Being a young person today is far from easy—students are navigating life amid the novel coronavirus pandemic, considering higher education at a time when it’s devastatingly expensive, and watching rents and the housing market skyrocket. While LGBTQ+ youth are certainly not the only students experiencing hardships, research shows they do face disproportionate levels of bullying and harassment from their peers and are more likely to leave high school without a diploma. They are also more likely to become homeless. 

In an ideal world, schools would be a safe haven for young people. Unfortunately, thanks to Republican hate, we’ve seen lawmakers push heinous policies that seek to separate trans youth from their peers, be it based on bathroom access or participating in sports teams. Research has shown teachers feel uniquely ill-equipped to step in on behalf of LGBTQ+ youth when it comes to bullying, for example, but a recent story out of South Dakota paints a very clear picture of a teacher as the one doing the bullying. At the time of writing, at least one student has already been pulled from the school.

RELATED: Thanks to Republican hate, Oklahoma is the first state in the nation to do a very bad thing

As reported by local outlet the Watertown Public Opinion, four high school students received a letter from their German teacher, Calvin Hillesland, in which he told the students that he felt it was “wrong” and a “lie” to call them by their chosen names but stressed he supports and respects them. The students, who are all openly trans, were told by their teacher via the letter that their biology is “female” and that “every cell in your body is female, feminine” as a “biological truth.” Hillesland allegedly offered to send the students in question candy (as a “symbol of the sweetness” he hopes they’ll discover) as well as a DVD that can explain the “spiritual” as well as the “scientific facts.”

In a word: Yikes.

Listen to a breakdown of the May primaries on Daily Kos Elections’ The Downballot podcast with David Nir and David Beard

Students received the letter on Monday and protested on Tuesday. Now, students and parents are asking the Watertown School District to take action against the teacher. 

In a statement sent to parents in the school district, officials confirmed the letter was given to four students while at school on Monday. The statement, sent over text message, confirms that the teacher tried to discuss the students’ gender identity.

"The Watertown School District does not support this sort of action,” the statement reads in part. “And we respect the rights of our students to be who they are. We want to provide a safe learning environment for all students. We continue to work through the situation and ask for your support as we handle it."

The outlet met with Superintendent Jeff Danielsen, who told the paper that Hillesland is still teaching while administrators are investigating the situation. The superintendent told the outlet they became aware of the situation after school ended on Monday, and the investigation is not yet complete. The outlet reports that Hillesland’s teaching certificate is currently active.

Several students told the outlet that they saw Hillesland pass out the letter to the four students in question during lunch, where Hillesland serves as a monitor.

How are the affected students feeling? According to their parents, they’re feeling pretty betrayed by a teacher they were fond of. Parent Heather Hoffman, for example, told the outlet that her son Kai Price was one of the young people to receive a letter. Hoffman said Price is upset because Hillesland was one of his favorite teachers before this happened. For herself, Hoffman said she’s still in “disbelief” and said that this typed-up letter was a “premeditated attack.” She added that she doesn’t understand why he’s still teaching. 

“I’m just a 14-year-old kid trying to get through life,” Price told local outlet KELO about the situation, who added lately they’ve been struggling to feel confident and that receiving a letter like this from a trusted person really affected them.

Ashley Bakke, another parent of an impacted student, said her child, Alex Bryant, texted a copy of the letter to her right after receiving it. Bryant says she reached out to the school’s counselor and went to the school the same day to speak to Brad Brandsrud, who serves as principal of the high school. But according to Bakke, she felt like was “talking with a politician” who was “dancing around the issue.” She left feeling like the principal was defending a friend instead of addressing the issue.

At this point, Bakke made the call to pull her son from the district immediately. Bakke added that for her child, too, Hillesland was formerly a favorite teacher.

LGBTQ+ outlet them reached out to Danielson for clarification on the DVD in reference and the superintendent said he had no knowledge of the DVD or the content it contained.

It cannot be overstated the sort of impact teachers, coaches, and other administrators can have on the life of young people. It is a baseline minimum expectation to have adults in the room be equipped to recognize and combat hatred and bullying, and it shouldn’t even be a question of whether or not such behavior or expression should be permitted from the mouths of those in charge themselves.

School staff need and deserve well-rounded education and training on these issues—plus more, in terms of things like ableism, disability rights, microaggressions, and so on—and they also need to be held accountable for the things they do and say. It’s always more than a matter of opinion or exercising poor judgment when dealing with impressionable young people, especially when those young people are also disproportionately at-risk for mental health issues like depression and suicidal ideation. 

Sign the petition: Demand the Senate pass the Equality Act and protect the LGBTQ community from discrimination.

Campaign Action

A draft opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito shows that the Supreme Court could overturn abortion rights in the U.S., essentially nullifying the landmark Roe v. Wade, which Alito called “egregiously wrong from the start.” The document, obtained by Politico, spans 98 pages and was apparently drafted in February. It marks an unprecedented leak for the nation’s highest court. Per Politico, “no draft decision in the modern history of the court has been disclosed publicly while a case was still pending.”

A source told Politico that Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, all voted in agreement with Alito in a conference following oral arguments in December. The conservative justices have found zero support from their liberal counterparts. That conference and those oral arguments stem from a Mississippi case brought before the Supreme Court challenging the state’s law that would ban abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization has yet to be decided — and this window into some of the Justices’ thinking is absolutely alarming.

This is a developing news story.

Listen to Eli Mystal talk with Markos Moulitsas and KErry Eleveld about the Supreme Court and abortion laws in the Red States

Taking their cue from the incoming tide of far-right fearmongering about “grooming” and an “LGBTQ agenda” in schools and libraries, a group of Idaho biker militiamen are planning to show up to confront people celebrating a Pride event in a downtown Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, park next month.

Two men from the leadership of Panhandle Patriots, a militia-oriented bikers club based in northern Idaho—Justin Allen, the group’s vice president, and Jeff White, its “sergeant at arms”—told a recent gathering at a church hosted by Republican state House member Heather Scott that they planned to have a gun-driven event next month in Coeur d’Alene the same day as the city’s Pride Celebration at a park less than a mile away, and that they planned a confrontation: “We actually intend to go head to head with these people. A line has to be drawn in the sand. Good people need to stand up,” White told the audience.

The meeting, titled “Gameplan to Remove Inappropriate Materials in Our Schools and Libraries,” was held at Regeneration Calvary Chapel in Kootenai, a small town north of Sandpoint. Scott—who has a long history of associations and identification with the far-right Patriot movement—cohosted the gathering along with Amy Henry, who spoke remotely via Zoom. About an hour into the discussion—which mostly involved efforts to censor LGBT-friendly material from local public schools and libraries—Scott invited Allen and White up to the podium to speak.

Listen to a breakdown of the May primaries on Daily Kos Elections’ The Downballot podcast with David Nir and David Beard

White was the only person who actually spoke; Allen said not a single word during White’s soliloquy:

In Coeur d’Alene, on the 10th of June, there is Family Day. And at Family Day they are promoting family values, activities, and everything. The very following day, they are having Gay Pride Day. In the very same park the very next day, where they will be allowed to parade through all of Coeur d’Alene—drag queen dancers, education hour, making all this material available for all the kids in a park that is designed for kids.

We are having an event the very same day. That very same day we actually intend to go head to head with these people. A line has to be drawn in the sand. Good people need to stand up. And she was talking about the repercussions. We say, Damn the repercussions. Stand up, take it to the head. Go to the fight.

If you can, possibly, we know a lot of you are in Bonner County—we live in Bonner County. We are fighting in multiple counties. We are asking for all of you to come stand with us.

Ironically, the event being planned that day by Panhandle Patriots, dubbed “Gun d’Alene,” is being billed as an anniversary of the day in 2020 that armed “Patriots” flooded the streets of Coeur d’Alene in response to hoax rumors of the impending arrival of buses full of evil black-clad “antifa” vandals who mysteriously never showed up anywhere they were rumored to be going.

Dozens of people showed up on armed patrol, toting AR-15s and wearing body armor, at a downtown shopping strip mall. In a cellphone video shared on Facebook, one videographer said: “If you guys are thinking of coming to Coeur d’Alene, to riot or loot, you’d better think again. Because we ain’t having it in our town. … I guess there’s a big rumor that people from Spokane are gonna come out here and act up. But that shit ain’t gonna happen.”

Of course it didn’t happen, because it was never going to happen in the first place. The event next month is essentially celebrating the Patriots’ lethal gullibility. But that’s not how White described it, of course:

Our event is advertised as “Gun d’Alene,” because it’s an anniversary of when we stood to protect our community. We’re standing again to protect our community. We shifted our date to be able to go head-to-head with these people. They are trying to take your children.

