Supreme Court

The U.S. Supreme Court is made up of nine justices who were each appointed by a sitting president and usually serve life terms. They take cases unsettled between lower state courts in order to provide a ruling on important decisions for the entire country, having immense political and social impacts on people and legislation for decades to come.

The Supreme Court Gutted the Voting Rights Act. Women Will Pay the Price.

PUBLISHED 5/2/2026 by and

The Court didn’t strike down Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act—but it didn’t need to. By requiring proof of intentional discrimination, the majority has made it dramatically harder to challenge maps that dilute the voting power of communities of color. As Justice Elena Kagan warned, the provision is now “all but a dead letter.”

For the women elected from majority-minority districts, that shift is not abstract. These are the very districts that made their representation possible—and now, those districts are among the most vulnerable to being redrawn or erased.

The consequences were immediate. Within hours of the ruling in Louisiana v. Callais, Florida lawmakers advanced a new congressional map targeting majority-minority districts, including seats held by women.

In the 11 states most likely to face redistricting pressure, up to 36 such districts could be redrawn—12 of them currently represented by women.

As voting rights litigator Yael Bromberg explained, the Court is now effectively looking for a “smoking gun” of discrimination. Short of that, legislatures can redraw maps along partisan lines, even when the racial impact is clear.

The statute remains on the books, but its practical force does not. And what replaces it is not neutrality—it is discretion. State legislatures can choose which incumbents to protect and which to leave exposed, creating new opportunities to sideline women and weaken the political power of the communities that elected them.

What happens next will not hinge on another sweeping ruling, but on a series of decisions that are easier to overlook and harder to challenge—and that will determine, district by district, who gets to remain represented at all.

The Supreme Court Is Showing Us Why the ERA Can’t Wait

PUBLISHED 5/1/2026 by

Listening to two recent Supreme Court arguments on immigration, I heard something more than a debate over statutory language or constitutional text. I heard a stark illustration of how precarious rights can be when they depend on interpretation rather than being firmly embedded in the Constitution.

In one case, justices parsed the meaning of a single word—“arrives”—in ways that risked erasing access to asylum altogether. In the other, they confronted a direct challenge to the 14th Amendment and, in doing so, were forced to reckon with the real lives at stake.

That contrast is the point. When a right lives in statute, it can be narrowed, redefined or even functionally denied through legal gymnastics that separate words from their purpose. But when a right is written into the Constitution, it becomes harder—though not impossible—for courts to ignore its human consequences.

The difference isn’t abstract; it shapes whether people can seek refuge, claim citizenship or be recognized as equal under the law.

Taken together, these cases offer a warning—and a roadmap. If we want rights to endure, they must be grounded where they are hardest to dismantle. The Equal Rights Amendment was meant to do exactly that. And in this moment, as courts and lawmakers test the limits of existing protections, the case for finally enshrining it in the Constitution has never been clearer.

War on Women Report: Rise of ‘Sleep Porn’; Georgia Midwives Sue for Right to Practice; Louisiana Family Massacre Exposes Deadly Intersection of Domestic Violence and Guns

PUBLISHED 4/29/2026 by and

MAGA Republicans are back in the White House, and Project 2025 is their guide: the right-wing plan to turn back the clock on women’s rights, remove abortion access, and force women into roles as wives and mothers in the “ideal, natural family structure.”

We know an empowered female electorate is essential to democracy. That’s why day after day, we stay vigilant in our goals to dismantle patriarchy at every turn. We are watching, and we refuse to go back. This is the War on Women Report.

Since our last report:
—Access to mifepristone remains protected for now, after a U.S. district court granted a stay in Louisiana v. FDA.
—A new CNN investigation reveals a sprawling online network where drug-facilitated sexual assault, marketed as “sleep porn, ” is filmed, shared and monetized, drawing millions of viewers. Meanwhile, survivors face steep barriers to reporting and justice.
—The Ohio House passed the Indecent Exposure Modernization Act, an extreme bill that seeks to ban any expression or performance of drag where minors are or may be present. The proposed ban includes even daytime family-oriented events such as drag queen story hours, where performers dress up as storybook characters and read to children at libraries or bookstores.
—In a devastating shooting spree spanning three locations, Shamar Elkins shot and killed eight children, seven of whom were his own, and severely wounded two women: his wife, Shaneiqua Pugh, and Christina Snow. Both women are mothers to the deceased victims.
—In Georgia, a group of reproductive healthcare advocates is challenging the state’s restrictions on some forms of maternal healthcare, arguing that Georgia’s current laws give doctors too much control over midwives’ ability to practice.
—Nine women in Tennessee are suing the state over its abortion ban after nearly denying due to being denied abortion care.

… and more.

Justice Kagan Sounds the Alarm as Supreme Court Dismantles Voting Rights Protections: ‘Elected Politicians Picking Their Voters’

PUBLISHED 4/29/2026 by and

In a 6-3 decision in Callais v. Louisiana on Wednesday, the Supreme Court struck down Louisiana’s current congressional map—drawn after the 2020 census to include a second majority-Black district—and, in doing so, weakened Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the last remaining nationwide tool for challenging racially discriminatory voting laws.

The FACE Act Is Settled Law, Despite Efforts to Reframe It

PUBLISHED 4/28/2026 by

At a House Judiciary Subcommittee hearing on the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act on Tuesday, members of the House GOP—including Texas Reps. Chip Roy and Brandon Gill and Ohio’s Jim Jordan—attempted to rewrite or minimize the history of violence against providers and patients, recasting antiabortion clinic blockades as peaceful protest.

