BREAKING NEWS! HUGE EMERGENCY 6-3 SUPREME COURT VICTORY JUST NOW!

Hinzugefügt: 2026-06-03

[00:00:00]Major breaking news. The United States Supreme Court has just delivered a huge victory for President Trump and the Republican efforts to maintain control of the House of Representatives after this midterm election in November. Huge Supreme Court win late at night. Let's break it down when we come right back.

[00:00:22]Hey folks, I'm Mark Smith, host of the fourbox don, proud American gun owner, constitutional attorney, member of the United States Supreme Court Barn, and I'm proud to say the top voice of the Second Amendment in America. Thank you.

[00:00:32]2025 and 2026 Gundy Awards. All right, folks. This is a huge deal. Another huge win for President Trump. Another huge win for the Make America Great Again movement, the Conservative, the Republican Party, and the like. all driving toward winning hugely the midterm election, keeping the Senate and keeping the House of Representatives.

[00:00:52]Both goals, I think, are well within our reach. And tonight, the US Supreme Court just delivered another massive win for Donald Trump and the Republican party by insisting insisting that when it decided the case of Louisiana versus Ka just a month ago that said that it is not appropriate for federal judges to interpret the federal statute, the Voting Rights Act, and in some sort of a way that requires Republicancontrolled red states to create these sort of island these islands these blue dots of Democratic strongholds within those red states simply because African-American voters and and minority voters vote overwhelmingly for the Democrats. The Supreme Court says that is simply not allowed. That you cannot discriminate against white people on behalf of minorities because by considering race, you are violating the 14th and 15th amendments to the US Constitution that says there must be among other things equal protection of laws. And if the government starts picking one race over another, that is verbotton in almost all instances. And that includes in drawing congressional maps. And just to jog your memory, every 10 years you have a census that is conducted that figures out the population for every state. And based on that census, the larger states get more members of the House of Representatives that go to Washington that represent that state in Congress as part of the United States House of Representatives.

[00:02:26]Smaller states like Vermont will only have one member going to the House of Representatives. and bigger states like Texas, Florida, California, New York have dozens going to the House of Representatives from those particular states. But the issue turns on the drawing of the congressional maps.

[00:02:43]Exactly how those maps are drawn within a state to figure out congressional district number one in California, congressional district number two in California, and so on and so on. The drawing of the maps is a political process. And as a consequence, the blue states draw their maps in a way to maximize the number of Democrats that go to Washington to represent those states in DC in the House of Representatives.