Considering that the flagrant brandishing of weapons is part of the event’s entire raison d’être, his words also took on ominous overtones as he urged the audience members to come support them:

This fight is not just paper, it’s not just words, it’s not just politicians. They have to see people standing in their face saying ‘No more.’ If we don’t do this—they’re winning, as she said. The amount of steps they take are 10 to 1. They’ve got people nonstop. Nonstop on this. We gain two steps, they gain twelve. We’re not gonna win, we’re not gonna fight back at a leisurely pace. We’re busy six days a week doing this, and we know a lot of you are too. But we’re asking a lot of you—leave your homes, leave your comfort, come stand.

If you want to see it, if you want to see what they’re promoting, come down there on June 11. Come see what they’re doing. Come with us—come stand.

Another flier posted by the Panhandle Patriots advertising their planned confrontation with the Pride event shows a drag queen reading at a public library, and urges people to join them “in standing up against the indoctrination and grooming of our children.” Among its slogans: “If you don’t protect children, you are part of the problem.”

The park where the Patriots plan to hold their gun event, McEuen Park, is on the Coeur d’Alene waterfront less than three-quarters of a mile from Coeur d’Alene City Park, where the “Pride in the Park” events are scheduled to be held.

The Panhandle Patriots have been harassing members of the LGBT community in northern Idaho for awhile now. Last November, in conjunction with a local evangelical Christian church, they organized a protest in Post Falls outside the city library on the night it was hosting a program called the “Rainbow Squad,” an LGBTQ-friendly reading-discussion program.

Among the signs they carried, police body-camera footage shows, were slogans like "Flee From Sexual Immorality," "Obey God Not Men," "Sexual Immorality is an Abomination to God," and "The Solution is Jesus Christ."

On Facebook, Panhandle Patriots shared a post with its members calling out the library network’s upcoming meeting and urging others to attend:

The perversion that is becoming so pervasive in these libraries needs to be called out and CAST OUT.

We need people to show up and speak out, demand the removal of pro-LGBT books like the following:

[Links to such books as Auntie Uncle: Drag Queen Hero and Be Amazing: A History of Pride.]

A Post Falls native named Michelle White told the Coeur d’Alene Press that she and her two children had been participating for several months in Rainbow Squad events, saying she had always thought of the library as a "safe space" without judgment.

"These people are making it not a safe place for kids to gather by picketing and yelling at them as they go inside," she told the Press. "Creating an environment that is not safe is not OK."

Jessica Mahuron, the North Idaho Pride Alliance outreach coordinator, attended the November Rainbow Squad event and observed how the protesters’ intentions were to eliminate that safe space—and they succeeded.

"There were some people who felt intimidated from entering the building, others left because they were feeling so terrible, and for some, this is nothing new to them, so they stood strong," Mahuron said. "The program is supposed to provide a safe, inclusive space for fun and friendship. What they experienced coming into that meeting was the exact opposite."

As Tess Owen noted last year at Vice, Panhandle Patriots is closely associated with the so-called “American Redoubt” movement that is trying to organize a secessionist 51st state in the interior Northwest as a homeland for “Patriots.” And they’ve been increasingly busy the past few years: teaming up with anti-immigration vigilantes at the border (which involved confiscating drinking water left for migrants), leading anti-vaccination rallies, and swarming libraries to demand the removal books they say promote “an LGBTQ agenda.”

Their leader—a man named Mike Birdsong, who uses the nickname “Viper”—was present at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., during the Jan. 6 insurrection, and was photographed engaging the police in battle at barricades outside the building, though he has not been charged with any crimes from that day. Birdsong also has been photographed alongside well-known Proud Boys who have been charged with conspiracy at the insurrection.

Madison Cawthorn Gay Leaked Video

Video surfaces with male scheduler’s hand on GOP Rep’s crotch in a situation almost certainly inappropriate: Is Madison Cawthorn gay or showing poor judgement again?

Rep Madison Cawhthorn caught with schedulers hand on his crotch

We're in for a long couple of years.

Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt (R) signed a bill that outlaws nonbinary gender markers on birth certificates on Tuesday and it will go into effect immediately. The law is the first of its kind in the U.S. “The biological sex designation on a certificate of birth issued under this section shall be either male or female and shall not be nonbinary or any symbol representing a nonbinary designation including but not limited to the letter ‘X’,” the legislation reads. Other states and the federal government have gone the opposite direction, allowing for nonbinary gender markers, but Oklahoma’s new law jo…

Read More

An enzyme variant created by engineers and scientists at The University of Texas at Austin can break down environment-throttling plastics that typically take centuries to degrade in just a matter of hours to days. Phys.Org reports: This discovery, published today in Nature, could help solve one of the world's most pressing environmental problems: what to do with the billions of tons of plastic waste piling up in landfills and polluting our natural lands and water. The enzyme has the potential to supercharge recycling on a large scale that would allow major industries to reduce their environmental impact by recovering and reusing plastics at the molecular level. [...] The project focuses on polyethylene terephthalate (PET), a significant polymer found in most consumer packaging, including cookie containers, soda bottles, fruit and salad packaging, and certain fibers and textiles. It makes up 12% of all global waste. The enzyme was able to complete a "circular process" of breaking down the plastic into smaller parts (depolymerization) and then chemically putting it back together (repolymerization). In some cases, these plastics can be fully broken down to monomers in as little as 24 hours. Researchers at the Cockrell School of Engineering and College of Natural Sciences used a machine learning model to generate novel mutations to a natural enzyme called PETase that allows bacteria to degrade PET plastics. The model predicts which mutations in these enzymes would accomplish the goal of quickly depolymerizing post-consumer waste plastic at low temperatures. Through this process, which included studying 51 different post-consumer plastic containers, five different polyester fibers and fabrics and water bottles all made from PET, the researchers proved the effectiveness of the enzyme, which they are calling FAST-PETase (functional, active, stable and tolerant PETase). [...] Up next, the team plans to work on scaling up enzyme production to prepare for industrial and environmental application. The researchers have filed a patent application for the technology and are eying several different uses. Cleaning up landfills and greening high waste-producing industries are the most obvious. But another key potential use is environmental remediation. The team is looking at a number of ways to get the enzymes out into the field to clean up polluted sites.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

According to a survey of 501 people conducted by insurance company Progressive, most people prefer the process of buying a car online than at dealerships. Autoblog reports: Based on the 251 people who completed a transaction entirely online or through a dealer web site, and the 250 who did solely face-to-face business, there are two big takeaways. The first is that online shopping, still a small percentage of overall car sales, is growing rapidly in acceptance and actual transactions. [...] The second takeaway is that millennials are a major part of the online sales growth. Overall, though, online shoppers expressed more joy with the process than showroom floor shoppers. Compared to 78% of buyers highly satisfied with buying a car online, only 58% of in-person shoppers registered the same pleasure. That carried through to trade-ins and financing as well. Eighty percent of online shoppers were highly satisfied with the trade-in process, versus 57% of dealership visitors; 70% of online shoppers gave the highest marks to the financing process as opposed to 53% of guests asked to "Step into the office" and wait while the salesperson conferred with the finance manager.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Dozens of House Republicans on Wednesday signed on to a petition to force a vote on legislation that would ban transgender women and girls from playing on sports teams that match their gender identity.

Nine lawmakers led by Rep. Jim Banks (R-Ind.) submitted the petition Tuesday to discharge the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act, which was introduced by Rep. Greg Steube (R-Fla.) in January 2021 and has not been taken up by the House Education and Labor Committee.

On Wednesday, Banks urged more of his colleagues to sign on to the petition at a Republican Study Committee lunch. By the time the House adjourned for the day, the petition had garnered the support of 62 lawmakers.

Banks still needs 218 signers on board to discharge the bill for a floor vote. But this is the strongest Republican attempt so far to get what would be the first federal measure restricting transgender athletes' participation a step closer to becoming law.

The bill outlines that for the purpose of Title IX, an education law that prohibits discrimination based on sex, sex will be “recognized based solely on a person's reproductive biology and genetics at birth.”

Banks accused Democrats of attempting to "destroy" Title IX protections. House Republicans, he said in a statement, should force Democrats to publicly state their position on barring transgender women out of female sports competitions.

Still, Democrats are all but certain to keep the bill from moving forward. The Biden administration has been staunchly supportive of transgender students' rights, even as more than a dozen states have passed laws that impose similar restrictions on student athletes.

"As I said last year, especially to our younger transgender Americans, I will always have your back as your President," President Joe Biden said during his State of the Union address.

