Review and Analysis of Medeea Greere’s BREAKING SPECIAL REPORT: FEDERAL EXPLOSION — Trump Torches SPLC as Fraud Case Erupts — “ONE OF THE GREATEST POLITICAL SCAMS IN AMERICAN HISTORY”

*N.B.: Selected References: Ashley Brasfield, Supreme Court Strikes Down Institutionalized Racism (April 29, 2026); Amy Howe, In major Voting Rights Act case, Supreme Court strikes down redistricting map challenged as racially discriminatory, SCOTUS.Blog.com (April 29, 2026); Ellis Washington, Symposium—The When and the Why of Black Women’s Irresistible Impulse to Disrespect and Hate the Black Man?” (02/11/2024); Ellis Washington, 8 Open Letters—Reply to President David Meyer on the Apotheosis of President Donald J. Trump (Dec. 23, 2023); Ellis Washington, Open Letter to Author and Genealogist Millie L. McGhee and to Yale Historians Beverly Gage & David Blight on the Question—Was FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover (1895-1972) a Black Man Passing as White and Why it still Matters? (April 24, 2026).
|
About the Author—Professor Ellis Washington, J.D.—I went to Harvard Law School for 1 year (1988-89) with future POTUS Barack Hussein Obama, (b. 08/04/1961 – d. 09/29/2019), who was a secret descendant of the Rothschild Banking Cartel Family and a blood grandson of the German NAZI dictator, Adolf HITLER! – who was also a Rothschild – but I took the opposite path in Life—New World Order, Communism, Treason, Pedophilia and Satanic Ritual Abuse vs. Christianity, Conservatism, Protecting the Children & America First Nationalism. I repeatedly refused to take the “Satan OATH” which is why I’ve been blacklisted since 1989 – for over 37 years—for my entire legal and academic career, yet I Fight on! Why? To avenge Harvard University’s original 1692 motto—Veritas pro Christo et Ecclesia {= Truth for Christ and the Church}. How do We the People escape the 150-year Rothschild Chattel Slavery systems (e.g., Birth certificates [= Birth Bond Fraud], Death certificates, Social Security numbers bought, sold and trading people’s identities like animals on Wall Street) and Rothschild Debt Slavery systems (e.g., IRS, Income Taxes, Death Taxes, Fiat or Counterfeit currency not based on Gold or Silver, but based on NOTHING! Cui bono?– Who benefits? Why are all national currencies of the world promiscuously printed at will by the Rothschild Central Bankers? Is it to fund perpetual False Flag Wars like—America- Israel vs. Iran, America vs. New World Order, America vs. Venezuela, Israel vs. Gaza, Syria, Iran, Yemen & Lebanon, Russia vs. Ukraine, Taiwan vs. China, Rwanda vs. The Congo, Cambodia vs. Thailand, Armenia vs. Azerbaijan, Civil war in France, in Yemen, in Laos, in Indonesia, and existential battles all over the world, while keeping the entire world enslaved inside an existential – Birth-School-Labor-Taxes-Debts-Retirement-Death cycle of the Rothschild Khazarian Mafia Matrix (1871-2021[26])? Further answers can be learned by reading, studying and sharing the Truth of my Critical Thinking blog that on 1 March 2026) surpassed 27 million views! See, EllisWashingtonReport.com, Facebook, Twitter/X—#JesusIsGod (Isaiah 9:6) #DCActof1871 |
“Elections are when voters pick their politicians. Gerrymandering is when the politicians pick their voters. “
– Anonymous
“The way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”
– Chief Justice John Roberts, Louisiana v. Callais, 608 U.S. ____ (2026)
[Morpheus to Neo:] “Everything they told you was a [Big] Lie.”
– The Matrix Movie, Part I (1999)—Construct Scene
“There are always more slaves than masters.”
– Charlie Kirk (after Friedrich Nietzsche)
“As I explained more than 30 years ago, I would go further and hold that [Sec. 2] of the Voting Rights Act does not regulate districting at all.”
– Justice Clarence Thomas, Louisiana v. Callais, 608 U.S. ____ (2026)
Prologue—President Trump calls the Southern Poverty Law Center one of the biggest political scams in U.S. history as fraud allegations bring the organization under intense scrutiny!
