Top Dem Whose District Is Going Away Rips Supreme Court

Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) is speaking out after a Supreme Court ruling opened the door for Mississippi Republicans to redraw congressional boundaries that could place his long-held seat in jeopardy.

Thompson, who has represented his district for roughly three decades, criticized the high court’s April decision, which found that congressional districts drawn primarily on the basis of race are unconstitutional and must be redrawn to satisfy equal protection principles.

“I was very disappointed with the Supreme Court’s decision,” Thompson told WAPT.

Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves and Republican lawmakers are now preparing to redraw congressional, state legislative, and state Supreme Court district lines before the 2027 election cycle. For Republicans, the move is being framed as a necessary step to bring Mississippi’s maps into compliance with the Constitution and the Supreme Court’s latest guidance.

Thompson, however, argued that the decision weakens protections under the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by giving state legislatures greater freedom to draw political maps without the same race-based standards Democrats have long defended in redistricting fights.

Supporters of the ruling see the matter differently. They argue that districts built primarily around race can distort representation by giving one ethnic group outsized political power at the expense of others. From that perspective, the Court’s decision reinforces the principle that voters should be treated as individuals, not sorted into political districts by racial category.

“We have created an opportunity in the South for black, brown, and white people to vote for the candidate of their choice. All of a sudden with this Supreme Court decision, it has taken us back,” Thompson claimed.

“Black voters matter and white voters matter, but when you deprive either group of the right to participate, that should not be. Those of us who have advocated in voter participation and other things, we are trying to get it done. I am bothered when I see people in positions trying to deny that,” he said.

Nothing in the Supreme Court’s ruling strips any American of the right to vote, regardless of race. The dispute centers on how political boundaries are drawn and whether race should remain a controlling factor in that process.

Thompson also defended his record, claiming he has represented Mississippi better than any other member of the state’s congressional delegation.

“Look at my voting record, it says that I care about education, housing, and healthcare, and my vote reflects that. More so than any other member of our delegation, but somehow, that is bad,” Thompson said, per WAPT.

Mississippi Republicans have argued that Thompson’s current district should be eliminated or substantially redrawn in order to comply with the Supreme Court’s decision.

“Mississippi has long had a congressional district—the second congressional district—which was gerrymandered around race. And there is no reason under this new ruling for that district to exist with the lines that it currently has,” State Auditor Shad White told the outlet.

The fight in Mississippi is likely to become another flashpoint in the national redistricting debate, with Democrats defending race-conscious district lines as voter protection tools and Republicans arguing that the Constitution demands equal treatment under the law rather than racial sorting by political mapmakers.

Supreme Court Rejects Alabama Execution Request In Intellectual Disability Case

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected Alabama’s request to execute Joseph Clifton Smith, a convicted murderer whom lower courts had determined is intellectually disabled.

Smith, 55, has spent roughly half his life on death row after being convicted in connection with the 1997 death of a man.

The decision leaves lower court rulings in Smith’s favor intact. In 2002, the Supreme Court barred the execution of intellectually disabled individuals in Atkins v. Virginia. Later rulings in 2014 and 2017 expanded how courts should evaluate close cases, directing states to consider broader evidence because IQ testing includes a recognized margin of error.

The central question in Smith’s case was how courts should handle defendants whose IQ scores fall slightly above the commonly recognized threshold of 70 for intellectual disability.

Smith received five IQ test scores ranging from 72 to 78.

His attorneys argued that Smith had been placed in special education classes for students with learning disabilities and left school after seventh grade. They also said that at the time of the crime he performed math at a kindergarten level, spelled at roughly a third-grade level, and read at approximately a fourth-grade level.

The divided decision underscores the ongoing legal tension between state authority to carry out criminal sentences and federal constitutional limits on capital punishment.