New York must redraw its congressional map and cease using its current one because the current map’s 11th Congressional District violates the state’s Constitution and dilutes the votes of Black and Latino voters.
U.S. Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, the Republican representing the district, had appealed the ruling initially in state court and later asked the Supreme Court to block the order, as did other Republicans.
The district currently covers Staten Island, along with several neighborhoods across the Verrazzano-Narrows Bridge in Brooklyn.
In a statement posted on social media, Malliotakis praised the Supreme Court’s decision, arguing that it “helps restore the public’s confidence in our judicial system and proves the challenge to our district lines was always meritless.”
“The plaintiffs in this case attempted to manipulate our state’s courts to use race as a weapon to rig our elections. That was wrong and, as demonstrated by today’s ruling, clearly unconstitutional,” Malliotakis’ post said.
In a concurring opinion, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the state court order that knocked down New York’s current map “blatantly discriminates on the basis of race” and that the court had no choice but to step in — even so close the election.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a sharply worded dissent, accused her colleagues of prematurely intervening in a state-law case, even before New York courts had fully resolved the appeals.
“By granting these applications, the Court thrusts itself into the middle of every election-law dispute around the country, even as many States redraw their congressional maps ahead of the 2026 election,” Sotomayor wrote. “It also invites parties searching for a sympathetic ear to file emergency applications directly with this Court, without even bothering to ask the state courts first.”
The ruling from SCOTUS allows appeals to play out in lower courts, but it means New York will not be redrawing its map for the 2026 election.
“This blatantly political case violated both the New York State and federal constitutions and, as Justice Alito stated, the lower court’s decision was a full-blown racial gerrymander,” New York Republican Party chair Ed Cox wrote in a statement Monday.
Construction continues on a venue for the upcoming UFC match on the South Lawn of the White House on June 1, 2026 in Washington, DC. (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump is floating the possibility of keeping the UFC arena on the White House South Lawn — built for a series of fights on his birthday and Flag Day — permanently.
In a video posted to his official TikTok account Tuesday evening, Trump sat in the Oval Office and said that the Eiffel Tower in Paris was supposed to be a temporary structure, but that France kept it up — suggesting that the UFC arena is “quite attractive to a lot of people” so “maybe we’ll never ever take it down.”
“People don’t know that in Paris, France, the Eiffel Tower, 1889 it was built. It was supposed to be taken down immediately after the world’s fair, and then they said: ‘leave it up a little bit longer, and then they said, ‘let’s leave it up longer and longer and longer,'” Trump said in the video.
“Well, they never took it down, and you know we’re building something in front of the White House that’s quite attractive to a lot of people. Really, it’s going to have the big UFC fight on June 14, and I’m looking at it and maybe we’ll never ever take it down,” Trump added.
The Eiffel Tower was constructed for the 1889 World Exhibition, and was only meant to stay up for 20 years — until 1909, according to the Eiffel Tower’s website. Yet the tower’s architect Gustave Eiffel fought to keep the tower intact, according to the website.
The “UFC Freedom Fights 250” will take place on June 14 and feature a lightweight title matchup between undisputed champion Ilia Topuria and interim title holder Justin Gaethje alongside four other fights.
The arena is visible from the White House North Lawn, cresting over the historic West Wing and Executive Residence.
The White House South Lawn, where the arena is located, is a place often utilized by presidents.
Trump and past presidents depart and arrive on Marine One from the lawn ahead of any travel to Joint Base Andrews — an opportunity for members of the media to shout questions to the president as he moves from the White House to his helicopter. These arrivals and departures have been closed to the press since the week of May 20, when construction on the arena began.
Other events, including the White House Easter Egg Roll and the annual Congressional Picnic, which was just held in May, are traditionally hosted on the South Lawn, too.
ABC News’ Sarah Beth Hensley contributed to this report.
The South Carolina State Capitol during a special session in Columbia, South Carolina, US, on Tuesday, May 19. (Sam Wolfe/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
(COLUMBIA, S.C.) — The South Carolina Senate on Tuesday effectively killed a proposed congressional map that could have allowed Republicans to flip the seat held by Democratic Rep. Jim Clyburn, a major rebuff to a mid-decade redistricting effort promoted by President Donald Trump.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
The Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C., March 18, 2026. (Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court appears poised to allow President Trump to turn away asylum seekers who approach ports of entry along the U.S.-Mexico border, a decision which would reverse a lower court ruling that the policy likely violates federal law and international treaties.