AMG_News.com Journalist Medeere Greere wrote a bombshell article dated April 24, 2026 exposing the rampant voter and other federal crimes by the influential and radical Leftist Civil Rights Group, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). Below I have reprinted the entire article, indented with a light grey background and added my commentary and analysis.
Greere wrote that – President Donald J. Trump has ignited a major political and legal firestorm after directly targeting the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), describing the organization as one of the most significant political scams in American history. The statement comes as a developing federal fraud case that places the group under intense scrutiny, raising serious questions about funding, influence, and long-standing practices.
This is not a routine political exchange or a passing remark. It is a direct challenge to one of the most influential nonprofit organizations in the United States, delivered at a moment when legal pressure and public attention are converging at the same time.

Over the past 8 or 9 years, I’ve used as a head quote to many of my psychological essays words that seems to encapsulate all of the Big Lies, political duplicity and historical revisionism society has been bombarded with on a daily basis since the Socialist Revolution of the 1960s. But particularly since the creation of the D.C. Act of 1871 that started the Globalist infiltration by the Rothschild Khazarian Mafia (e.g., the Central Bankers) to takeover America by hijacking their monetary supply and order America’s monetary policy. For as the old saying goes regarding ‘The Golden Rule’ = “He that has the gold makes the rules.” Except with the Central Bankers there was a treacherous twist—they didn’t have to steal our gold and silver (which our monetary system was attached to, but they separated the U.S. from the gold standard and based U.S. monetary policy not on gold or silver but on nothing (e.g., fiat or paper currency). All they needed to do was to own the counterfeit printing presses, perpetually raise interest rates and charge We the People increasing interest to buy their fake paper money into perpetuity while the Central Bankers made TRILLIONS!
As we will see in this review and analysis of an AMG_News.org article by Medeea Greere, the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913 was just the beginning. The treachery by the Democrat Socialist Party was so comprehensive and complete that it would take the next 100+ years just to begin the process of dismantling their Hitlerian Big Lies and Treason writ large with the legions of NGOs (Non-Governmental Organizations) the foot soldiers of Gestapo of the Progressive Deep State used to enslave every aspect of culture and society and weaponize against the Natural Law and Natural Rights of We the People contained in American Common Law, the Bill of Rights and enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. The head quote is from a famous scene from the 1999 Sci-Fi Thriller Trilogy The Matrix—
[Morpheus to Neo:] “Everything they told you was a [Big] Lie.”
– The Matrix Movie, Part I (1999)–Construct Scene
The subject of this essay fits perfectly with the iconoclasm of rebutting long-held assumptions most people believed were without a doubt true, namely that the Southern Poverty Law Center, a pillar upholding Civil Rights Laws on the Left and the Democrat Party was unassailable. That their work on behalf of the downtrodden, the vulnerable and the underrepresented “minority” groups to be wholly just and unimpeachable. Well, after 50 years of fawning Leftist media servile coverage finally the truth about the SPLC is coming out. President Trump did not mince words in exposing this existential treachery and corruption of the Democrat Party and the fake civil rights group, the SPLC which I believe is only the tip of the iceberg:
TRUMP’S EXACT WORDS — A DIRECT STRIKE
In his official statement, President Trump made his position unmistakably clear:

The message is both political and strategic. It does not simply criticize the organization — it questions its legitimacy, its operations, and its broader role within the American political system.
At the same time, by referencing wider structures such as ActBlue and the 2020 election, Trump expands the scope of the issue beyond a single entity, framing it as part of a larger network of influence and accountability.
What did ActBlue and SPLC do that is so bad? Basically, these organizations for decades fooled the American public that they were self-less groups that raised campaign money for Democrats and fought for equal rights for all Americans respectively. However, like the title to my first book stated, “THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS.” Thanks to the Trump Administration, particularly with the FBI, DOJ and the State Department, their years of investigation into these groups and how they were central to stealing the 2020 election from Trump and gave it to Joe Biden could only have been achieved by being part of a complex, criminal architecture that allowed these NGOs (or Non-Governmental Organizations) to exist and openly thrive in the criminal underbelly of society to function in the direct opposite of what they publicly pretended to exist.
THE FEDERAL CASE: FRAUD, MONEY, AND STRUCTURE
At the center of this developing story is a reported 11-count federal indictment issued in Alabama on April 21, 2026, targeting alleged financial misconduct connected to the SPLC. The seriousness of the charges signals that this is not a minor inquiry, but a case with potentially far-reaching consequences.
