December 5, 2025 — Aloha Friday

LULAC and other civil rights organizations challenged Texas's congressional redistricting maps, arguing the maps diluted minority voting power in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Texas countered that the district lines weren't drawn based on race but based on partisanship — and if the motive was partisan, not racial, then the VRA doesn't apply. Bryan explained why this matters: the Supreme Court has held that partisan gerrymandering is a political question that courts can't review (Rucho v. Common Cause, 2019), but racial gerrymandering is subject to strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause. Drawing lines that disadvantage minority voters but claiming partisan intent is therefore a significant defense. Bryan also covered the 1982 Senate debate around the VRA's Section 2, when Congress debated extending preclearance requirements — the legislative history Roberts later described as evidence of "legislative goodwill." The SCOTUS emergency stay allowed the Texas maps to remain in effect pending further proceedings.

Bryan covered the Letitia James case as the Comey prosecution's procedural twin. The federal grand jury that was presented with evidence against the New York AG declined to return an indictment — a rare outcome that Bryan explained as the grand jury exercising its independent judgment. More significant was the Halligan problem: Halligan, the special counsel who had been running multiple high-profile prosecutions (including Comey's), had himself been improperly appointed. Bryan walked through the appointment issue: special counsels must be appointed consistent with the Appointments Clause — either as principal officers (requiring Senate confirmation) or inferior officers (requiring a department head appointment). Questions about Halligan's appointment raised the possibility that any prosecutions he initiated or managed were subject to challenge on constitutional grounds. Bryan also raised the jury nullification dimension: there was concern among legal observers that even if the case had gone forward, a jury might have nullified an indictment they viewed as politically motivated. Bryan noted the government still had the option to pursue misdemeanor charges, which have a lower procedural bar.

The administration issued an executive order cutting federal funding to public broadcasting, specifically targeting CPB (Corporation for Public Broadcasting), which provides the federal subsidy that funds NPR and PBS programming. NPR sued. During the litigation, CPB reached a settlement agreement that restored some of the funding. The government argued the settlement mooted the case — if CPB got its money back, there's nothing left to litigate. The judge rejected that argument. Bryan explained why: the settlement only resolved part of the funding dispute. The executive order itself remained in place, and the administration had issued it under two different statutory authorities — Section 2 of the relevant executive order statute and Section 3. The settlement addressed Section 2 claims but not Section 3. Bryan also covered a specific grant to the Bureau of Indian Affairs for public broadcasting in Native communities, which remained cut and was separately before the court. The judge's refusal to call the case moot kept the underlying constitutional and statutory questions alive.