Whether state courts are allowed to review the validity of redistricting by state legislatures is at the heart of a case to be considered by the U.S. Supreme Court.

A ruling in Moore v. Harper would allow for the creation of hyperpartisan voting districts which could not be challenged under judicial review by state courts, allowing state legislatures to be the sole authority responsible for developing the redistricting maps.

Vincent Bonventre, professor at Albany Law School, said the effects of the ruling would be long-lasting.

"A party in power that draws a redistricting map that very heavily favors that party in power," Bonventre pointed out. "Then therefore makes it an almost certainty that the party in power is going to win a disproportionate number of elections."

In New York, it could result in a majority Democratic rule and would overrule the decision in Harkenrider v. Hochul, which threw out a voting map drawn up by Democrats in the New York Legislature considered gerrymandered. Depending on the Supreme Court's ruling in Moore v. Harper, the New York map could be reconsidered for future use.

According to Ballotopedia, 48 of the 50 states have overwhelmingly Democratic or Republican-controlled legislatures, and depending on the outcome of the case, could remain so through redistricting.

Bonventre is unsure if states would be able to pass laws to blunt the effects of the ruling. However, he contended he knows what would be best for the voters.

"If we allow these extremely partisan redistricting by the state legislatures, so that the party in power disproportionately wins congressional seats, that is clearly contrary to the preferences of the voters in that state," Bonventre argued.

He sees strong legal arguments on both sides of the case, but noted allowing state courts to remain as a check to the legislature's power on redistricting would ultimately preserve the integrity of voting. It also lets voters decide who they want to represent them, rather than elected officials choosing whom they need to get reelected.

A new report found Muslim students in New York City public schools face high levels of discrimination in school.

The report from the Council on American Islamic Relations-New York showed close to 60% of students surveyed were bullied by another student for being Muslim. Almost half reported having their hijab tugged, pulled or offensively touched by another student. Most felt reporting such incidents will not make a difference.

Sarah Shahlan, research project coordinator for the council, said it has only escalated since the war in Gaza began last year.

"A lot of incidents were being reported to CAIR New York from students in schools about repression and being suspended and having disciplinary action against themselves," Shahlan reported. "It's simply because of expressing their views."

She added students also face bullying because they physically look Muslim. The report's recommendations included creating anti-bullying policies and developing a task force for Islamophobia to understand the challenges Muslim students face. Shalan acknowledged some challenges to put them into action are if schools are willing to take them seriously and if schools have resources to do them.

Muslim students are not just facing bullying from their peers, as 29% of students reported a school faculty member made offensive comments or acted offensively toward Muslims.

Shahlan noted the report outlined why the incidents often go unreported.

"A lot of the students don't feel that it's necessary to report these incidents or that they don't feel comfortable reporting to an adult at school," Shahlan outlined. "One of the key findings was that over 70% of the students didn't report to adults at school."

She wants state policymakers to understand the takeaways in the report are a small part of a much broader issue Muslims face. During the previous legislative session, New York state lawmakers introduced legislation designed to curb discrimination and harassment in schools. One bill called for creating an educational program to prevent discrimination based on race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression but it failed in committee.


get more stories like this via email

A year-old U.S. Supreme Court case means relief for two Nebraskans who faced losing their homes and all the equity they had built, when investment firms bought their property for unpaid property taxes.

Legal Aid of Nebraska, with Pacific Legal Foundation as lead counsel, appealed a Nebraska State Supreme Court ruling saying the homeowners were not entitled to the equity in their homes.

In Pacific Legal's landmark 2023 case, Tyler v. Hennepin, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled homeowners in such a situation must be paid for any surplus equity, after taxes and fees. It vacated the decision of the Nebraska Supreme Court, which, upon revisiting the case, concluded the Nebraska homeowners must receive "just compensation" for their equity.

Christina Martin, senior attorney for the Pacific Legal Foundation, said the Tyler decision could open doors for others similarly affected.

"The bottom line is, people who think they have a claim should reach out to Legal Aid of Nebraska," Martin urged. "They could also reach out to property rights attorneys, eminent domain attorneys. And ultimately, this decision is going to protect Nebraska's weakest population the most."

Martin explained, subject to states' statutes of limitations, the Tyler decision is fully retroactive. She added tax foreclosures disproportionately affect older or low-income homeowners, or those with medical conditions.

Caitlin Cedfeldt, staff attorney of the Housing Justice Project for Legal Aid of Nebraska, said it's a victory for the two homeowners and all Nebraskans.

"It is still possible for someone to lose their home, but if they are going to lose the home, they are going to at least get the equity out of it," Cedfeldt explained. "It's kind of incredible that both of these elderly clients will have a chance maybe at keeping their homes."

Cedfeldt pointed out it was the first case Legal Aid of Nebraska filed before the U.S. Supreme Court.

In 2023, several years after these homeowners' cases were initiated, Nebraska law was changed to require that homeowners receive any surplus equity in property tax foreclosures.


get more stories like this via email

A U.S. Senate subcommittee has uncovered widespread abuse of pregnant and postpartum women incarcerated nationwide, including in Georgia.

Sen. Jon Ossoff, D-Ga., who chairs the Senate Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law, said its research has found more than 200 reported cases of human rights violations against women in state prisons and jails. He said the abuses range from neglect during labor to newborns being taken away immediately after birth.

"We've heard from mothers forced to give birth in prison showers, hallways or on dirty cell floors," he said. "Mothers who gave birth into toilets, after being told they were 'not in labor.'"

Despite laws in 41 states including Georgia that prohibit or restrict shackling pregnant and postpartum people in prison, the subcommittee said violations were found in at least 16 states.

During last week's hearing, Jessica Umberger, who gave birth in a Georgia state prison, testified about the abuse she endured. She recounted being forced to have a Cesarean section, and said she was denied proper hygiene and placed in solitary confinement shortly after the birth.

"I was put in solitary when my baby was only five days old," she said. "In solitary confinement, I had no medical support. The staples in my stomach from my C-section had not dissolved, and there was no air conditioner."

The senators also heard from Dr. Carolyn Sufrin, an associate professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine. She suggested changes to address mistreatment and improve conditions for those who are pregnant behind bars.

"There are many opportunities for policy and practice change that could improve conditions and the well-being of pregnant and postpartum women in prisons and jails, as well as for their newborns," she said. "One is to find a pathway to require medical standards of care."

She said expanding Medicaid to cover people in prison could help enforce these standards.

Ossoff stressed the need for bipartisanship, and said further investigation is needed.