The charges outlined include:
· Wire fraud, involving alleged misuse of communication systems for financial deception.
· Bank fraud, tied to the handling and movement of funds.
· Money laundering conspiracy, suggesting structured efforts to move and conceal financial activity.
According to the information available, prosecutors allege that more than $3 million in donor funds may have been routed through intermediary or front entities. These funds were reportedly used in operations involving paid informants embedded in extremist groups, including organizations such as the KKK and neo-Nazi networks.
If substantiated through legal proceedings, these allegations would represent a major shift in how the organization is perceived, moving from watchdog to participating in highly controversial operational structures.
In addition to charges of Wire Fraud, Bank Fraud, and Money Laundering Conspiracy the audacity and depths of these criminals is beyond the pale to such a degree that in the case of SPLC, racism incidences under the Trump Administration had been declining since 2017 during his first term in office. Additionally, SPLC secretly paid over 3 million to racist groups like the KKK and neo-Nazi networks, routed through a series of intermediary and front entities to fund their alleged enemies. I believe that he SPLC being a fake Civil rights group is just the tip of the iceberg and that this Democrat Party treachery is extant in every Leftist, Marxist, Progressive, Liberal NGO, civil rights organization, institution and that these paradoxical payments have been going on for years using donor funds openly and in plain sight. . . until now, until the Apotheosis of Trump has come to stop this existential treachery.
THE CORE ISSUE: POWER, LABELING, AND FUNDING
For years, the SPLC has positioned itself as a central authority in identifying and classifying extremist organizations within the United States. Its reports and designations have influenced media coverage, corporate decisions, and public perception on a national scale.
However, critics have long argued that this influence has been accompanied by a system that:
· labeled conservative Christians, border security advocates, and Trump supporters as “hate groups.”
· used these designations as a mechanism to drive donations and expand financial resources.
· blurred the line between objective monitoring and politically aligned activism.
The current allegations bring those criticisms into a new phase — shifting them from public debate into the realm of legal examination and potential accountability.
As if using millions in donor contributions to cosplay fighting against your ideological enemies like the KKK and neo-Nazi networks was outrageous enough, the SPLC went further into the abyss to falsely gaslight, label and scapegoat conservative Christians, border security advocates, and Trump supporters as “hate groups”. According to the FBI Civil Rights-Hate Crime Laws under this federally enforced designation—
“Hate crimes differ from regular crimes by requiring proof that the offense was motivated by bias against a protected characteristic (race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, etc.), acting as an “enhancement” to increase penalties. While regular crimes punish the act, hate crimes punish the bias-driven intent that terrorizes communities.” [1, 2, 3, 4]
To find the culprits on any complex crime conspiracy do these 2 things: 1) Qui bono – Who benefits (usually financially)? 2) Always follow the MONEY—SPLC also cleverly used a form of perverted circular reasoning to surrepticiously get donors to give their organization money. Thus, the money that they were giving out to their political enemies like the KKK and Neo-Nazi groups in the analysis above using another financial scam to use these designations as a mechanism to drive donations and expand financial resources. These illegal and criminal tactics of course blurred the line between objective monitoring and politically aligned activism.
SPLC RESPONSE VS FEDERAL PROSECUTION
The SPLC has responded by rejecting the allegations, describing the charges as politically motivated and defending its operational methods. The organization maintains that its use of informants was part of legitimate cooperation with law enforcement and aimed at tracking extremist activity.
However, the federal case presents a fundamentally different narrative, focusing on:
· Potential misrepresentation to donors regarding the use of funds
· Alleged financial structuring designed to obscure money flow.
· Questions surrounding institutional intent versus public messaging.
This creates a clear divide between the organization’s defense and the prosecution’s claims — a divide that will ultimately be resolved through legal proceedings.
{AI Overview} According to the Department of Justice website the DOJ indictment against the SPLC was both comprehensive and detailed spanning activities between 2014 and 2023 (including the 2020-2026 period requested), and alleges that the organization deceived donors who believed their money was being used to dismantle extremist groups, rather than fund their members. [1, 2] Describing the DOJ charges brought by the Trump administration as “politically motivated”, this is gaslighting against, and even worse, Freudian Psychological Projection where the guilty try to accuse the innocent of the very crimes they themselves are guilty of. Thus, the SPLC organization seeks to justify using KKK and Neo-Nazi informants paying them millions of dollars by maintaining that its use of informants was part of legitimate cooperation with law enforcement and aimed at tracking extremist activity. However, most people on the Left and the Right are not convinced and a growing chorus is calling on the DOJ to dismantle SPLC under the federal RICO statutes.