Jessica L. Waters, J.D., senior scholar in residence at American University, gave a forceful defense of the FACE Act and pushed back on efforts to recast clinic blockades as protected speech.

“People should be able to seek medical care, and medical professionals should be able to provide it, without fear of violence or intimidation. This is an issue that warrants a federal remedy.”

‘The Other Roe’ Film Shines a Light on Forgotten Abortion-Rights Case Doe v. Bolton

PUBLISHED 4/15/2026 by

On June 24, 2026, we’ll reach the fourth anniversary of the Supreme Court’s infamous Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022. This year, which would have been Roe’s 53rd anniversary, also coincides with the United States’ 250th, reminding us that while the U.S. has been independent since 1776, American women are still far from having full rights and power over our own bodies.

Roe v. Wade, which passed in 1973 and stood for 49 years, gets most of the credit for establishing the national right to abortion. Many people think of Roe as the first big bookend ushering in the right to abortion in the U.S., with Dobbs as the other bookend taking that right away again.

However, Roe wasn’t the only groundbreaking case that paved the way for abortion rights in the U.S. 

Doe v. Bolton, Roe v. Wade’s lesser-known companion case, was argued before the Supreme Court in 1973 the same day as Roe and was equally crucial to abortion rights in the United States.

The Immigration Crackdown Is Coming for Public Education

PUBLISHED 4/11/2026 by

There is something especially ugly about going after children, denying them a basic education, which cuts off their path to life in a way that can’t be restored later on in their lives. But that’s what Republicans want to do.

An estimated 600,000 to 850,000 undocumented children are enrolled in K-12 education in the United States. They are not abstractions. They are kids sitting in classrooms next to American citizens, learning the lessons that will permit them to contribute to whatever society they are a part of as adults. Forcibly removing their access to education doesn’t just harm them individually, it leaves entire communities worse off.

Trump’s Attack on Birthright Citizenship Echoes a Confederate Playbook

PUBLISHED 4/3/2026 by | UPDATED 4/9/2026 at 4:25 P.M. PT

The Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in Trump v. Barbara, a landmark case that seeks to fundamentally rewrite the substance and meaning of one of the most important provisions of the Constitution—birthright citizenship—by presidential fiat. 

For over 150 years, birthright citizenship has been protected by the 14th Amendment and widely recognized as one of the most important, fundamental rights found in the Constitution. 

At the core of this case is not only a challenge to birthright citizenship, but an attack on a nation that fought back against the villainy and evils of slavery and Chinese exclusion laws. It is an affront to the civil rights movement’s victory over “separate but equal” policies of the Jim Crow era—policies that sought to fasten Black people to segregationist second-class citizenship.   

Trump is writing the modern-day version of a Confederate playbook. 

I Want to Be Obsolete. Instead, I’m Afraid to Teach.

PUBLISHED 4/3/2026 by

I want to be obsolete. I want to walk into a classroom full of students excited to learn feminist histories and begin by marveling at how far we’ve come—how unthinkable it now feels that a president once demeaned women, faced dozens of credible accusations of sexual violence, and still rose to the highest office in the country. I want that version of this story to feel distant, resolved, finished.

Instead, I walk into my gender, women and sexuality studies classes scanning for signs of hostility—wondering who might be recording, who might be there to report me, who might see my teaching not as scholarship but as something to punish.

Teaching about marginalized communities, especially through a feminist, anti-racist lens, now carries real risk: of being surveilled, doxxed, harassed or silenced. Books are banned, curricula are targeted, and the very act of naming systems of power is treated as a threat.

And yet, I keep teaching. I keep showing students that what they are experiencing is not individual failure but the result of structural forces—and that those forces can be challenged. I tell them their voices matter, their rage is justified, and their histories deserve to be known.

I would rather be obsolete. But as long as these attacks persist, our work is far from done.

Wisconsin’s Supreme Court Election Is the Next Big Test in a High-Stakes Year for Democracy

PUBLISHED 4/1/2026 by

As attention builds toward the 2026 election cycle, the first major political test is already underway. Early in-person voting has begun for Wisconsin’s April 7 state Supreme Court election–a high-stakes contest that, despite its “nonpartisan” label, reflects the same ideological battles reshaping courts across the country.

The race pits two sitting Wisconsin Court of Appeals judges—Chris Taylor and Maria Lazar—against each other to fill an open seat left by conservative Justice Rebecca Bradley, who announced last August she would not seek reelection. Both candidates are women, so the April 7 result will not change one defining feature of the court: its overwhelming female majority. Women hold six of the seven seats, more than any other state supreme court in the nation (though all are white, in a state where more than one in five residents identifies as a person of color.) 

Though candidates do not run with party labels, Taylor is widely seen as the liberal-backed candidate, while Lazar, a member of the Federalist Society, aligns with conservative legal networks that have spent decades building influence in both federal and state courts.

Wisconsin is one of 23 states (and Washington D.C.) that have same-day registration, allowing you to register at the polls on April 7 when you go to cast your ballot. You can also register in advance of Election Day. The deadline for early in-person registration at your local clerk’s office is April 3 at 5 p.m. Early in person voting began on March 24 and runs through April 5.