Dems are still favored to win the House. But we can't ignore or downplay how Republicans essentially won 10 seats IN A WEEK through gerrymandering, lawsuits, and judicial rulings. This isn't the kind of democracy we should be comfortable with. newrepublic.com/article/2102...

Totally. If I were in Dem leadership, I'd invoke Congress's constitutional duty to "Guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government" and, in the same breath, explain that's why Congress must end partisan gerrymandering and strip the Court of power to interfere.

"Significant Supreme Court reforms have to be on the table now. . . . [The Court] is seizing power from Congress, and maybe it is time for Congress to start taking a little power back. . . . We have two and a half years between now and the next election to lay the groundwork for change." Preach!

"Significant Supreme Court reforms have to be on the table now. . . . [The Court] is seizing power from Congress, and maybe it is time for Congress to start taking a little power back. . . . We have two and a half years between now and the next election to lay the groundwork for change." Preach!

this is great it's both good campaign strategy and an important way to build up your bench of future politicians, because a lot of these kids will run for office someday

The simplest long-run solution to the gerrymandering wars is a federal law expanding the House and electing members by proportional representation. Alabama has more Democratic voters than Hawaii. Massachusetts has more Trump voters than Mississippi. None of these voters deserve to go unrepresented.

We at @courtacctability.bsky.social aren’t alone in calling on Congress to take its—our—power back and take down judicial supremacy. There’s also @nikobowie.bsky.social, Daphna Renan, @jamellebouie.net @normornstein.bsky.social. Our ranks keep growing with every corrupt Roberts Court power grab.

This is a great article, but like too many descriptions of the wreckage wrought by the Roberts Court, it's missing an ending. Can we DO anything about the Court claiming Congress can't protect voting rights? WHY YES, there are many options for court reform available! peoplesparity.org/court-reform/

we’ve weighed in

This is great, but two friendly amendments. The consolidation of judicial supremacy began long before the 1990s. And even as the Court holds that Congress may not respond to its decisions, Congress *does not need this majority’s approval* to check the Court’s power and respond anyway.

These remarks feature most of Roberts’ usual talking points but one quote stood out to me—that justices are “not simply part of the political process.” At a minimum, constitutional interpretation is absolutely part of the *political* process & always has been. To say otherwise is deeply unserious.

“The government we have now is one that appears broken because laws Congress passed over the years to protect democracy are being invalidated by the Court,” including the Voting Rights Act, campaign finance laws, and laws protecting the peaceful transfer of power. news.harvard.edu/gazette/stor...

“It may be that the first step in truly reining in the court is to remember that the republic — and the Constitution that brought it to life — is meant for us. It is ours to interpret and ours to transform.”

BREAKING: in April 2026, *every single one* of the 1,570 refugees admitted in the United States were white South Africans. In FY 2026, the U.S. has admitted a total of 6,066 white South Africans, three Afghans (back in November 2025), and nobody else.

WATCH: Last night I had the chance to sit down for an extended conversation with Jon Stewart to talk about the state of voting rights & democracy in this country. Class was very much in session! Thank you @thedailyshow youtu.be/SCse1FFEKLM

Congrats to Bench Ansfield 🎉! If you want to see what all the buzz is about, check out their interview with Andrew Anatasi on how arson became profitable for landlords, how residents organized to stop it, and what this tells us about the ongoing interplay between property and racial capitalism.

While the world’s eyes are on fashion’s biggest night, we’re turning ours to the garment, retail, and warehouse workers who keep the industry running. From true love found on the picket line to a free tailoring school out of a Brooklyn basement — meet the New Yorkers who make it all possible.

They called it and they’re still correct yalelawjournal.org/article/call...

“No apportionment plan or individual district shall be drawn with the intent to favor or disfavor a political party or an incumbent.” Florida Constitution, art. III, § 20

This is right. So long as the Court has unlimited discretion to pursue its aims, all Congress's other civil rights laws are in its crosshairs. The Fair Housing Act and Civil Rights Act also ban conduct that has discriminatory effects. Both are constitutional—but who's to say this Court will agree?

The thrust of this argument is right—Congress needs to rein in an unaccountable Court. But term limits and ethics reforms are not enough. To protect our right to vote, Congress needs to reassert its authority over the meaning of the Constitution.

This urgent article by @nikobowie.bsky.social & Daphna Renan on VRA gutting is why we advocate for more time to #TeachReconstruction. Much to learn from era & legacy, which of course is why it's often is skipped or shortchanged in U.S. history texts & standards. www.teachreconstructionreport.org

Required reading from @nikobowie.bsky.social Who Will Stand Up to the Supreme Court Justices? www.nytimes.com/2026/05/02/o...