A BROADER SHIFT: ACCOUNTABILITY FOR POWERFUL NONPROFITS
Beyond the immediate case, this development reflects a broader shift in how large, influential nonprofit organizations are viewed and scrutinized in the United States.
Key questions now emerging include:
· How donor funds are managed and reported within high-profile organizations
· Whether political influence is being exercised under the cover of nonprofit status
· What mechanisms exist to ensure transparency and accountability at scale?
For many observers, this moment represents more than a single indictment. It signals a growing demand for oversight, clarity, and responsibility in institutions that operate at the intersection of money and influence

To really understand to complex Grand Conspiracy of how for decades the SPLC and the Democrat Party fooled the American people that this group and the party of Slavery, responsible for the founding of the KKK, Jim Crow, Lynching and burning Black towns and cities to ash just for practicing Booker T. Washington’s Self-Help philosophy, has 150 year turned over a new leaf and really believe in Equal Justice Under the Law for all Americans—Black and White. This is the Hitlerian Big Lie the Democrat Party and the legions of Leftist NGOs want you naively believe. There is only one problem with the Leftist Worldview—People have memories, people have access to books, real books written by iconoclast Historians not servile paid Marxist Apparatchik Professors like most of the so-called “scholars” housed in our Fake Universities.

FINAL ANALYSIS: A RECKONING IN PROGRESS
The convergence of a federal fraud case and a direct presidential-level accusation have transformed this story into a national-level event with long-term implications. What was once a subject of political disagreement is now entering a phase defined by legal scrutiny and public evaluation.
If the allegations are proven, the consequences could include:
· significant legal outcomes for those involved.
· lasting reputational damage to a major institution
· a broader recalibration of how political nonprofits operate in the United States
At this stage, one conclusion stands out:
· this is no longer a peripheral controversy.
· this is a central confrontation over power, money, and public trust.
Indeed, as the headline by Adam B. Coleman plainly states below the SPLC paid to fuel Klu Klux Klan’s hate, then raised money to put out the fire. This is classical Hegelian Dialectic = To Foment the New World Order or One World Government Agenda—
· #1 Create the Problem {THESIS},
· #2 Fund the Reaction {ANTITHESIS},
· #3 Mandate the [Final] Solution {SYNTHESIS}
Don’t get me wrong yes, racism exists. Yes, there is still a lot of racism that We the People must expose and fight throughout America contained in all of our institutions. But the SPLC’s cynical use of manufacturing instances of racism in order to garner more donor dollars for the SPLC is the height of irresponsibility and given America’s long and shameful history of racism, Slavery and Jim Crow, the SPLC’s actions are tantamount to Hight TREASON!
Epilogue—How did the Democrat Party Cynically and Paradoxically use the Voting Rights Act (1965) [VRA] to give themselves Permanent Political Power in all U.S. Big Cities and How is President Trump and SCOTUS on the Cusp of Breaking this Unjust Power Matrix Democrats have Enjoyed for 60+ YEARS?
The Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965 is a landmark civil rights law designed to protect voting rights, but its application has been subject to intense political debate and criticism regarding its role in partisan politics. Legal commentator, Amy Howe writing for SCOTUSBlog.com on April 29, 2026, stated that— {Complete article reprinted below}
The Supreme Court on Wednesday, in the case of Louisiana v. Callais, struck down a Louisiana congressional map that a group of voters who describe themselves as “non-African American” had challenged as the product of unconstitutional racial gerrymandering. By a vote of 6-3, the justices left in place a ruling by a federal court that barred the state from using the map, which had created a second majority-Black district, in future elections. Although Wednesday’s ruling did not strike down a key provision of the federal Voting Rights Act, as Louisiana and the challengers had asked the court to do, Justice Elena Kagan suggested in her dissent (which was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson) that the majority opinion by Justice Samuel Alito had rendered the provision “all but a dead letter.”
The decision was the latest, and presumably final, chapter in a long-running dispute arising from Louisiana’s efforts to adopt a new congressional map in the wake of the 2020 census. The first map that the state adopted, in 2022, had one majority-Black district out of the six allotted to the state. A group of Black voters – who comprise roughly one-third of the state’s population – went to federal court, where they alleged that the map violated Section 2 of the VRA, which prohibits discrimination in voting.