A majority of the court’s conservative justices signaled during oral arguments in the case Tuesday that the administration should have broad leeway over border control and that asylum seekers who have not yet stepped foot on U.S. soil probably do not have a legal right to file a claim seeking protection.
“Do you think someone who comes to the front door of a house and knocks at the door has arrived ‘in’ the house?” Justice Samuel Alito asked. “The person may have arrived ‘at’ the house.”
Immigrant advocates insist the Immigration and Nationality Act, which says a noncitizen who “arrives in the U.S. … at a designated port of arrival” must be allowed to apply for asylum, includes those who have “reached the threshold” of America.
“If an immigration officer determines that an alien who is arriving in the United States has expressed a fear of future persecution, then the immigration officer shall refer them for a credible fear interview,” argued Kelsi Corkran, an attorney supporting asylum seekers.
From the start of his second term, Trump has effectively blocked the entry of all noncitizens at the southern border, including those seeking to apply for refuge from credible fears of violence and persecution.
“You can’t ‘arrive in’ the U.S. while you’re still standing in Mexico,” argued Assistant Solicitor General Vivek Suri. “It is entirely lawful for the executive branch to prevent aliens from reaching U.S. soil and claiming those protections.”
The dispute largely turns on competing interpretations of what it means to “arrive in” the country.
“How close do you have to be to the border?” asked Justice Amy Coney Barrett. “If it’s not crossing the physical border, what is the magic thing or the dispositive thing that we’re looking for where we say, ah, now that person we can say arrives in the United States?”
Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggested that regardless of where the line is drawn, the law stipulates that the government can prevent people from filing an asylum claim if it wants to. “The government’s presumably going to stop you on the other side of that line and prevent you from getting to wherever the line is. Right?” he asked.
The court’s three liberal justices were critical of the Trump administration’s interpretation of the law.
“Imagine a polite asylum seeker who wants to do everything by the book,” posited Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. “He approaches the border but does not cross, precisely because the law says you are not supposed to enter the U.S. without authority. Why on earth would Congress have intended or meant for his asylum request to be discarded, not taken seriously, not entertained, but someone who manages to enter the U.S. unlawfully…and requests asylum gets their application entertained? “
“That doesn’t seem to me to make any sense,” Jackson added.
At the heart of the case is the so-called “turn back” policy from Trump’s first term that kept asylum seekers waiting in Mexico as a method of “metering” access at border crossings that faced overcrowding. Border officials contend it was a temporary policy, imposed only when conditions required.
While the administration voluntarily discontinued the practice in 2021 after a lower court deemed it unlawful, the government now wants the justices to approve the ability to reinstate the policy if necessary. Trump has invoked alternate legal authorities to support his current border crackdown.
Melissa Crow, director of litigation at the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, an immigrant rights group representing several asylum-seeker plaintiffs, said a ruling for the administration could have a major impact, even if not immediate.
“We have no doubt the administration is seeking a decision that will give them even more leeway to restrict the rights of people seeking asylum,” Crow said.
Tens of thousands of asylum seekers who arrived at the U.S. southern border during Trump’s first term were forced to remain in Mexico for weeks or months in sometimes harrowing conditions in hopes they might have a chance to be interviewed about their fears of persecution.
Nicole Ramos, border rights project director at Al Otro Lado, an immigrant rights group and plaintiff in the case, says Congress had a more nuanced view when it drafted the law following the U.S. failure to accept Jewish refugees from the Holocaust.
“The right to seek asylum at the border is a legal right and a moral right,” Ramos said. “The stakes are not theoretical. They are measured in lives.”
One of those lives was Benito, a Mexican asylum seeker who declined to give his last name to protect his identity and spoke through a translator at an event hosted by Al Otro Lado.
“I was partially tortured, had a lot of lesions, and emotional harm, and traumas and I’m still healing from that,” he said of the violence he was trying to escape. “I knew I could apply for asylum in that moment, on the side of Mexico, and so I did everything correctly. I came close; I told the [U.S.] immigration agents that I needed to apply for asylum because I was scared and thought I would be killed.
“I had scars on my body, on my face, and my head,” he said, “but they said to me that they couldn’t help me, couldn’t accept me.”
The court is expected to issue a decision on the Trump administration’s bid to resurrect the “metering” and “turn back” policy by the end of June.