[00:03:11]And of course, Republican states want to do the exact same thing that the Democrat states do. And that is what they've been trying to do. But for the last 30 or 40 years, and this is where the hiccup came, the congressional enacted federal statute, the Voting Rights Act, has given a hook, if you will, a legal lever for rogue federal judges in the red states to tell these Republicancontrolled states that they must set aside essentially a form of affirmative action maj majority minority or minority majority congressional districts. though even though the whole state is Republican, they must somehow create these congressional districts where African-American or majority Hispanic voters can be put together to ensure that there is black and or Hispanic representation in the House of Representatives. But by the federal courts forcing this, they're insisting that the states engage in race discrimination against whites in favor of minorities. But of course, the reality on the ground is this is yes, it's about race discrimination, but the reality on the ground politically is that you have red states that have been forced at gunpoint, if you will, by federal judges that say you must create these democratic islands where even though you're a full-blown deep red state that voted overwhelmingly for Donald Trump over and over and over again, you have to create districts where you send Democrats to Washington because Blacks, for example, overwhelmingly vote for Democrats. But of course, in contrast, the blue states like New York and California don't have to do this because there's no federal judge telling them that they have to create, let's say, Republican islands or Republican districts within their deep blue states. So, it's been a one-way ratchet in favor of the Democrats hugely, giving them somewhere between 12 to 19 House seats over the last 30 years that they are simply not entitled to by virtue of this misconring rights act that forced these red states at gunpoint because federal judges tell them to do it to distribute against white people in favor of minorities to create these minority majority districts. And the Supreme Court, as I had predicted about a month ago, the Supreme Court issued their decision in Louisiana versus Clay or Clay versus Louisiana and said that no more can federal judges tell red states to create these majority minority or minority majority districts, allowing the Democrats to pick off House seats that are not entitled to because doing so requires them, meaning these states, to discriminate on the basis of race against whites. that is not allowed under the constitution because the constitution is the supreme law of the land and you can't do that to the extent that federal courts were interpreting the statute of the voting rights act in a way inconsistent with the constitution the constitution trumps and that's no longer allowed. So the breaking news is that just now the US Supreme Court told a federal court in Alabama that the Republican Alabama legislature that had drawn a map that said that six Republicans, six Republican districts and one Democratic district was okay. A federal court had said, "No, we think you need to draw another minority majority district so that it will be five Republican districts in Alabama and two Democrats." And the US Supreme Court just says, "No, you've done it wrong again, lower federal court." That's right. So, the the Alabama legislature, the Alabama map that says there's going to be six Republican districts and one Democrat district will be in effect for this November. And the US Supreme Court says to the extent the lower courts trying to create a second majority minority or minority majority district basically electing another Democrat in the state of Alabama to do so would be illegal under the Constitution and that may not move forward. So it was a huge win for Donald Trump and the Republicans. A big win for the Supreme Court telling the lower court, you are violating the law, we already told you once, don't do it again. And that map that is basically six Republican House seats versus one Democratic House seat.

[00:07:23]That will be the map for November 2026 and the midterms. Here's what the US had Supreme Court had to say in explaining why the lower court despite the decision in Klay versus Louisiana. The lower court thumbming its nose at the US Supreme Court just got spanked big time.

[00:07:39]Here's what the court had to say in saying that Alabama's map of six Republicans and one Democrats can take effect. And the Republicans in Alabama are not required to create another district making it 5-2 instead of the current 6 to1. Big win picking up a house seat for the Republicans in the Supreme Court. Here's what the Supreme Court has to say about their rationale why they did it. In Louisiana versus Clay to resolve the tension between the vote dilution claims under section two of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and our colorblind constitution. We updated the standards for section 2 liability. It then goes on to say that after the Clay decision last month, we vacated the district court's injunctions that had prevented the state of Alabama from using a congressional map that had enacted in 2023. The district court had held that the state's map violated the voting rights act because it had only one district in which black voters were a majority and did not include an additional black opportunity district.

[00:08:37]The Supreme Court goes on to say that the district court also included the district court also concluded that the 2023 map violated the 14th amendment because it constituted a deliberate refusal to satisfy the remedial requirements had previously imposed and an attempt to avoid future judgment requirements the same remedy requiring the same remedy. 2 weeks after we vacated its injunction, the district court entered another injunction on largely the same grounds. State officials immediately appealed to this court for a state of injunction. And what did the Supreme Court say? It says no can do district court. You've done it wrong. You violated the Supreme Court.

[00:09:09]You violated the Constitution. You cannot force the state of Alabama any mean anymore. You cannot force these states like Alabama anymore to basically say you must create another black voting district to help the Democrats. That's race discrimination. You got to stop this no more. Here's what the court had to say about it. At this preliminary stage, the state of Alabama has shown that it is entitled to interim relief from the district court's injunction.