Earlier this month, the Justice Department also sent a letter to state attorneys general, urging them to abide by laws that protect transgender youth against discrimination and preserve access to gender-related medical care.

Key context: Transgender women have been allowed to compete in women’s sports in the Olympics since 2003. The NCAA, however, updated its policy on the participation of transgender athletes this year, giving the national governing body for each sport its own ability to determine eligibility requirements.

Banks' move comes as the Biden administration is set to unveil its overhaul of the DeVos-era Title IX rule as soon as this month. The rule mandates how schools and colleges must respond to reports of sexual misconduct, but the Biden administration is also expected to codify anti-discrimination protections for transgender students for the first time. The new rule is expected to put into law the Biden administration’s interpretation of Title IX, which says discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity is covered under the statute.

Conservative groups, such as Heritage Action, the American Principles Project and the Independent Women's Forum, lauded the petition and urged the GOP lawmakers to throw their support behind it.

"Make no mistake: defending women's sports is fast becoming a litmus test issue for Republicans, and voters will be paying attention to where their representatives stand," said American Principles Project President Terry Schilling in a statement.

Sometimes you get confirmation of something you already knew and it still makes you want to vomit your small intestines down a storm sewer. Ever wonder why there are so many racist, homophobic, antisemitic, and transphobic GOP candidates? Because GOP voters love ‘em, that’s why! Occam’s razor cuts pretty deep sometimes, doesn’t it?

The latest Morning Consult/Politico poll surveyed voters of all stripes and found, among other horrors, that a full 62% of Republicans are more or less cool with candidates who are accused of making racist remarks.

And that’s not all! They’re also bigger fans of domestic violence, sexual misconduct, homophobia, and antisemitism than Democrats and independents are. 

Here’s a quick summary.

For the nontweeters:

Morning Consult/Politico

If a candidate is accused of ___ is it a major problem?

Sexual misconduct: 83% of Dems say yes 77% Ind 66% Republicans

Domestic violence: 81 D 74 I 67 R

Racist remarks: 80 D 59 I 38 R

Homophobic remarks 71 D 50 I 25 R

Antisemitism 71 D 61 I 47 R

The party of personal responsibility and family values, right?

Of course, judging by Donald Trump’s vote totals in the past two presidential elections, it’s safe to assume that at least 98% of the 38% of Republicans who claim to be bothered by racist remarks also told Morning Consult their favorite pastime is lying to pollsters.

It would also be interesting to see what these numbers were before Trump decided to start devouring old-school Republicans’ souls like so much Fiddle Faddle. Perhaps the cognitive dissonance was simply too much for the 34% of Republicans who think sexual misconduct is no biggie, and they decided to be honest for once. But wait, you’re telling me racism may actually be a selling point for GOP candidates? Here I thought all those white Rust Belt voters were flocking to Trump because of Kanye West. 

By the way, you’ll be shocked to learn that only 26% of Republicans would consider it a major problem if a candidate was accused of making transphobic remarks. I’m surprised it’s that high, honestly.

They say it’s important to know your enemy. I’d like to amend that slightly: It’s important to know your enemies, but not so well that you can’t control your vomit reflex when you’re driving to the polls to vote them out. I sincerely hope this news hasn’t pushed you over that edge, because we need your vote. 

It made comedian Sarah Silverman say, “THIS IS FUCKING BRILLIANT,” and prompted author Stephen King to shout “Pulitzer Prize!!!” (on Twitter, that is). What is it? The viral letter that launched four hilarious Trump-trolling books. Get them all, including the finale, Goodbye, Asshat: 101 Farewell Letters to Donald Trump, at this link. Or, if you prefer a test drive, you can download the epilogue to Goodbye, Asshat for the low, low price of FREE. 

A vast asymmetry between the parties is working against Democrats.

Local control? Federalism? Forget it. Republicans want to centralize power and direct it upward.

It's unclear how seriously the party takes the doom-and-gloom possibilities.

Back in 2018, Ohio voters thought they were doing a good thing by reforming redistricting in their state. It turns out they created a chaotic process that has left their congressional map as gerrymandered as ever.

Nathaniel Rakich: Ohio’s Cedar Point amusement park claims to be the roller coaster capital of the world. But none of its rides have as many ups and downs as the state’s redistricting process.

Back in 2018, Ohio voters passed a constitutional amendment to reform redistricting in the state and make it harder to gerrymander. But when the new law was put to the test last year, it was an utter disaster. And the new congressional map that emerged is as gerrymandered as ever.

Under the new rules, the Ohio legislature had until September 30 to pass a new congressional map with bipartisan support. They didn’t. So the task went to the new bipartisan Ohio Redistricting Commission, which had until October 31 to pass a map. They didn’t either. So the process went back to the state legislature, which this time was allowed to pass a new map along strict party lines.

And — surprise, surprise — the Republicans who control the legislature pushed through a map that gave their party a big advantage. According to one metric of quantifying gerrymandering, called the efficiency gap, this map is expected to produce 16 percent more seats for the GOP than a perfectly fair map. Some “reform,” huh?

But that wasn’t the end of the drama. Democrats sued over the map, arguing it was an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander. And in January, the Ohio Supreme Court agreed! In a 4-3 decision that included the court’s Republican chief justice, the court noted that the GOP would likely win 75 to 80 percent of Ohio’s congressional seats under the map even though the party, quote, “generally musters no more than 55 percent of the statewide popular vote.” The decision went on to say, quote, “By any rational measure, that skewed result just does not add up.”

The ruling invalidated the gerrymandered map and gave the legislature 30 days to draw a new one. But guess what? They didn’t. In fact, they didn’t even try, concluding it would be impossible to round up the votes they needed. So the task again fell to the Ohio Redistricting Commission, and in early March they finally passed a new map. All’s well that ends well, right?

Wrong! The new map was barely any fairer than the one that had been struck down. It still gave Republicans 75 to 80 percent of Ohio’s congressional seats. And it still had an efficiency gap of 16 percent toward the GOP. So it seemed inevitable that the Ohio Supreme Court would strike this map down as well.

But weeks passed with no word from the court. Then, on March 18, it came: Because the map was new, plaintiffs would have to file a new lawsuit as well. With only six weeks left until the Ohio primary, Democrats quickly filed a new suit, but it was too late. The court announced that it would not rule on the new case until after the primary, all but ensuring that the map will be used in the 2022 midterm. Much like Michigan did to Ohio State in their last football game, Ohio Republicans succeeded in running out the clock.

Regardless of what the court eventually decides, though, the map can be used for a maximum of two election cycles because it didn’t pass with any Democratic votes — another quirk of the state’s new redistricting law. So we’ll have to do this all over again in 2025. Hope you like roller coasters, Ohio, because this one isn’t over yet. AHHHHHHH!

Don’t count your chickens before they hatch — and don’t count your congressional districts before all the redistricting lawsuits are finished.

On Wednesday, the New York Court of Appeals ruled that the congressional map New York Democrats enacted back in February was a partisan gerrymander that violated the state constitution and tossed it to the curb. The decision was a huge blow to Democrats, who until recently looked like they had gained enough seats nationally in redistricting to almost eliminate the Republican bias in the House of Representatives. But with the invalidation of New York’s map, as well as Florida’s recent passage of a congressional map that heavily favors the GOP,²⁴ the takeaways from the 2021-22 redistricting cycle are no longer so straightforward.

That’s because much of Democrats’ national redistricting advantage rested on their gerrymander in New York. The now-invalidated map included 20 seats with a FiveThirtyEight partisan lean²⁵ of D+5 or bluer and only four seats with a partisan lean of R+5 or redder. It also included two swing seats, but even those had slight Democratic leans (D+3 and D+4).

In other words, all else being equal, we’d have expected Democrats to win 22 of New York’s 26 House seats (85 percent) under the map. But that’s way out of proportion with how New York usually votes; for instance, President Biden got just 61 percent of the vote there in 2020.

There are currently 19 Democrats and eight Republicans in New York’s congressional delegation, so this map likely would have resulted in Democrats gaining three House seats in the 2022 election and Republicans losing four, from just New York alone. (The map converted the 1st and 11th districts from light red to light blue, and it also moved the swing district currently held by Republican Rep. John Katko more firmly into Democratic territory. It also chose a Republican-held seat upstate as the district New York would have to lose as a result of its relatively sluggish population growth in the 2020 census.)²⁶

Those heady gains and losses were the foundation for the big national gains Democrats had run up about a month ago. As of March 30, redistricting had added 11 districts to the “Democratic-leaning” (D+5 or bluer) column nationally (compared with the maps that were in place in 2020) and subtracted six districts from the “Republican-leaning” column (R+5 or redder). Today, though, Democrats are up only seven districts, and Republicans are no longer down at all — they’ve actually added one Republican-leaning seat. 

