Reposted by @kbplitt.bsky.social
Under-radar stakes: Supreme Court elections.
Justices who’ve upheld restrictions on abortion are up next month in Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Texas.
Justices who have sided with abortion access are up in Kansas, Missouri, New Mexico, Wyoming.
boltsmag.org
Your State-by-State Guide to the 2026 Supreme Court Elections - Bolts
Abortion, redistricting, and ballot access remain heated issues as voters face dozens of supreme court races across 32 states this year.
![After the Court required a further submission to explain this incongruity,
respondents submitted an affidavit from Brenden Cuni, a Supervisory Detention and
Deportation Officer with ICE, who was responsible for conducting the background
searches. DE 20-7. Cuni was notified “some time before 5:50 PM” that “Petitioner was detained.” Id. ¶3. He searched five separate federal databases, all of which “yielded
negative results.” Id. ¶5 (emphasis added). Cuni then “issued and signed the I-200,
Warrant of Arrest, and checked off the boxes relating to ‘biometric confirmation of the
subject’s identity and a records check of federal databases . . . .’” Id. Of course, since the
records checks were negative, it was undeniably false, though represented as true in the
warrant, that “biometric confirmation [and] records check of federal databases
affirmatively indicate” that the petitioner lacked immigration status. DE 7-1. Cuni
explains that ICE then processed the petitioner, and in so doing, entered his data into
those various databases. After processing (and after the warrant was signed and
executed), Cuni ordered another officer to run “a second records check of the electronic
federal databases, which then yielded positive results . . . because Petitioner’s information
was now part of the system.” DE 20-7 ¶7 (emphasis added).](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:bbp2b224lro3bfnzcqwwnkfo/bafkreidqylhmhwshnfs3a5dq2g3wiulejbwwwgoia34tsntiszybms4j6m)