[00:09:33]The state is likely to succeed on the merits as to both claims. As to the intentional vote delilution, the district court did not heed the presumption of legislative good faith because it interpreted the state's legal disagreement with this court's earlier remedial order as proof of discriminatory animus. And the Supreme Court goes on to say the district court's analysis also deported departed from Ka. Under Cala, the district court was required to deny relief unless the plaintiff's alternative map performed just as well with respect to all of the state's constitutionally permissible redistricting criteria. Yet, the district court found a violation even though the plaintiff's alternative map would not perform just as well as the state's constitutionally permissible criteria of keeping together the Gulf Coast community of interest and avoiding pairing of incumbents. And again, the way it works as a general matter is if you are a plaintiff saying that a state has illegally and intentionally discriminated against, let's say, black people, black voters in your state, part of the burden that you have to bear as the rights claimant arguing there is vote delilution of African-American voters or Hispanic voters in that particular state. you have to show that there are alternative maps that are available to the state that are basically just as good um as the ones the map actually drew or the state actually drew. And then you compare the proposed alternative map with the map that actually exists. And if you can show that the really the only explanation of the map that the state drew was some sort of intentional race discrimination, then under those circumstances, you might have an argument that there's intentional race discrimination and therefore could be a finding. And if that's the case, it's possible still for the map have to be the map might have to be redrawn by the state in a way consistent with the constitution. And the Supreme Court just said that the district court in this case down there in Alabama uh did not do that analysis properly. And in fact, it was pretty clear that if you looked at the Alabama map and the proposed alternative map by the um basically the civil rights claimants, um it did not work the way it's supposed to. And therefore, the state of Alabama was entitled to this relief. It shut down the district court. And the Supreme Court basically said that the map that creates six Republican districts and one Democrat district can move forward because the district court had said no, it needs to be five Republican districts and two Democrat districts. And that now is no can do with respect to November, which is great news. Now, of course, you know what I'm about to say, which is there were a disscent signed on to by the three liberals, Justice Salamayor, Justice Brown Jackson, and Justice Kagan, all complained that this was no can do. They want to continue to discriminate, in my view, against white people, not because they don't like white people, but because they like the Democratic party. And the reality is on the ground that the African-American voting blocks in the Southeast overwhelmingly vote for the Democrats.

[00:12:39]So, by forcing through federal courts, let's say, to create a majority black district of African-American voters, you are by definition, what you're really creating is a district guaranteed a Democrat House seat in favor of the Democratic Party. And in contrast, of course, you don't have this dynamic going on in the Northeast. Like for example, there's no federal court in New England requiring the creation of Republican House seats where you have literally 45% of the people in New England vote for Donald Trump. And yet they have zero zero that would be zero nada nil u house members that are Republicans in the states of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut. And there's no federal court saying we must create an islands of Republican House seats in those states. That's not been happening for decades, but it has been happening in the southeast where federal courts have been telling Republican states, you have to create somewhere between 12 and 19 majority Democratic seats in those particular areas. And the Supreme Court is shutting that down. And that's why I said that Louisiana versus Klay case, while it's not a second amendment case is hugely important for the Second Amendment because the reality is if the Republicans keep control of the House of Representatives, it eliminates any risk of pushing for gun control and it makes sure that the Donald Trump agenda advancing make America great again and the conservative interest is at least able to move forward. It will not be shut down by Democrats who will definitely get in the way and do all sorts of crazy things like for example probably investigate and and shut down and waste the time of the civil rights division uh run by Harmy Dylan and the attorney general's office you know the US attorney's offices and of course the uh department of justice run right now by Todd Blanch and we do not want any of that to occur which is why it's important for the Republicans to maintain control in the House and the Senate even though the Republican party of course is not always perfect. So, with that said, it's a big win for Donald Trump, a big win for Republicans, and a great increase in the chances of we being able to maintain the House of Representatives uh after the midterm elections, but there's a lot more work to do. But this is a good step forward.

[00:14:48]So, congratulations to the state of Alabama in having the map uh move forward. That is good. That allows us basically to pick up an additional house seat just by virtue of this drawing of the map. So, there you have it, folks.

[00:14:59]Hope you enjoyed today's episode. Make sure you follow me on xfbox. Don't forget to uh subscribe both to YouTube and to Rumble and I'll talk to you again real soon here at the four boxes Dino.

[00:15:08]>> Orders up. Table 2 A.