In this week Elijah v. UNITED STATESour legal correspondent explores the GOP’s joy over the Supreme Court’s voting rights decision. Plus: Elie’s take on Musk vs. Altman.
John Roberts, Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.
(Mark Wilson/Getty Images) I’ve spent the better part of the last 48 hours reading through people’s reactions to the Supreme Court’s destruction of the Voting Rights Act. The people I follow most regularly have divided themselves into predictable camps. There are people like me and Adam Serwer which attempt to place the court’s decision in the broader context of long-standing white hostility toward black voting rights and black political power. There are people like Ian Millhiser who attempted to explain the immediate legal effects of the court’s inadmissible decision. All activists take some time to digest what has happened and plan next steps, with some promising to “fight” and ultimately “win” in one way or another.
The reaction from the right was also predictable. White supremacists and, to the extent there is a difference, Republicans were giddy. I read one in particular ridiculous waste In National review boasting about how the Supreme Court decision will allow Republicans to seize black political power while preventing Democrats from restoring that power. I think the legal analysis is flawed. But what struck me was not the stupidity of the argument but the joy they had in making it.
That happinesson the part of white people, is something that most articles and analyses, including my own, have not adequately captured. This is as painful for me as the decision itself and the terrible consequences that will result from it.
The Voting Rights Act was once considered a pillar of American democracy, so much so that it was extended and expanded in 1982. by President Ronald Reagan. It was reauthorized in 2006 by President George W. Bushand this reauthorization was adopted by the Senate 98-0. In just 20 years, the VRA has gone from a pillar of the democratic project to the point where even the most die-hard conservatives did not dare vote against it, to a party that barely hides the mouth breathers. National review are happy to throw away.
I don’t really know how to process this information. It’s not just that we’re returning to a Jim Crow situation, it’s that white people are happy about this. As if the 60 years of post-apartheid America ushered in by the VRA were just an unfortunate detour, and white people could now return to their preferred route.
Republicans still want you to believe that they are not racist “at heart”, that they simply prefer a set of policies that by chance lead to inequality, oppression, and fewer opportunities for non-white Americans. But this reaction to the death of the VRA proves that they are lying. They hate black people, especially black people who hold political power.
Current number
And now they are happy to finally be able to take away this political power.
The bully and the ugly
A man named Cole Thomas Allen is said to have tried to murder Donald Trump on Saturday. Since Trump is not an American elementary school student, people seem to care. The Supreme Court’s decision striking down the Voting Rights Act came just before the court heard oral arguments on Trump’s attempt to strip Temporary Protected Status from Haitian immigrants. The vast Republican majority seemed inclined ignore Trump’s vile and racist statements and treat him like a normal president who is allowed to do whatever he wants, which in this case seems to be throwing Haitians into the ocean. Just hours after the Supreme Court destroyed the VRA, the Florida state legislature. approved Gov. Ron DeSantis’ new congressional map, which is expected to help the GOP pick up four House seats in the upcoming midterms. At this point, I’m just waiting for the Supreme Court to issue a 6-3 ruling that the South won the Civil War. The Supreme Court also heard oral arguments in a case over whether police can use cellphone data to track your location. Republican judges seemed disgusted to give this power to the government. Minnesota passed a law requiring social media companies to display a warning label regarding mental health issues associated with heavy social media use. The state is now suedwith tech groups calling the law a violation of their First Amendment rights. I think I’m very slightly on the side of the tech mafia here. Warning labels are forced speech and, especially given the junta in power in this country, I don’t really want the government to force anyone to say anything, although I agree with Minnesota’s forced message in this particular case. Inspired Takes
I didn’t know what Flock security cameras were until I read this room In The Nation. Apparently they play an important role in the surveillance state, and apparently people are organizing against them, with some cities confusing them by covering them with actual trash bags. We live in wild times. For The NationJeet Heer unpack all the lies Trump spoke about the latest assassination attempt. The worst argument of the week
Popular “Swipe left below to see more authors”Swipe →
Former FBI Director James Comey has been indicted for… shellfish. Yes, when I first saw this story, I too thought it was made up and that someone in my feed was being tricked by The onion. But it is, somehow, a real thing that actually happens.
On May 25, 2025, Comey posted a photo of seashells on his Instagram account. The shells were arranged to represent the numbers 8647. Or “86 47”. Or, as the FBI concluded, “86” (as in “get rid of”) “47” (as in the 47th President of the United States, Donald Trump).
Comey later deleted the post and apologized for the inference.
But now the Justice Department has indicted him for threatening the president and transmitting the threat across state lines.
I happen to know a lot about death threats law (for lack of a better term) because I get death threats. Lots of them. Less now than when I was doing more television, but not since Charlie Kirk was murdered. I don’t like talking about these threats: the first is terrifying, the second is a badge of honor, and the 397th is just…pointless and depressing.
Whenever I talk to non-lawyers about this, I get one of two responses: “Oh my God, go to the cops” or “Oh my God, buy a gun.” I’m not going to do the latter. I’m a Terminator-1,000 “knives and bladed weapons” type. But I never did the first one either. That’s because I’ve never received a “real” death threat, just the nebulous “I wish you were dead” death threat, and I know the legal difference.