If that were to hold — and, given what we’ve learned, we should not assume it will — Democrats would still chip away at the House’s Republican bias (the tipping-point House district in 2020 was almost 5 percentage points redder than the nation as a whole), but not by as much as previously expected.

However, thanks to Democrats’ strong performance in the previous two House elections (2018 and 2020), many of those newly Democratic-leaning seats were (and are) already held by Democrats. So if all you’re interested in is the outcome of the 2022 election, it’s useful to also consider how many seats redistricting puts each party in a position to flip. Back in March, Democrats didn’t have as large of an advantage by this metric, but they were still doing better than Republicans: I estimated at the time that redistricting would net Democrats around two seats in the midterms, while it would lead to a net loss of around three or four seats for Republicans (this was without considering the Republican-leaning national political environment). Now, however, Republicans clearly have the advantage on this score. I estimate that redistricting currently positions Republicans for a net gain of around four or five House seats and Democrats for a net loss of about four, based on the maps as they stand now.

So depending on whether you measure by partisan lean alone or factor in which party currently holds each seat, you get a different answer for which party has benefited from redistricting this cycle. But don’t tie yourself up in too many knots trying to pick a winner. If there is one thing that we’ve learned this cycle, it’s that nothing is final until the last map is passed and the last lawsuit is resolved. There are still congressional maps that could get struck down in court, like Florida’s. And there are still states that have yet to finalize a map — like, oh yeah, New York!

In its decision, the New York Court of Appeals endorsed the idea that a neutral special master — essentially, an expert in drawing political maps — should draw New York’s next congressional map. That would presumably lead to a relatively fair map, but the details and exact partisan breakdown are, of course, still a mystery; Democrats could still gain seats from New York’s map when all is said and done (just not as many as from their gerrymander). As a reminder, we analyze and track newly proposed maps in real time on our redistricting tracker, so keep an eye on its New York page for the latest developments.

What happens when some of these clowns get elected?

New polling from Daily Kos/Civiqs adds another data point to the growing body of evidence that young voters are particularly displeased with Joe Biden's presidency.

The survey found that 67% of Democratic voters aged 18-34 believe Biden "made a lot of promises during his campaign that he hasn’t delivered on.”

The news comes the same week that a new Harvard Youth Poll found President Biden’s job approval rating among 18 to 29 year olds had slipped 18 points over the past year to 41% (down from 59%).

While multiple factors have surely contributed to Biden's fall among young voters, one of them is likely his lack of action of student debt relief, which many young people viewed as a key campaign promise. In the Harvard poll, 85% of young Americans said they favored some form of student debt relief.

Markos and Kerry talk Ukraine and speak with Wisconsin Democratic Party chair Ben Wikler on how hitting back at Republicans helps win elections

In February, Navigator Research dug further into the issue of student debt through polling and focus groups and found that Black Americans wanted Biden to take aggressive action on cancelling student debt.  

Among Black Americans under 35, Biden's job approval rating had plummeted 25 points over the past year, from 88% to 63%. Navigator also found that if Biden hypothetically took some form of action on student debt cancellation, perceptions of whether he had kept his campaign promises would improve 8 points overall, including 11 points among voters with student loan debt, 10 points among white voters, and 7 points among Democrats.

Since taking office, President Biden has repeatedly extended the moratorium on student loan payments during the pandemic, a pause that is set to expire Aug. 31. But Biden’s comments during a private meeting on Monday at the White House suggest he may be preparing to take action on canceling a portion of student loan debt.

The president told members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus that he hoped to move on the issue sooner rather than later, according to The Washington Post.

The president suggested he is looking to take the executive action in short order, telling the Hispanic lawmakers that they would be very happy with what he does next, according to aides briefed on the meeting.

Rep. Tony Cárdenas of California told the Post that he had urged Biden to cancel at least $10,000 in debt through executive action, and Biden's response had been "incredibly positive."

“I feel very confident that he is pushing on his team to do something, and to do something significant,” Cárdenas said in an interview. “That’s my feeling.”

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki recently said student debt cancellation was "still on the table," and this week she indicated a decision on the matter will come before the conclusion of the moratorium.

So the possibility still exists that the White House will take action on student debt cancellation within the coming months. The fact that President Biden discussed it in positive terms with a group of House Democrats—who then went on the record—is a notable departure from his posture on the issue since he took office.

PayPal is shuttering its San Francisco office as it evaluates its global office footprint. TechCrunch reports: Multiple sources say the payments giant is closing its San Francisco office on 425 Market St. which housed its Xoom business unit. PayPal acquired Xoom, which is focused on online money transfer technology and services, in 2015. A person familiar with internal happenings at the company said the employees that worked out of that office will work virtually with the ability to work from the company's headquarters office in San Jose. It is unclear how many employees are affected by the decision. An individual who commented on a post on the topic on the anonymous professional network, Blind, speculated that the reason behind the move could be San Francisco's Prop C, which levied a tax upon any San Francisco business that earns more than $50 million in gross receipts. Proceeds are to be directed toward housing and services in an attempt to address the city's challenges with homelessness.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechCrunch: Twitter locked down its source code to prevent unauthorized changes, sources familiar with the matter told Bloomberg. The reports say that this change was made to prevent employees from "going rogue" and sabotaging the platform after Elon Musk's $44 billion purchase of the company. Currently, a vice president must approve any changes. After the company announced it would accept Musk's offer to buy the publicly traded platform, it wasn't immediately clear to Twitter's 7,000 employees how their day-to-day would change. Even after a company all-hands, where CEO Parag Agrawal reassured the team that no layoffs were planned "at this time," employees were still left with questions about how they would fare in Musk's takeover. [...] For now, Musk's takeover bid for Twitter remains subject to shareholder and regulatory approval. But if it goes through as expected, we may witness major personnel shifts, resignations and more. A similar shake-up took place when Twitter was listed on the New York Stock Exchange for the first time. By the time the company went public, there were already 90 startups being built by former Twitter employees.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves vetoed a bill that would automatically restore voting rights to those who lost them as a result of a constitutional provision penned to disenfranchise Black would-be voters in the Jim Crow era, according to Mississippi Today.

House Judiciary B Chair Nick Bain, a Republican legislator, actually drafted the bill the Republican governor has refused to back. Bain told Mississippi Today that courts are already restoring voting rights to people who have had their criminal records expunged and that his bill just "clarified" that judges should be doing so.

That, however, is not how Reeves apparently sees the change. As he put it in a tweet on Friday: “I have vetoed two bills—automatically returning voting rights to criminals and weakening the state’s ethics commission.”

RELATED STORY: Jim Crow-era law to guard against 'negro rule' still making criminals of black N.C. voters

The second bill Reeves mentioned, Senate bill No. 2306, would give the Mississippi Secretary of State the ability to assess fines from a politician or political committee that failed to make the proper campaign finance disclosure, according to the SuperTalk Mississippi radio network. That power currently rests with the Mississippi Ethics Commission.

“I believed then, as I believe now, that the assessment of penalties for violations of campaign finance disclosure laws should be made by an appointed public body not subject to such laws, as opposed to a single elected official who is subject to such laws,” Reeves reportedly stated in his veto message.

Regarding the proposed voting rights legislation, Senate bill No. 2536, he wrote:

Felony disenfranchisement is an animating principle of the social contract at the heart of every great republic dating back to the founding of ancient Greece and Rome.

In America, such laws date back to the colonies and the eventual founding of our Republic. Since statehood, in one form or another, Mississippi law has recognized felony disenfranchisement.

In filmmaker Ava DuVernay's 2016 documentary 13th, she portrayed the prison system in America as a natural continuation of slavery following the 13th Amendment, which made slavery unconstitutional in 1865 for all people excluding those convicted of crimes. “If you have that embedded in the structure, in this constitutional language, then it's there to be used as a tool for whichever purposes one wants to use it," author Kevin Gannon said in the documentary.

Disenfranchisement has certainly been a popular tool especially targeting the formerly incarcerated.

