They’re backed by an actual law firm, the Attorneys for Freedom, and they’re always trying to expand upon their benefits to give you as much as possible as a member.
So, if you’re interested, you can check them out using the links down below.
And right now, if you sign up using my code ARMSCHOLAR, you can get a limited offer, which is $50 off of your individual sign-up fee or $25 off of the family sign-up fee.
As I mentioned in the intro, in this video, we’re going to be talking about a critical election case, an emergency review that happened today in response to some orders and decisions issued by the Supreme Court.
Now, first, we need to understand what the Supreme Court actually did in some recent rulings because that is what is currently impacting what is going on in this Alabama challenge.
So, in the recent review of the Alabama case, the Supreme Court did not outright reverse the Alabama District Court ruling.
Instead, the Supreme Court vacated and remanded the case back down to the lower court for further consideration in light of the Supreme Court’s brand new 6-3 ruling in the case Louisiana versus Cale.
Now, that distinction matters because this was not the Supreme Court saying that Alabama automatically wins this case.
Instead, the Supreme Court essentially told the lower court to go back, reconsider portions of their prior ruling under the new framework in that new 6-3 ruling in the Caleus case.
And specifically, the Supreme Court appears focused on the Voting Rights Act Section 2 analysis that happened in the lower court.
Now, if you remember, the lower court essentially had previously ruled that Alabama’s 2023 congressional map still unlawfully diluted black voting strength and violated some federal laws.
The court then imposed a remedial congressional map that Alabama was then forced to use.
The court-ordered map created a second district which significantly increased Democrat competitiveness in Alabama.
So, politically, this case has massive implications going forward.
But now, after the Supreme Court remanded the case, Alabama immediately asked to restore its original 2023 legislatively enacted map.
And that is where this entire situation has now exploded into emergency review and litigation.
So, here’s where things are becoming wild procedurally.
The plaintiffs immediately rushed back into federal court and filed emergency motions asking for the district court to keep the current remedial map in place, again, which would strengthen Democrat, you know, potential house positions.
The plaintiffs argued that the remedial map is now the actual status quo in Alabama and should be picked over Alabama’s old, or you know, proposed 2023 map.
Their argument in support of keeping the remedial map is that Alabama has already been using that remedial map, that candidates already were campaigning under it, that election officials already prepared for elections under that remedial map, and that absentee ballots were already sent out using that map.
And because of all of that, they argue that suddenly changing the congressional maps now would create complete election chaos.
But Alabama has officially responded, and the state is arguing that the Supreme Court’s new decision in Louisiana versus Calais, which was that 6-3 ruling.
They argued that that completely changed the legal framework governing these types of Voting Rights Act claims.
According to Alabama, the lower court cannot simply reuse its old rulings because the Supreme Court significantly updated the legal standards that now apply.
The state argues that plaintiffs’ maps fall under the new legal framework, and procedurally, Alabama says that the Supreme Court already restored the 2023 map when it vacated the injunctions and immediately issued its judgment.
So, Alabama argues that federal courts should not now impose another emergency injunction while elections already are underway.
They should not put back in place the remedial map because they argue that in their turn would create election chaos.
So, both sides are arguing that their position should be the correct position, and that if the court goes the other way, it would create election chaos.
And now we’ve officially reached the next major phase of this fight in litigation.
Emergency oral arguments took place today at the federal court level in Alabama, and again, that happened today, May 22nd.
That means that the parties have now gone before the federal court and argued over what should happen next.
And now the country is going to be waiting anxiously to see how does the court rule on this issue.
Because the court is now weighing whether Alabama can move forward with its original 2023 congressional map or whether the current court-ordered remedial map should remain in place for the upcoming elections.
And that decision could have enormous implications for upcoming elections.
The court is not just deciding a technical map dispute.
This means that the next ruling could determine whether Alabama’s current remedial map survives, whether the state’s 2023 map comes back, or whether election officials have to make major changes while the election is currently moving forward.
This will also show us how lower courts are currently going to be applying that Supreme Court 6-3 ruling in the Louisiana versus Calais case, which is also going to be critical to for potentially precedent and citations for other issues and other cases that pop up in other jurisdictions.
Now, one final thing that
also is very important to understand is essentially this case matters far beyond just this election law itself and far beyond just Alabama.
Congressional redistricting directly impacts the makeup and control of the house and it ultimately affects everything from federal legislation, committee leadership, oversight of agencies like the ATF and DOJ, uh judicial confirmations, you know, what judges are going to sit on federal courts, and broader constitutional litigation issues going forward, and some other, you know,
issues moving forward like we talk about here a lot on the channel, which is the Second Amendment.
So, while this case is fundamentally about elections and constitutional procedure, the downstream effects absolutely impact a lot of other things including firearms policy and constitutional rights as well moving forward.
Also, keep in mind that the Supreme Court recently denied review to the Virginia case.
That one also dealt with a Supreme Court ruling coming out of Virginia where the Virginia Supreme Court struck down some of the issues revolving around the redistricting there, um but right now the Supreme Court denied review to that, so that meant that the map that was proposed that potentially favored Republicans uh would remain in place and there was a lot of concern and consideration around that as well.
So, it seems like Supreme Court is sending a clear signal about some of these election and redistricting issues, especially with the ruling in Cale’s uh with the remand the Alabama case, and then the denial of review in the Virginia case.
So, a lot is developing right now when it comes to this redistricting election issue.
So, that’s the latest major update in the Alabama election battle that’s currently going on in the courts.
The Supreme Court remanded the case back down to the lower court.
That remand triggered emergency fights and you know, motions that are currently moving forward, and today the federal court heard oral arguments in this case.
So, next the major step is going to be the decision and again, that will impact not just this case going forward, but it probably a lot of other issues going forward as well, and could really shape how that election is going to move forward, and potentially also what the makeup of the house will look like going forward.
So,
as this develops, as we get more information, as we get that decision from the court, I will let you guys know.