For a death threat to result in criminal prosecution, it must be a “real threat,” meaning it must be made in a context such that a reasonable person would consider it to constitute a serious intention to cause harm. Someone tweeting “You should be killed” does not show serious intent to commit the act itself. Indeed, even someone who says “I’m going to kill you” does not pose a “real threat” to me, absent additional context. “I’m going to kill you at the Rockefeller Center store you always stop by to give your kids a present when you’re on TV”—that would be a real threat, and fortunately that has never happened to me. (Despite everything I say, please don’t threaten to kill me, true or not. I don’t like it.)
In Comey’s case, no reasonable observer could view the shells on the beach as a real threat to Trump’s life. It is absurd to pretend otherwise. As First Amendment attorney Ken White explain:
No remotely rational person could conclude, upon seeing James Comey’s joke about his father on the beach, that he expressed a sincere intention to harm the president. No one could look at it and conclude that Comey intended to convey this message. To assess whether a threat is “true,” the trier of fact must consider the context. Here, the context is that of shells. The context is that of the former FBI director, lifetime member of law enforcement, who is a well-known critic of the president and a target of the president’s ire, using a camp mechanism to express his opposition to the president, using slang for “ditch,” “eject,” or “dispose.” No rational person could see this and say “the former FBI director says he’s going to kill the president”!
The indictment of James Comey is complete bullshit.
And I just have to point out that Trump faced a real threat to his life this week. The attempted shooter entered the same building as his target. He got closer than he ever should have. Could he have gotten closer if the FBI had focused on the real threats against Trump instead of this vengeful witch hunt?
I’m sure Trump’s people are hoping that the actual assassination attempt will make the public believe there might be something to hide. But I think public perception should go the other way. Blaming Comey makes the president’s security look incompetent and looking in the wrong direction.
What I wrote
I wrote about the Supreme Court’s decision to tear down the Voting Rights Act – obviously. I’m sorry, there are no jokes. I also wrote about the president’s fucking ballroom, and in this case there are jokes. In news unrelated to the current chaos
In the case that I call No one I’d like to see thrown into the sun versus no one I’d like to see tied to the bottom of the ocean (By the way, neither are real threats because I don’t own a rocket or submarine) Elon Musk sued Sam Altman this week.
Their argument is… God forgive me, but I don’t care. I will leave Reuters explains: “The world’s richest person is suing OpenAI, its co-founder and CEO Sam Altman and its chairman Greg Brockman, claiming they betrayed him and the public by abandoning OpenAI’s mission to be a benevolent steward of AI for humanity and transforming the nonprofit into a profit-seeking behemoth.”
Musk is a co-founder of OpenAI and is suing Altman for fraud and breach of contract. He’s basically trying to stop OpenAI from being a for-profit company and is more or less trying to break up the company.
Of course, OpenAI is a challenge to Musk’s AI dream, Grok. Altman says Musk is motivated by jealousy and is simply trying to get rid of a competitor.
To answer the legal question most of you will have: No, there is no way both can lose. In fact, I imagine the most likely outcome will be that they are both able to declare “victory”: OpenAI may have to pay money to Musk but will be allowed to continue operating. That would be my guess. When rich people fight in court, the usual result is that some money changes hands and business continues as usual.
As for the assertion by some that this case will determine “the future of AI,” I refuse to accept the idea that the question of whether AI will be used for the public good or for profit will be resolved in a jury trial between two tech titans. No, that can’t be the story. We can’t act like we’re just human collateral damage while Godzilla and King Kong fight for dominance.
The future of AI must be resolved in the well of Congress, with laws and regulations proposed by representatives we elect and order of master these beasts. They are small and mean men who have a lot of money. We are the people. We must be the strongest force.
***
If you enjoyed this episode of Elijah v. UNITED STATES., Click here to receive the newsletter in your mailbox every Friday.
Your support makes stories like this possible From the illegal war against Iran to the inhumane fuel blockade against Cuba, from AI weapons to crypto corruption, we live in a time of staggering chaos, cruelty and violence.
Unlike other publications that reproduce the opinions of authoritarians, billionaires and corporations, The Nation publishes stories that hold the powerful accountable and center communities too often denied voice in national media – stories like the one you just read.
Every day, our journalism weeds out lies and distortions, contextualizes developments that are reshaping politics around the world, and advances progressive ideas that fuel our movements and incite change in the halls of power.
This independent journalism is only possible with the support of our readers. If you would like more urgent coverage like this, please donate to The Nation Today.
Elie Mystal Elie Mystal is The Nationjustice correspondent and columnist. He is also an Alfred Knobler Fellow at the Type Media Center. He is the author of two books: New York Times bestseller Let me respond: A Guide to the Constitution for Black Men And Bad Laws: Ten Popular Laws That Are Ruining Americaboth published by The New Press. You can subscribe to his Nation newsletter “Elie c. US » here.