People convicted of felonies lose the right to vote at least temporarily in every state except Maine and Vermont. Mississippi is one of 11 states that requires additional actions after the completion of any jail time and added waiting periods for a formerly incarcerated person to have their right to vote restored, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

The organization cited state law in explaining exactly how the rights of Mississippians are stripped from them when they are incarcerated:

A person convicted of murder, rape, bribery, theft, arson, obtaining money or goods under false pretense, perjury, forgery, embezzlement or bigamy is no longer considered a qualified elector” (Miss. Const. Art. 12, § 241). If an individual hasn’t committed one of these offenses, rights are automatically restored. If an individual has been convicted of one of these, he or she can still receive a pardon from the governor to restore voting rights (Miss. Code Ann. § 47-7-41) or by a two-thirds vote of both houses of the legislature (Miss. Const. Art. 12, § 253).

Mississippi Today writer Bobby Harrison wrote that Mississippi has never allowed the public to vote on a less convoluted process to restore voting rights, and the news service found in 2018 that Black Mississippians represent 61% of those who have been disenfranchised although they only represent 38% of the state's population that is of voting age.

“It will be up to the Senate leadership to decide whether to try to overturn the gubernatorial veto during the 2023 session,” Harrison wrote.

RELATED STORY: 'Slavery, that wretched institution, shaped the Capitol,' Booker says. It shaped the country

States like Florida and Texas are (rightfully) earning a deep amount of outrage over anti-queer and anti-trans legislation—some signed into law by Republican governors, some simply proposed, and some actually not law but based on legal analysis—a growing number of states are, and have been, pushing discriminatory and hateful legislation. One such state is Missouri, where efforts to demonize and discriminate against LGBTQ+ youth and adults are well underway and aren’t showing any signs of slowing down.

As of Tuesday, we’ve seen two separate efforts to legally exclude and disparage LGBTQ+ folks thrive with state lawmakers. These legislations include HB 1973, which bars trans youth from participating in public school sports teams that align with their gender identity, and an attempt to pass a version of the Missouri Nondiscrimination Act, which would ban discrimination in hiring and firing against LGBTQ+ public school teachers, as reported by the Springfield News-Leader.

RELATED STORY: Watch openly gay Democrat tell anti-trans Republican colleague exactly what he needs to hear

Some background on trans sports in Missouri: Right now, only two openly trans girls participated on girls’ sports teams in the entire state in the last decade, per local outlet KTLO. Yes, two. The current rules from the Missouri State High School Activities Association mandate that trans girls show consistent documentation of hormone therapy. Trans boys are allowed to participate on the boys’ teams. These rules apply for kindergarten through 12th grade in public schools. 

Republican Rep. Ron Copeland sponsored the latest amendment to this bill and said he personally doesn’t care if trans boys participate on boys’ sports teams, but his amendment actually bans that, too. His argument is the same transphobia that we’ve seen from countless Republicans in these discussions: He argues it’s about protecting fairness in girls’ sports and goes out of his way to misgender trans girls as boys. 

You might remember that openly gay Democratic Rep. Ian Mackey recently sizzled a Republican colleague, Rep. Chuck Basye, over Republicans’ stance on trans rights and LGBTQ+ allyship in general. On Monday, Mackey reminded conservatives that how they vote on trans issues will be on their records forever.

“Your vote on the record will last forever,” Mackey warned colleagues. “And I can guarantee you that while not all of you will regret it, I know that some of you looking at me right now, will. Do the right thing.”

Ultimately, the House voted 93-41 to mandate that students must participate in the sports team that aligns with the sex listed on their birth certificate.

In terms of giving LGBTQ+ teachers a shred of dignity in the state, that didn't fly, either. Republican Rep. Shamed Dogan proposed an amendment that would prevent public schools in the state from hiring or firing a person because of their gender identity or sexual orientation, saying, “We shouldn’t be firing people because they’re gay in 2022.” They also pointed out that the state needs talented teachers regardless of sexual orientation and gender identity. I am reluctant to give a Republican any credit in general, but they are correct here. 

Unfortunately, the amendment was voted down 60-77. Why? Among other hateful arguments, Republican Rep. Ben Baker argued it would essentially allow pedophiles to teach.

The amendment would have “prohibited firing someone for being a pedophile,” he claimed. Latent here is the same messaging we’re hearing from conservatives all over the country when it comes to Don't Say Gay bills and book bans: the idea that LGBTQ+ adults (and especially teachers, counselors, and coaches) are just waiting to “groom” or “turn” young people LGBTQ+.

It’s also the idea that being LGBTQ+ is essentially sexual and inappropriate for young people to be exposed to in any way, including reading about it or learning about the identity in the classroom. We can actually see another example of this happening, also in Missouri, when it comes to “safe space” stickers.

Depending on your generation, these stickers might be very familiar to you. These stickers usually appear with a rainbow background or in a rainbow font and are hung on the doors of classrooms or offices to signal that the adult is a “safe” person for youth to come to for support or questions concerning LGBTQ+ issues or identity. It doesn’t necessarily signal the adult is actually LGBTQ+ (though they could be), but more that they’re not hateful. Basically, a minimum level of allyship.

According to local outlet KCTV 5, the Grain Valley School Board recently told administrators to get rid of these stickers and cards in high schools in the district, with the logic being that all classrooms should be a safe space, not just those with the sign or sticker hanging up. Now, on the one hand, that makes sense—students should be able to talk to trusted adults in their lives and be met with support and acceptance.

But the sad reality is that no matter where you live or where you attend school, not all adults are going to be allies or advocates for LGBTQ+ people. Not all adults will be educated on the subject and not all will have the skills (or choose to use the schools) that students deserve. Is this right? No. Do students deserve better? Yes. But students also deserve the chance to at least try and choose the best person who is actually willing and open to hearing them out rather than come out to someone who is actually hateful. 

Earlier in April news came out that the former White house doctor for Donald Trump—the guy who said Trump had “good genes”—Rep. Ronny Jackson (R-TX) was under investigation by the House Ethics Committee. Why? It still isn’t clear. What is clear is that the new congressman who has spread lies like “In 2022, illegal immigrants will have MORE FREEDOMS and easier access to healthcare and ballot boxes than most Americans,” is likely being investigated for the kinds of things that racist, dubious, opportunist, craven doctors-turned-politicians can be investigated for: Anything and everything.

On Monday, Roll Call reports that Jackson seems to have spent “more than $2,300 in costs associated with membership at a private social club in Texas.” The campaign money Jackson spent was at the Amarillo Club in Texas. According to Federal Election Commission filings, Jackson seems to have broken the Federal Election Commission Act (FECA). That’s illegal, as in against the law. Here are a couple of things you aren’t allowed to spend campaign funds on:

• “Country club memberships”
• “Dues and fees for health clubs or recreational facilities”

You need only a third-grade reading level to understand that Jackson’s FEC filings seem to reek.

RELATED STORY: Rep. Ronny Jackson, the ex-White House doc who praised Trump's 'good genes,' is under investigation

The Representative from the 13th District of Texas, best known as “Candy Man” for his willingness as a doctor to sign off prescriptions on anything and saying that Donald Trump was in amazing health, joins other fiscally irresponsible GOP candidates like North Carolina’s Madison Cawthorn in his willingness to spend other people’s money on his good time. A Jackson spokesperson told Roll Call that the membership costs to the this Texan country club “are strictly associated with campaign and fundraising events.” Of course, this is only legal if the costs were incurred during an event for fundraising. Having a year-round membership, unless all of your fundraising is done at this country club year-round, is not legal.

When charges solely listed as being for food and drink are included, the congressman's main campaign campaign committee, Texans for Ronny Jackson, reported spending more than over $6,400 at the Amarillo Club since 2020.

RELATED: Texas Rep. Ronny Jackson's anti-immigrant lies appear to leave CNN's fact-checker exasperated

Here’s the FEC’s explanation of fees that they consider “Automatic personal use.”

Campaign funds may not be used to pay for dues to country clubs, health clubs, recreational facilities or other nonpolitical organizations unless the payments are made in connection with a specific fundraising event that takes place on the organization’s premises.

The looseness with which MAGA monsters like Jackson are willing to dip into their campaign tills to pay for their own recreation and entertainment is pretty astonishing. Even more so when you consider that such a large part of the GOP platform is stifling any and all legislation that would help their constituents by arguing for “fiscal responsibility.”

Listen and subscribe to Daily Kos Elections’ The Downballot podcast with David Nir and David Beard

In the scheme of things, $2,300 isn’t a lot of money for a campaign powered by GOP hate and Trumpian butt-kissing, but it does show how cavalier the Republican Party’s candidates have become with run-of-the-mill corruption.

All of this comes just a few days after revelations that Oath Keeper insurrectionists were exchanging private texts about Jackson’s need for militia protections during the Jan. 6 invasion of the Capitol building by people like the Oath Keepers. Jackson denies knowing any of the faktriots who were burning up their text threads worrying about him on Jan. 6, 2021.

