Professor of Law Richard Hasen, an elections law expert, is denouncing Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito as a “coward” who is either lying to himself or the American public, after authoring what has been called the “earthquake” decision in Louisiana v. Callais, which sharply erodes the Voting Rights Act.

Alito’s “disastrous” majority opinion in Callais “essentially gutted what remains of the Voting Rights Act,” but he “claims to have done no such thing. The question is why,” Hasen posits.

Hasen charges that Justice Alito was too “afraid” to share his actual opinion, and so he found ways to “get away with overturning Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act through technical minutiae rather than through a direct hit.”

Section 2, passed in 1965, is the provision of the Voting Rights Act that protects minority voters from discriminatory voting laws and maps.

Hasen argues that Alito’s opinions in both Callais and Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee “necessarily imply” that “Congress cannot do anything to protect minority voting rights short of banning intentional discrimination despite the 14th Amendment’s equal protection guarantee, despite the 15th Amendment’s ban on race discrimination in voting, and despite the fact that both amendments explicitly give Congress the power to enforce the measures by ‘appropriate legislation.'”

READ MORE: Trump Attacks ‘Very Disloyal’ GOP Senator — Calls for Him to Lose Primary

He notes that Alito managed to render Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act “essentially toothless,” while leaving the six-decade-old landmark law on the books.

“Since Brnovich,” he writes, “no plaintiffs have brought successful suits under Section 2 challenging a law alleged to suppress votes.”

Indeed, Alito’s opinions in both cases are “extreme overkill,” handing states “multiple pathways” to defeat a Section 2 claim.

Hasen explains that for Alito, “to discriminate against Louisiana Democrats is not to discriminate against Louisiana’s Black voters, despite the overwhelming overlap between the two groups.”

But for Hasen, the most “galling” issue is that Alito “goes out of his way to disclaim he is making radical change while putting multiple stakes through the heart of Section 2.”

He offers some possibilities of why Alito has acted in this way.

“Maybe Alito is worried that a ruling forthrightly saying what he is doing would sully the reputation of the court, which has already faced public criticism for killing off another key part of the Voting Rights Act in 2013’s Shelby County decision,” Hasen writes. “Perhaps he is worried that a frontal kill of Section 2 would energize Democrats, leading to greater losses for Republicans in the midterm elections and in future elections.”

Regardless, Hasen concludes, no one “is fooled by Justice Alito’s act of cowardice, unless it is Justice Alito himself. If that’s the case, he is more deluded than he seems to think the rest of us are.”

READ MORE: Trump Stalls J6 Lawsuits From Officers and Lawmakers With Immunity Push: Report

Image via Reuters

In a double-barreled attack, President Donald Trump has targeted a two-term sitting Republican U.S. Senator, calling for him to be voted out during the GOP primary — which is tight and barely weeks away — while criticizing him for his vote on impeachment and his opposition to the president’s pick for Surgeon General.

Calling U.S. Senator Bill Cassidy (R-LA) “a very disloyal person” who won election thanks to his endorsement, the president blasted him for his Senate vote to convict him “on what has now proven to be a total Hoax and Scam.”

Accusing Cassidy of “intransigence and political games,” Trump charged that he has “stood in the way of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Nominee, Casey Means, for the important position of U.S. Surgeon General.”

Just sixteen days before the GOP primary, Trump did not hold back.

“Hopefully all of the Great Republican People of Louisiana, which I won, BIG, three times, will be voting Bill Cassidy OUT OF OFFICE in the upcoming Republican Primary!”

READ MORE: Trump Stalls J6 Lawsuits From Officers and Lawmakers With Immunity Push: Report

According to The Hill, Senator Cassidy is currently polling behind two of his GOP primary challengers among likely Republican voters.

Cassidy got just 21 percent support, U.S. Rep. Julia Letlow received 27 percent, and state treasurer John Fleming received 28 percent, according to an Emerson poll. Although Trump endorsed Congresswoman Letlow in January, she has yet to pull into the lead.

In 2021, Cassidy was one of just seven Republican senators who voted to convict Trump for inciting the January 6 attack on the Capitol. Of the seven, just three are currently serving: Cassidy, Susan Collins, and Lisa Murkowski.

Minutes after his attack, Trump announced his nomination of Fox News contributor Dr. Nicole B. Saphier to become Surgeon General, after calling Means “a strong MAHA Warrior” who “understands the MAHA Movement better than anyone, with perhaps the possible exception of ME!”

President Donald Trump is holding up lawsuits from police officers and Democratic lawmakers suing in federal court by pursuing immunity claims, Bloomberg News reports. The plaintiffs say he bears legal responsibility for inciting the January 6, 2021 riots at the U.S. Capitol.

Trump is appealing a March decision by a federal judge who rejected his bid to have the cases thrown out.

The president’s personal attorneys are also arguing that he should not be required to submit any information, documents, or evidence to the plaintiffs until his immunity appeal is resolved — a position that, if granted, could extend the litigation by years even if Trump loses.

U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta has repeatedly rejected Trump’s immunity claims. Because Judge Mehta ruled that Trump was not acting in his official capacity, the Justice Department was denied its request to become the defendant in place of Trump.

Last month, Politico reported, Judge Mehta ruled that Trump’s January 6 speech at the Ellipse was a political act and therefore not eligible for immunity. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled presidents have broad criminal immunity for official acts.

“President Trump has not shown that the Speech reasonably can be understood as falling within the outer perimeter of his Presidential duties,” Mehta wrote. “The content of the Ellipse Speech confirms that it is not covered by official-acts immunity.”

Politico also reported that the appeals process will likely generate years of additional litigation, keeping the cases alive through the end of Trump’s presidency.

READ MORE: Trump Running Out of Options in $83 Million Case After Court Rejects Rehearing Bid

Image via Reuters