One of my favorite (derogatory) lines in a Supreme Court opinion is when Chief Justice John Marshall told the people of DC in 1820 “I know we fought a revolution over ‘no taxation without representation,’ but whatta you know, we forgot to put that line in the Constitution.”

The simplest long-run solution to the gerrymandering wars is a federal law expanding the House and electing members by proportional representation. Alabama has more Democratic voters than Hawaii. Massachusetts has more Trump voters than Mississippi. None of these voters deserve to go unrepresented.

Well at least the Celtics don’t have to decide whether to visit the White House this year

By gutting the Voting Rights Act, the Supreme Court is killing the Second Reconstruction. The first Reconstruction shows how Congress should respond. Me and Daphna Renan in the NYT on the tools we have to save democracy from a hostile Court.

Good read on how the Reconstruction-era Congress partly (but not completely) outmaneuvered the Supreme Court:

this is a great book — highly recommend it

As the 1860s Republicans understood, the Constitution explicitly empowers Congress to regulate the court. By contrast, it says nothing about the court’s claimed authority to regulate Congress. The court’s defiance of federal law is sustained only by our tolerance of it—a choice we can unmake.

If you read 1 thing today, let it be Niko Bowie & Daphna Renan's op-ed on the people & their representatives asserting control over the Constitution, rather than ceding it to SCOTUS. Post SCOTUS destroying the VRA, this is the future-we need to get people on board: www.nytimes.com/2026/05/02/o...

this is a great piece and i'm also somewhat annoyed because it means i have to rework the piece i was writing for next week www.nytimes.com/2026/05/02/o...

A necessary read. Those of us who believe in the promise of multiracial democracy must demand more from those who represent us. This Court has consistently undermined hard-won progress toward a freer and more equal country. Everything must be on the table. No court should have this much power.

Great piece by @nikobowie.bsky.social & Daphna Renan, also reminding us of the constitutional culture we once had, when the people routinely claimed their authority over the Constitution and refused to let an unrepresentative Court dictate their future. (gift link: www.nytimes.com/2026/05/02/o...)

A must-read pieceby my colleagues @nikobowie.bsky.social and Daphna Renan.

Great essay and we should all look forward to their book. I would add one point from an 18th-c. perspective on behalf of historically grounded originalism--an approach resting on the constitutional debates of the revolutionary era. www.nytimes.com/2026/05/02/o... @nikobowie.bsky.social

"If Congress does not respond, we know how this story will end. But just as we can learn from the consequences of acquiescing to the Supreme Court’s constitutional interpretation, we can also draw upon the tools past Congresses have offered for how to build a more democratic constitutionalism."

Professors Bowie and Renan will be joining us at the Chicago Humanities Festival Constitution Series in the fall.

Just to add to this really excellent piece, in searching for institutional lessons from past moments of possibility, Reconstruction is far more useful than either the New Deal, when Congress was under segregationists' thumb, or the 1960s and the Warren Court's fleeting promise.

This is excellent. I want to preempt a legit concern, namely that there is no chance that Congress will actually do this. 1. We don’t know that, and shouldn’t assume it. 2. Even talking about this is good because it disrupts the Court’s monopoly on our constitutional imagination.

I want every one of my Dem friends to read this piece. The Court has gutted the Voting Rights Act and done so much other damage. The justices want to insist that they get the last word. But don't take for granted that they do. www.nytimes.com/2026/05/02/o...

Very good stuff! Must read. I had no idea that the Radical Republicans in the Reconstruction Congress considered & actually passed some of the court curbing measures that are now being discussed more & more: stripping jurisdiction & requiring a court supermajority or unanimity to strike down laws.

By gutting the Voting Rights Act, the Supreme Court is killing the Second Reconstruction. The first Reconstruction shows how Congress should respond. Me and Daphna Renan in the NYT on the tools we have to save democracy from a hostile Court.

The War Powers Resolution does not say the president has a blank check to launch an unauthorized war and then it's legal for 60 days, that's not what the timeline for congressional action is about. This war was already unconstitutional on the day it was launched.

Today, a spring scouting report on some of the hottest new LPE and LPE-adjacent articles. Congrats to all the authors on such wonderful placements 🎉

Solidarity!

Look what just arrived!! Advance proofs of a real book!! One that actual bookstores are preordering!!! wwnorton.com/books/978132...

Nothing gets me out of bed in the morning like Dred Scott