Click here to go see the bonus panel!

Hovertext:
I have a lurking fear that there's some trivial answer to this, but then again it'd be kind of perfect if students had to spend an entire semester to uncover a trivial truth.

Today's News:

The justices may take a big bite out of the First Amendment’s establishment clause, or they might take a simply enormous bite out of it.

The best-case scenario for supporters of church/state separation, after the Supreme Court’s oral argument in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District on Monday, is that the justices leave in place a rule which prohibits public schools from actively coercing students into participating in a religious exercise that they find objectionable.

The worst case, although probably not a particularly likely one, is that the justices give school officials free rein to pressure students into embracing those officials’ religious beliefs.

Most likely, the Court will leave in place some of the current rules against schools actively pressuring their students into religious behavior, while also taking a huge bite out of the Constitution’s establishment clause, which has historically prohibited the government from promoting or discouraging a certain religious view.

A majority of the justices seemed eager to shrink this constitutional provision significantly, though it is unclear just how much they will reduce it. At the very least, it appears likely that public school teachers, coaches, and other school officials will gain some ability to subtly pressure students into religious activity that students, or their parents, may find objectionable.

Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, briefly explained

Kennedy involves Joseph Kennedy, a former public school football coach in Bremerton, Washington, who for many years would lead post-game prayer sessions for his players and for players on the opposing team. After his school district ordered him to discontinue these sessions, he largely did so, but he still insisted upon going to the 50-yard line after games and visibly praying in front of his players and the gathered spectators.

Kennedy also went on a nationwide media tour — at one point, Good Morning America did a segment on him — promoting his desire to tout his faith while he was coaching his students. This led many of Kennedy’s supporters to become disruptive during games. After one game, for example, so many people stormed the field to support Kennedy that a federal appeals court described it as a “stampede.” The district itself complained that this rush of people knocked over members of the school’s marching band, and that it was unable “to keep kids safe.”

Meanwhile, at least one parent complained to the school that his son “felt compelled to participate” in Kennedy’s prayers, despite the fact that he is an atheist, because the student feared “he wouldn’t get to play as much if he didn’t participate.”

Eventually, the school placed Kennedy on leave, after he rebuffed the school’s attempt to reach an accommodation that would allow Kennedy to pray without disrupting games or pressuring students into unwanted religious acts.

Under existing law, this should not be a difficult case. The Supreme Court suggested in Lee v. Weisman (1992) that public school-sponsored religious activity is inherently coercive, both because of the authority school officials wield over students, and because students who stand out are likely to face peer pressure to fall in line. Such pressure, the Court said in Lee, may be “subtle and indirect” but it also “can be as real as any overt compulsion,” as it leaves a young nonadherent with “a reasonable perception that she is being forced by the State to pray in a manner her conscience will not allow.”

But the Court’s 6-3 Republican majority has been quite clear about its eagerness to overrule longstanding religion cases. One of the new majority’s very first actions after Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation gave Republicans a supermajority on the Court, for example, was to give churches and other places of worship a new right to defy public health orders during the Covid-19 pandemic.

And that eagerness was on full display during Monday’s oral argument. Though it is unlikely that the Court will overrule Lee altogether, several justices spoke openly about overruling other important precedents. Other justices, meanwhile, spoke of watering Lee down to the point that it would allow people like Kennedy to continue to pressure their students into Christianity.

The Court’s establishment clause cases are, admittedly, a bit muddled

A win for Kennedy would permit teachers and coaches to take at least some actions that pressure students to embrace the teacher or coach’s faith, and it could radically change the Court’s approach to nearly all establishment clause cases.

The Court has, at various times, proposed different tests to determine when the establishment clause is violated, many of which are out of favor with the kind of conservative Republicans who currently dominate the Supreme Court.

In 1971, for example, the Court decided Lemon v. Kurtzman, which laid out the framework that dominated establishment clause cases for many decades. Under Lemon, all laws must have a “secular legislative purpose,” the government may not take actions which have the primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion, and the government may not foster an excessive “entanglement with religion.”

But at least two of the justices, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, spoke openly on Monday about their belief that Lemon should be abandoned — or even suggested that Lemon has already been overruled. Kavanaugh claimed that Lemon has not been applied “for several decades,” and suggested that it should now be treated as completely defunct.

These same two men were equally dismissive of an alternative test, known as the “endorsement test,” which prohibits the government from endorsing a particular religious viewpoint. Such endorsements, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor explained in a 1984 concurring opinion, send “a message to nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community.”

It’s easy to see how Kennedy’s actions violate this endorsement test, as his prayers rather obviously endorsed a religious viewpoint while Kennedy was coaching a football team on behalf of the state. But, after the Kennedy oral argument, it appears reasonably likely that the Court will formally abandon the rule against endorsement altogether.

If the Court does abandon Lemon and the endorsement test, there’s still a third test, known as the “coercion test,” which prohibits the government from coercing individuals into religious exercise. This rule against coercion is likely to remain in effect after Kennedy, though in a somewhat weakened form.

Coercion, the Court’s past cases acknowledge, can take many forms. The government might directly pressure someone — a police officer might threaten to arrest anyone who does not say a particular prayer, for example, or a math teacher might threaten to flunk any student who does not attend the teacher’s church. Decisions like Lee establish that the government also cannot engage in “indirect” coercion, such as when public school officials host events that actively promote religion. And these cases also establish that public schools have a particular obligation to avoid activity that could subtly apply religious pressure to students.

In Lee, a public middle school invited a rabbi to deliver prayers at the school’s graduation ceremony. The Court held that this sort of school-sponsored prayer is not allowed. “The undeniable fact,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in Lee, “is that the school district’s supervision and control of a high school graduation ceremony places public pressure, as well as peer pressure, on attending students to stand as a group or, at least, maintain respectful silence during the Invocation and Benediction.”

It’s unlikely that there are five votes, even on this Supreme Court, to permit a public school teacher to explicitly threaten to flunk a student — or to permit a coach to explicitly threaten not to allow a student to play in a football game — because that student refuses to join the teacher or coach in a prayer. And there probably also won’t be five votes to overrule Lee’s holding that some forms of subtle religious pressure are not allowed.

At one point, for example, Kavanaugh disclaimed any desire to overrule Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe (2000), a follow-up case to Lee, which held that a school district could not broadcast a student-led prayer over the school’s public address system before each varsity football game.

But, while the Court is likely to leave at least some safeguards against religious coercion in place, it’s also likely to diminish those safeguards in order to rule in favor of Coach Kennedy. That wouldn’t necessarily allow someone like Kennedy to explicitly tell students that they must pray with him if they want to play in the next game, but such threats don’t need to be explicit in order to pressure students into complying with a coach’s implied wishes.

Coach Kennedy is likely to prevail, despite the fact that existing law cuts against him

There’s very little doubt that Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch will rule in Kennedy’s favor. Indeed, Alito spent much of the argument implying that Lee should be overruled and that teachers should be allowed to pressure their students into religious exercise.

Alito compared Kennedy’s actions to a teacher who displays political signs at their own house — suggesting that it would be untenable for the Court to forbid a teacher from doing so, even though students who are aware of their teacher’s political views might feel pressured to echo those views in class.

Kavanaugh also seems like a very likely vote for Kennedy. Though he did ask some questions expressing sympathy for the student who thinks that if they don’t participate in a coach-led prayer, then they won’t be allowed to start in the next game, Kavanaugh ultimately came to dwell on a hypothetical about a coach who subtly makes the sign of the cross before each game.

According to Richard Katskee, the lawyer for the school district, a coach making a subtle sign of religious devotion is quite different from a coach ostentatiously walking to the middle of the field and making himself the “center of attention” with a very public prayer — the former is likely to be unnoticed by spectators and students, while the latter is far more likely to convey the message that the school’s football program favors Christians. But Kavanaugh appeared unconvinced by this argument.

That means that, in order to prevail, the school district needs to hold onto the Court’s three liberals (all of whom are likely to vote with the district), plus Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

Roberts may very well be in play — his questions largely focused on the extraordinary efforts Kennedy took, not just to make sure that his prayer would be very public, but to publicize his conflict with the school district in the press. The implication appeared to be that Kennedy perhaps should have made less of a scene.

Barrett’s questions, meanwhile, were a bit more ambiguous. She expressed some sympathy for the chief’s concerns, but also implied at one point that the establishment clause may not apply at all to Kennedy’s actions.

But while Barrett’s questions may leave the school district with a glimmer of hope, she’s been a reliable vote for the Christian right in the past. Given her past record, it would be genuinely surprising if she does not rule in Kennedy’s favor.