A federal judge agreed that the 2022 map likely violated Section 2, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld that ruling. It instructed Louisiana to draw a new map by January 2024 or risk having the court adopt one for it.
The map that Louisiana drew in 2024 created a second majority-Black district, leading to the election in November of that year of Cleo Fields, a former member of Congress who had represented another majority-Black district during the 1990s.
The map also prompted the lawsuit leading to Wednesday’s opinion. It was filed by a group of “non-African American” voters who contended that the 2024 map violated the Constitution’s equal protection clause by sorting voters based on race. A three-judge federal district court agreed with them and barred the state from using the 2024 map in future elections, but a divided Supreme Court temporarily paused that ruling in May 2024.
The Supreme Court took up the case and heard oral arguments for the first time in March 2025. Defending the 2022 map, Louisiana contended that once the lower courts determined that the 2022 map was likely invalid and ordered it to adopt a new map with a second majority-Black district, its focus was not on race but on creating a map that would protect the state’s powerful Republican incumbents in Congress, such as Speaker of the House Mike Johnson and Rep. Julia Letlow, who sits on the House Appropriations Committee.
The “non-African American” voters challenging the 2024 map told the justices that it was “utterly implausible” that both race and politics were equally responsible for the 2024 map.
In a departure from their normal practice, the justices did not issue a decision in the case before their summer recess last year. Instead, they issued a brief order setting the case for a second argument in the fall. They later instructed the litigants to file new briefs addressing whether “the State’s intentional creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violates” either the 14th Amendment or the 15th Amendment, which bars the government from denying or restricting voting rights based on race.
By the time the justices heard the second round of oral arguments in October, the Black voters were the only litigants who continued to defend the 2024 map. Louisiana and the “non-African American” voters contended that race-based redistricting is unconstitutional, even if it is done to comply with Section 2. Although the Trump administration did not contend that the justices should strike down Section 2 altogether, it urged the justices to uphold the three-judge district court’s decision.
In a 36-page opinion, Alito explained that “the Constitution almost never permits the Federal Government or a State to discriminate on the basis of race.” The question before the court, he said, is “whether compliance with the Voting Rights Act should be added to our very short list of compelling interests that can justify racial discrimination.”
As a general rule, Alito wrote, Section 2 of the VRA guarantees voters, including minority voters, an opportunity to cast a vote for their preferred candidate, but that candidate’s chances of success may be affected by the choices that the state is allowed to make when drawing a redistricting map – such as the desire to protect incumbents or increase the number of seats held by a particular political party. And under the Constitution, Alito continued, a violation of Section 2 only occurs when “the circumstances give rise to a strong inference that intentional discrimination occurred” – for example, when there are several possible maps that contain majority-minority districts, but the state “cannot provide a legitimate reason for rejecting all those maps.”
Alito next turned to the legal standard, known as the Gingles test, based on the 1986 case of Thornburg v. Gingles, that courts use to determine whether a map violates Section 2 by diluting minority voting power. The majority’s interpretation of Section 2, Alito said, “does not require abandonment” of that test. Instead, he stressed, the court only needed to “update the framework so it aligns with the statutory text and reflects important developments since we decided Gingles 40 years ago.”
The first of three “preconditions” that courts consider under Gingles is whether there is a group of minority voters that is “sufficiently numerous and compact to constitute a majority in a reasonably configured district.” Alito pointed to the “increased use and capabilities of computers in drawing districts and creating” maps that illustrate redistricting possibilities, and he suggested that plaintiffs challenging a map should be able to provide an alternative map that both “fully achieves all the State’s legitimate goals” and creates a new majority-minority district.
Under the second and third “preconditions” under the Gingles test – whether the minority votes as a politically cohesive group and whether the majority group votes as a bloc – the challengers must “provide an analysis that controls for party affiliation. In other words,” Alito said, “they must show that voters engage in racial bloc voting that cannot be explained by partisan affiliation.” Alito cited the development of a “full-blown two-party system” in the South, as well as the court’s 2019 decision in Rucho v. Common Cause holding that federal courts cannot consider partisan gerrymandering claims: “In a State where both parties have substantial support and where race is often correlated with party preference,” Alito said, “a litigant can easily exploit §2 for partisan purposes by ‘repackag[ing] a partisan-gerrymandering claim as a racial-gerrymandering claim.’”
