Week in Review

IN THE NEWS

• The U.S. Supreme Court temporarily declined to block redistricting in California. The Court refused to block a new, voter‑approved congressional map that is expected to benefit Democrats, rejecting a challenge from state Republicans and the Trump Administration. The unsigned order, with no noted dissents, keeps districts that shift as many as five Republican-held seats to Democratic control. California officials praised the decision, while Republicans said they will keep fighting the map’s use in future elections. This decision comes after the Court previously allowed Texas to maintain its Republican-friendly redistricting map.
• President Donald J. Trump called for Republican lawmakers to “nationalize” the administration of elections days after the Federal Bureau of Investigation seized hundreds of 2020 voting records from an election office in Georgia. President Trump has claimed that fraudulent ballots in Georgia influenced the 2020 presidential election. U.S. Senator John Thune (R-S.D.) reportedly pushed back, noting that decentralized elections are more resilient to hacking attempts. Thune later clarified, though, that he understood the President’s comments as merely an endorsement of tighter proof-of-citizenship requirements for voters. The Constitution provides that states control the “times, places and manner of holding elections.”
• The Trump Administration plans to pull about 700 federal agents from Minnesota, with President Trump noting that a “softer touch” on immigration may be needed, while still emphasizing toughness on “hard criminals.” This change would leave about 2,000 federal agents in Minnesota—far above typical levels for the state. Minnesota Governor Tim Walz said the move is politically driven and called for actual proof of lowered officer presence and not just rhetoric about reducing immigration enforcement. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) argued the reduction is insufficient and urged “all of ICE” to leave Minneapolis.
• Plaintiffs sued to reverse a U.S. Department of State ban on visas for immigrants from 75 countries. The plaintiffs include would-be immigrants as well as American citizens who claim that they were separated from non-citizen family members due to the policy. The State Department justified the ban on the basis that immigrants from the affected countries were likely to become “public charges,” burdening the domestic welfare system. The lawsuit acknowledged that the Immigration and Nationality Act includes this basis for denying visas but argued that it must be applied individually, based on facts about a particular immigrant, rather than applied categorically to any migrant from a particular country.
• The U.S. Department of Transportation is reportedly advocating a law that would require cities to charge fares for all buses or else lose federal funding. The policy would affect cities such as New York City, where Mayor Zohran Mamdani campaigned on the promise of “fast, fare free buses” as part of a broader affordability agenda. The proposed law is reportedly intended to promote financial stability for affected transit networks. Kansas City, for example, will reinstate bus fares this year, after eliminating them in 2020, to cover funding shortages and avoid service cuts.
• The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued guidance clarifying that the Clean Air Act (CAA) supports the ability of farmers to make their own repairs—the “right to repair”—to equipment such as tractors. The CAA prohibits tampering with emission controls on devices. EPA explained that previously, some equipment manufacturers interpreted these anti-tampering provisions to limit farmers’ direct access to repair tools or software, meaning that farmers had to take equipment exclusively to manufacturer-authorized dealers to be fixed. EPA reported that the lack of clarity increased repair costs and caused farmers to choose older agricultural equipment without modern emission controls because they could fix that equipment themselves.
• The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced a new program aimed at boosting the domestic pharmaceutical industry by increasing regulatory predictability for facilities based in the United States. The program intends to streamline FDA reviews and inspections, facilitate the construction of manufacturing plants in the United States, and accelerate facility assessments ahead of a specific drug application. Under this program, FDA will select an initial group of facilities to inspect first based on alignment with national priorities, including the ability to quickly supply the domestic market, with additional consideration given to manufacturers producing critical medications. FDA cited President Trump’s executive order directing increased domestic production of critical medicines as justification for this initiative.
• The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has asked a federal court in Missouri to enforce a subpoena seeking more company records in its investigation against Nike for allegedly favoring nonwhite employees in mentorship, training, and personnel decisions. The case began with a document filed in May 2024 by then-commissioner Andrea Lucas, now the agency’s Trump‑appointed chair, based on Nike’s public reports and website. Nike has called the demands vague and overly broad, but said it has cooperated and provided thousands of pages as it prepares a formal response.

WHAT WE’RE READING THIS WEEK

• A recent report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) examined access by public transit to domestic airports and efforts to encourage transit use. GAO reviewed 51 large, medium, and small airports, finding that nearly all had some form of public transportation access, with large airports more likely to have rail service and smaller airports primarily served by bus routes. GAO observed that the use of public transit was influenced by factors such as cost, travel time, service frequency, and familiarity with available options. GAO also found that some airports have implemented transportation demand management strategies, including improvements in signage and fare incentives, to increase transit use. GAO noted, however, that airports often lack clear measures to evaluate the effectiveness of these strategies.
• In a recent article in the Yale Journal on Regulation, Daniel B. Rosenbaum, law professor at Michigan State University College of Law, argued that state auditors’ use of “performance audits” make auditors de facto policymakers in some contexts. Rosenbaum analyzed audit recommendations from Missouri, Florida, and Ohio and found that local governments fully adopted about 57 percent of the recommendations. Although Rosenbaum argued that audits can boost transparency, share expertise, and prevent problems, he warned that communities with fewer resources may struggle to carry out auditors’ recommendations. Rosenbaum concluded by proposing reforms to keep audits effective, fair, and less political while still respecting local input, including shifting the reach of performance auditing, requiring local governments to provide reasons for nonadoption of audit recommendations, and requiring audit regimes to recognize differences among local governments.
• A recent report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office identified obstacles to government agencies’ ability to identify emerging street drugs. Government forensic scientists often lack samples of new drugs to compare against, making identification difficult—harder still when multiple drugs are mixed together, the office explained. The Government Accountability Office observed that unstandardized data collection procedures meant that state and local agencies could less easily share knowledge. Moreover, law enforcement often failed to share their practical insights on new street drugs with other government medical agencies. The Office emphasized that by identifying drugs faster, agencies can better prevent overdoses and save lives.

EDITOR’S CHOICE

• In an essay in The Regulatory Review, Ann E. Tweedy, a Professor of Law at the University of Mississippi School of Law, argued that Congress should enact legislation restoring tribal civil regulatory authority over non-members on reservations. Tweedy explained that the Supreme Court’s decision in Montana v. United States limits tribal civil jurisdiction by subjecting it to narrow exceptions that courts rarely uphold, creating uncertainty and weakening tribal governance. She noted that although Congress has restored certain aspects of tribal criminal jurisdiction, it has largely left civil authority alone. Tweedy contended that restoring tribal civil jurisdiction would promote clarity, support tribal self-government, and enable tribes to address regulatory needs such as consumer protection and employment. She concluded that congressional action is necessary to meaningfully reaffirm tribal sovereignty.