Ultimately, in other words, the Court appears very likely to cut back on the establishment clause — although it remains to be seen how deep the cut will be.

Elected presidents, and not unelected judges, should decide America’s foreign policy.

Elections have consequences. Or at least, they are supposed to.

When the American people voted to replace former President Donald Trump with now-President Joe Biden, that should have meant that many of Trump’s policies — including policies governing the US-Mexico border — could be abandoned and replaced by policies supported by Democrats. That is, after all, how democratic republics work.

But, nearly a year and a half into Biden’s presidency, a Trump immigration policy known as “Remain in Mexico” is still in effect. It’s in effect despite the fact that the Biden administration has twice taken the legal steps necessary to rescind it — or at least, the steps that were necessary before one of Trump’s judges got involved.

The fate of this Remain in Mexico policy is now before the Supreme Court in Biden v. Texas, a case that the Court will hear on Tuesday, April 26.

“Remain in Mexico” is the colloquial name for Trump’s Migrant Protection Protocols, which require many immigrants who seek asylum in the United States to stay in Mexico while they wait for a hearing. The Biden administration first announced that it was suspending this program in a June 1, 2021 memo from Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas.

Mayorkas’s June memo argued that Remain in Mexico drained limited border security resources, required diplomatic negotiations with Mexican officials that “draws away from other elements that necessarily must be more central to the bilateral relationship,” and forced many migrants to live in squalid conditions without “stable access to housing, income, and safety.”

That should have been the end of the policy, for at least as long as Biden is president. But then Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk decided to overrule Biden.

Kacsmaryk is a Trump judge and former lawyer for a Christian conservative law firm. Before his elevation to the bench, he labeled being transgender a “mental disorder,” claimed that gay people are “disordered,” and denounced what he called a “sexual revolution.” In August of 2021, he ordered the Biden administration to reinstate Remain in Mexico.

Kacsmaryk’s opinion rested on the improbable claim that a 1996 immigration law required the federal government to implement an even stricter version of Remain in Mexico than the one that was in effect under Trump — meaning that, if Kacsmaryk is correct, every president since Bill Clinton violated the law, and somehow no one noticed until 2021.

Because Remain in Mexico can only be implemented with the Mexican government’s cooperation, Kacsmaryk’s decision also violated a long line of Supreme Court decisions warning about “the danger of unwarranted judicial interference in the conduct of foreign policy.”

Nevertheless, a week after Kacsmaryk’s decision, the Supreme Court rejected the Biden administration request to block it — over the dissent of the GOP-controlled Court’s three Democrats. The Supreme Court’s order, however, was narrow. It did not weigh in on Kacsmaryk’s creative reading of federal immigration law, and instead faulted Mayorkas for not adequately explaining why the Biden administration chose to end Trump’s policy.

Since then, two significant things have happened. One is that Mayorkas issued a second memo in October, which offers a fuller explanation of the administration’s decision to end Remain in Mexico (the June memo was just seven pages; the new memo is 39 pages). The second is that a Republican panel of appeals court judges embraced Kacsmaryk’s reading of federal immigration law, and effectively declared Mayorkas’s October memo a nullity.

And so it’s now up to the Supreme Court to untangle this mess, and the stakes are enormous. Biden v. Texas will not simply determine whether the Remain in Mexico program can end. It could also allow Trump’s judges to entrench one of Trump’s policies — even when the American people voted to reject Trump.

Kacsmaryk’s reading of federal immigration law is egregiously wrong

The crux of Kacsmaryk’s opinion is that federal immigration law only gives “the government two options vis-à-vis aliens seeking asylum: 1) mandatory detention; or 2) return to a contiguous territory.” That is, when a person arrives at the Mexican border seeking asylum, the government must either lock that person up, or require them to stay in Mexico until their asylum case is resolved.

Under this incorrect reading of immigration law, no president — including Donald Trump — has ever had a border policy that complies with the 1996 law. Trump’s version of the Remain in Mexico policy exempted non-Spanish speakers. But Kacsmaryk’s reading of federal law would not permit such exceptions.

Many problems with Kacsmaryk’s opinion should be obvious to anyone who has actually read the relevant statutes. Federal law explicitly gives the government many options when deciding how to handle a particular asylum seeker, and detention or a temporary stay in Mexico are only two of those options.

One statute, for example, provides that the government may grant parole to someone seeking admission to the United States “for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit.” Parole permits the immigrant to remain in the United States while their case is pending. Another statute permits an immigrant to be released on “bond of at least $1,500.”

Kacsmaryk placed a great deal of weight on a provision of federal law which states that many asylum seekers “shall be detained for further consideration of the application for asylum,” and another provision saying that immigrants arriving from Mexico or Canada “may” be returned to that country while their case is pending. This was the basis for Kacsmaryk’s conclusion that the government only has two options.

But even setting aside the fact that federal law gives the government other alternatives, such as parole or bond, the government still has a a fifth option that Kacsmaryk disregarded: nonenforcement. That’s rooted in a doctrine known as “prosecutorial discretion,” which permits the government to decide how it uses limited law enforcement resources.

The idea behind prosecutorial discretion is that law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and similar officials do not have sufficient resources to target literally every single violation of the law — imagine how difficult it would be, for example, for police to issue a ticket to every single person who drives even a single mile per hour over the speed limit — so they must have discretion to decide when to let things go.

If you’ve ever been pulled over and then let off with a warning, then congratulations! You’ve benefited from prosecutorial discretion.

As a general rule, courts should not second-guess these decisions not to enforce a particular law against a particular individual. As the Supreme Court held in Heckler v. Chaney (1985), “an agency’s decision not to take enforcement action should be presumed immune from judicial review.” This presumption is especially strong in the immigration context. The Court explained in Arizona v. United States (2012) that “a principal feature of the removal system is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials.”

Indeed, the Court has maintained for more than a century that law enforcement officials retain this broad discretion even when faced with a statute that uses mandatory language — such as the statute Kacsmaryk relied on, which provides that certain asylum seekers “shall be detained.” Hence the Court’s holding in Railroad Company v. Hecht (1877) that “as against the government, the word ‘shall,’ when used in statutes, is to be construed as ‘may,’ unless a contrary intention is manifest.”

All of which is a long way of saying that Kacsmaryk’s reading of federal law is so clearly wrong that it’s hard not to attribute his decision either to incompetence or bad faith.

The outcome of the Texas case is likely to turn on a paperwork issue

The Supreme Court’s decision last August to allow Kacsmaryk’s decision to temporarily remain in effect was genuinely shocking. That decision effectively forced the United States government to approach the Mexican government and try to strike a deal reinstating a policy that President Biden opposes — because Mexico had to agree to let asylum seekers remain in that country while their cases are pending in the United States.

Judges, the Supreme Court warned in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. (2013), should be “particularly wary of impinging on the discretion of the Legislative and Executive Branches in managing foreign affairs.” But the Court abandoned this respect for the democratic branches when it ordered an elected president to bow to the foreign policy preferences of a Trump judge.

The Supreme Court’s August decision, however, was only temporary. And it rested on narrow grounds. When a federal agency changes a policy, it typically must provide an explanation of why it did so. And a majority of the justices determined that Mayorkas’s June memo did not provide a sufficient explanation.

In theory, this should be an easy problem to fix. The Supreme Court did not rule in August that Biden could never end the Remain in Mexico program, as Kacsmaryk effectively did. It simply held that Mayorkas must produce a new memo offering a more fulsome explanation, which Mayorkas did in October.

But then the case reached the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, a court dominated by Trump appointees and other right-wing Republicans who think similarly to Kacsmaryk. And a Republican panel of Fifth Circuit judges determined that the October memo has “no present legal effect.”

So, to summarize, the Supreme Court held that the Biden administration cannot end the Remain in Mexico policy until it fleshes out why it did so. But, when the Biden administration issued a new memo complying with the Supreme Court’s order, a Republican appeals court deemed that compliance irrelevant.

The justices, in other words, must answer two important questions in Texas. One is whether Kacsmaryk’s misreading of federal immigration law should stand. But the other is even more basic: whether federal judges who disagree with an administration's policy can keep that policy on ice by constantly erecting new procedural barriers.

Can Republican judges block a policy because it was inadequately explained, then continue to block it after the administration produces a 39-page memo explaining the policy?

If the answer to this question turns out to be “yes,” then we need to ask who actually wields the power of the presidency right now. If the courts can place new procedural barriers between Biden and his preferred policies on the fly, then Biden ceases to be president in any meaningful policymaking sense.