If the three preconditions are met, courts move to the final step of the Gingles analysis to consider whether, when all of the circumstances are considered, the political process is not equally open to minority voters. Alito emphasized that this inquiry should “focus on evidence that has more than a remote bearing on what the Fifteenth Amendment prohibits: present-day intentional racial discrimination regarding voting.” Quoting the Supreme Court’s 2013 opinion in Shelby County v. Holder, which struck down a provision of the Voting Rights Act used to determine which state and local governments were required to obtain approval from the Department of Justice before making changes to their voting laws and practices, Alito wrote that “‘things have changed dramatically’” in the South “in the decades since the passage of the Voting Rights Act.” When the law was enacted, he noted, “the Nation had faced nearly a century of ‘entrenched racial discrimination in voting,’” but “Black voters now participate in elections at similar rates as the rest of the electorate.”
In this case, Alito said, Louisiana’s goal in adopting the 2024 map “was racial”: the state enacted it in the wake of the lower court’s finding that the 2022 map likely violated Section 2, and sought to avoid having the court impose a different map that would have created a second majority-Black district but which would also “have imperiled one of the influential incumbents the legislature sought to protect.”
The state did not have the kind of compelling interest that would have justified considering race in drawing the 2024 map, Alito wrote, because “the State did not need to create a new majority-minority district to comply with the Act. That is because,” he explained, “at every step of the Gingles framework,” the Black voters challenging the 2022 map “failed to prove their §2 case.”
Among other things, Alito said, the Black voters “did not provide an illustrative map that” protected the state’s Republican incumbents. Alito acknowledged that the Black voters had “offered evidence that black and white voters consistently supported different candidates, but their analysis did not control for partisan preference.” “And none of the historical evidence presented by plaintiffs came close to showing an objective likelihood that the State’s challenged map was the result of intentional racial discrimination.”
“In sum,” Alito concluded, “because the Voting Rights Act did not require Louisiana to create an additional majority-minority district, no compelling interest justified the State’s use of race in creating SB8. That map is an unconstitutional gerrymander, and its use would violate the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.”
Justice Clarence Thomas Concurrence
Justice Clarence Thomas joined Alito’s opinion, but he also wrote a brief, separate concurring opinion that was joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch. Thomas suggested that the Supreme Court “should never have interpreted §2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to effectively give racial groups ‘an entitlement to roughly proportional representation.’” Wednesday’s decision, Thomas wrote, “should largely put an end to this ‘disastrous misadventure’ in voting-rights jurisprudence.” Thomas would have held, he added, that Section 2 “does not regulate districting at all.”
Justice Kagan Dissent
In a somber tone, Kagan read a summary of her 48-page dissent from the bench – a signal of her strong disagreement with the majority’s ruling. “The Voting Rights Act,” she wrote “is—or, now more accurately, was—‘one of the most consequential, efficacious, and amply justified exercises of federal legislative power in our Nation’s history.’ It was born of the literal blood of Union soldiers and civil rights marchers. It ushered in awe-inspiring change, bringing this Nation closer to fulfilling the ideals of democracy and racial equality.” And only Congress, Kagan argued, can “say it is no longer needed—not the Members of this Court.”
But the requirements that the court imposes on Wednesday, Kagan contended, “will effectively insulate any practice, including any districting scheme, said by a State to have any race-neutral justification. That justification can sound in traditional districting criteria, or else can sound in politics and partisanship. As to the latter, the State need do nothing more than announce a partisan gerrymander,” she said. “Assuming the State has left behind no smoking-gun evidence of a race-based motive (an almost fanciful prospect), Section 2 will play no role.”
Kagan rejected Alito’s contention that the majority had merely made “updates” to the Gingles framework, arguing instead that the majority’s changes “eviscerate the law, so that it will not remedy even” classic cases of vote dilution. “Without a basis in Section 2’s text or the Constitution,” Kagan argued, “the majority formulates new proof requirements for plaintiffs alleging vote dilution.” The new requirements that the majority imposes, Kagan said, “leverage two features of modern political life: that racial identity and party preference are often linked and that politicians have free rein to adopt partisan gerrymanders.”