For what it’s worth, I think it is more likely than not that a majority of the justices will side with Biden in this case, and allow his administration to end Remain in Mexico. Among other things, the Biden administration asked the Supreme Court to expedite its handling of the Texas case, and the Court agreed to do so — had it not, the Court might not have decided this case until June of 2023.

This willingness to decide Texas relatively quickly suggests that the Supreme Court isn’t looking to extend Remain in Mexico indefinitely by drawing out this case forever, as the Fifth Circuit seemed to do in its decision.

But even if the justices move quickly, handing down a decision in June that reinstates the Biden administration’s power to set border policy, much of the damage will already be done. Kacsmaryk issued his decision last August. So for the last eight months, Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, and not an elected president, has dictated US-Mexico policy on immigration.

As Netflix shares plunge to their lowest point in five years, the company risks losing its most valuable resource: its star employees. From a report: Working at Netflix has been one of the most desirable jobs in Hollywood, if not all of corporate America. The company ranks as one of the most beloved brands, pays well and offers a chance to work with the people that changed the way we watch TV. But a record decline in Netflix's share price, precipitated by its poor financial results, has shaken employees' confidence in the company's long-term trajectory. It has also erased the value of many employees' options. People who were sitting on tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars are left with nothing. More people are looking to leave Netflix right now than at any point in recent memory, current and former employees said this past week. Netflix employees also asked leadership to issue new stock grants to make them whole for the losses this past week, per The Information.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

"Apple may be cracking down on apps that no longer receive updates," reports the Verge: In a screenshotted email sent to affected developers, titled "App Improvement Notice," Apple warns it will remove apps from the App Store that haven't been "updated in a significant amount of time" and gives developers just 30 days to update them.... In 2016, Apple said it would start removing abandoned apps from the App Store. At the time, it also warned developers that they would have 30 days to update their app before it got taken down. That said, it's unclear whether Apple has continuously been enforcing this rule over the years, or if it recently started conducting a wider sweep. Apple also doesn't clearly outline what it considers to be "outdated" — whether it's based on the time that has elapsed since an app was last updated, or if it concerns compatibility with the most recent version of iOS. Critics of this policy argue that mobile apps should remain available no matter their age, much like old video games remain playable on consoles. Others say the policy is unnecessarily tough on developers, and claim Apple doesn't fully respect the work that goes into indie games. Earlier this month, the Google Play Store similarly announced it would begin limiting the visibility of apps that "don't target an API level within two years of the latest major Android release version." Android developers have until November 1st, 2022 to update their apps, but also have the option of applying for a six-month extension if they can't make the deadline.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

The closer we get to the midterm elections, the more Republicans fall in love with hysterics. Sure, the Republican Party has long relied on stirring hate and outrage to rile up their fanbase, but these last few months feel like a special effort. After all, conservatives know they’ve failed to lead during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, and they know Donald Trump’s presidency has been nothing but an international embarrassment. If conservatives like Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis think they stand a chance at becoming president, for example, they’re likely quite motivated to attack easy targets as much as possible.

We’ve seen DeSantis (among others) sign heinous legislation into law, targeting rights from reproductive health to gender-affirming health care to (ahem) saying gay in the classroom. We’ve seen conservatives call for book bans if not book burnings. Critical race theory (CRT) has become an absolute rallying cry for the right, though I’m willing to bet plenty of folks on all sides of the political aisle couldn’t give the correct definition of the concept if they tried. This is perhaps how we’ve gotten to a point where examples from math textbooks are being banned from public school classrooms for references to CRT and checks notes lessons in empathy.

Where is this happening? If you guessed Florida, you guessed right.

RELATED: School districts in blue states aren't safe from hysteria—just look at what's happening in Maryland

We now have a few examples of examples from math textbooks that allegedly include references to CRT and social-emotional learning (SEL), as reported by CNN. Social-emotional learning, as some background, helps students learn how to solve problems and make decisions while managing their emotions and using empathy. Sadly, it’s easy to see why conservatives would want to stomp this sort of learning out—imagine if their minions developed a hint of empathy for the marginalized people they love to hate? Suddenly they’d have to work a lot harder to get votes. 

Listen to Jennifer Fernandez Ancona from Way to Win explain how Democrats must message to win on Daily Kos' The Brief podcast with Markos Moulitsas and Kerry Eleveld

In a more advanced application, social-emotional learning is valuable for adults, too, when it comes to us understanding how and why we engage with others (as well as ourselves) in various situations at home, work, or with friends. For white people like myself, for example, this could mean an opportunity to identify and take accountability for microaggressions or racial bias. For able-bodied people like myself, it could mean challenging ableism when it comes to, say, deciding who gets a work opportunity or what logistics go into planning a community event. 

Again, these skills sound basic on the surface, but plenty of people lack them for a number of reasons. Kids learning this sort of stuff in school is absolutely not a bad thing. 

The Florida Department of Education shared four pages as examples, but The New York Times gained access to more than 20 texts as well. Surprising absolutely no one, the agency has not been specific in what counts as a violation of policy versus an outright ban, so it’s unclear what specifically caused which issue in the pages the Times acquired. 

One example shared by the Times includes a word problem where, in addition to the obvious math, students are able to learn how to support a friend who is scared about crossing a bridge in the jungle. Students learn that they can help the hypothetical friend by building up their confidence and supporting them, which is probably why conservatives are upset about it.

"We don't want things like math to have, you know, some of these other concepts introduced,” DeSantis told reporters at a press conference on Monday, April 18. “It's not been proven to be effective, and quite frankly, it takes our eye off the ball.”

Ah, yes, because nothing distracts from learning like … developing basic social skills, compassion, and real-world problem-solving. Guess kids should go back to copying multiplication tables on the blackboard and call it a day?

If it gets conservative votes, that’s probably more than fine with them, which is why we have to keep up the fight to do and be better for youth.

Who is ready for a Banned Book Club here at Daily Kos?

Former President Donald Trump on Friday denied that he had ever accepted any responsibility for the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol complex.

Trump’s comments in an interview with the Wall Street Journal, while signaling a public détente amid a burgeoning controversy over leaked audio of Kevin McCarthy’s comments in the days after the insurrection, nevertheless put daylight between Trump and the House minority leader, who in a leaked Republican conference call said the former president told him he accepted some responsibility.

“No, that’s false. I never claimed responsibility,” Trump said in the interview at his Mar-a-Lago, Fla., residence, adding that his relationship with McCarthy remained solid following a phone call between the two Thursday evening.

Newly released audio showing McCarthy advocating Trump’s resignation in the wake of the Jan. 6 insurrection prompted speculation as to how Trump would react, and how McCarthy’s longtime bid to attain the House speakership if Republicans win the House in November would be affected.

In the leaked audio of the Jan. 10 phone call, first posted Thursday by The New York Times and aired on Rachel Maddow’s MSNBC show, McCarthy is heard saying he would advise Trump to resign. In a follow up audio release from a Republican conference call on Jan. 11, McCarthy is heard saying: “I asked him personally today, does he hold responsibility for what happened? … He told me he does have some responsibility for what happened and he’d need to acknowledge that.”

“He made a call. I heard the call. I didn’t like the call,” Trump said, referring to the leaked audio. “But almost immediately as you know, because he came here and we took a picture right there — you know, the support was very strong,” Trump said, referring to a picture taken of the two men at Mar-a-Lago following a cordial meeting in the days after the riot.

Trump told the WSJ that the California Republican had not personally advised him to quit in the days after Jan. 6.

“I think it’s all a big compliment, frankly,” Trump said of McCarthy and his Republican congressional colleagues rallying around the former president after initial public criticism of his actions on Jan. 6. “They realized they were wrong and supported me.”

McCarthy said Friday he had not ultimately asked Trump to resign. “That never took place and nor did it happen,” he told reporters at a California event, adding that he had talked to the former president twice on Friday.

"The conversation was very good," McCarthy said.

Trump aides on Friday appeared to downplay the effect of the new revelations on Trump and McCarthy’s relationship.

“I would be highly surprised if President Trump allowed these left-of-center journalists and pundits to gain a victory by engaging in this warfare,” Jason Miller, a former Trump spokesperson, told POLITICO.

Trump this week endorsed Ohio senate candidate JD Vance, despite the author’s public criticism of then-candidate Trump in the 2016 presidential race. Vance has since become a bullish supporter of the Trump agenda.

In his endorsement statement, Trump lauded Vance’s position on closing the border and tariffs on China, saying that “unlike so many other pretenders and wannabes, he will put America First.”

Kyle Cheney contributed to this report.