Kagan also emphasized that when Congress amended Section 2 of the VRA in 1982, it did so specifically to override the Supreme Court’s decision holding that Section 2 prohibited only intentional discrimination. “It made sure instead,” Kagan wrote, as this court recently explained, “that Section 2 would ‘turn[] on the presence of discriminatory effects.’” “Today’s decision,” Kagan argued, “returns Section 2 to what it was” before the 1982 amendment. “Now, as then, vote-dilution plaintiffs will have to show more than vote dilution: They will have to show, as well, race-based motive. Now, as then, that requirement will make success in their suits nearly impossible.”
In another sign of her disagreement with the majority’s decision, Kagan omitted the traditional “respectfully” from her conclusion, writing only, “I dissent.”


Arguments that the Democratic Party has used the VRA for political advantage often center on the following interpretations of its application according to the analysis by the Brennan Center for Justice:
· Creation of Majority-Minority Districts: Critics argue that the interpretation of Section 2 of the VRA has been used to pressure map-makers into packing minority voters—who largely vote for Democratic candidates—into specific districts. This can create very safe Democratic districts but can also dilute the overall influence of those voters in neighboring districts, a practice sometimes known as “packing” or “racial gerrymandering”.
· Correlation Between Race and Party: Critics contend that because race and party affiliation are often highly correlated, using the VRA to mandate districts based on race often results in the creation of a “safe” Democratic seat, effectively insulating those seats from Republican competition.
· Targeting of Voter Integrity Laws: Some critics argue that Democrats use the VRA to challenge voter ID, mail-in ballot restrictions, and other voter integrity measures as racially discriminatory, even when such measures are popular and, according to proponents, designed to ensure election security.
· “Weaponizing” Section 2: Republican critics argue that the Democratic party has sought to “weaponize” Section 2 of the VRA to nationalize election rules, which they contend is a move to standardize low-security voting procedures in large urban centers to boost Democratic turnout, particularly after the Supreme Court’s Shelby County decision in 2013 removed the VRA’s preclearance formula.
Contextual Factors:
· Legal Challenges: The Supreme Court has increasingly limited the use of Section 2 in racial gerrymandering cases, arguing that over-reliance on race to draw districts can be unconstitutional.
· Civil Rights Purpose: Conversely, advocates of the VRA argue it is a necessary tool to combat voter discrimination, pointing out that it has successfully increased turnout and ensured that minority voters have an equal opportunity to elect their candidates of choice.
· Supreme Court Rulings (2026): As of April 2026, the Supreme Court has continued to scale back the power of the VRA, ruling that some majority-Black districts created to satisfy VRA requirements were an unconstitutional, race-driven effort. *N.B.: See Washington Post.
My intellectual mentor, Justice Clarence Thomas said it best—”As I explained more than 30 years ago, I would go further and hold that [section two] of the Voting Rights Act does not regulate districting at all.” To me that means no more racial or racistly drawn voting maps will be constitutionally permissible! The Democrat Party, the party that since its founding in 1824 has waged a jihad against America using Black people as their whipping post—Chattel Slavery, Black Genocide, Black Democide, Jim Crow, Discrimination against the Right to Vote, Right to Property, Freedom of the Press, Freedom of Assembly and all of the Bill of Rights. Now Irony of Ironies these same political party that has been the absolute bane of Black existence by promoting White Supremacy and Black Inferiorty has the nerve to cook the books of the 1965 Voting Rights Act to basically serve as a built-in voter base (particularly in the South) for the past 61 years using the BLACK VOTE! This is truly egregious and beyond the pale.
There for the Democrat Party perverted the Voting Rights Act not to help Black people get equal voting rights where they were in the minority but just the opposite. It weaponized race and had it reflected in the crazy voting district configuartions (e.g., Racial Gerrymandering) to do achieve the following criminal and racist intent—Creation of Majority-Minority Districts, Targeting of Voter Integrity Laws and Weaponizing Sec. 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
Justice Clarence Thomas Concurrence
Justice Clarence Thomas joined Alito’s opinion, but he also wrote a brief, separate concurring opinion that was joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch. Thomas suggested that the Supreme Court “should never have interpreted §2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to effectively give racial groups ‘an entitlement to roughly proportional representation.’” Wednesday’s decision, Thomas wrote, “should largely put an end to this ‘disastrous misadventure’ in voting-rights jurisprudence.” Thomas would have held, he added, that Section 2 “does not regulate districting at all.”

Category: Uncategorized

















