A legal-policy interview with Andrew Weissmann about the Supreme Court’s Voting Rights Act decision, the rush to redraw Louisiana’s maps before the midterms, FISA Section 702 reauthorization, and broader concerns about partisan weaponization of courts and prosecutions.
Watch on YouTube ›Get the market thesis, key claims, assets, contradictions, and follow-up questions from any financial video — then unlock a version personalized to your portfolio, watchlist, and favorite speakers.
Sarah Longwell hosts Andrew Weissmann on The Bulwark’s Illegal News and opens with a light back-and-forth about war stories, acronyms, and Weissmann’s upcoming book Liars Kingdom. The substantive discussion begins with the Supreme Court’s handling of Louisiana v. Callais and the immediate push by Louisiana officials to redraw congressional maps before the midterms. Weissmann argues the Court’s fast-tracking of its order is unusual and deeply partisan in effect, because it helps states race to change maps after a ruling that weakened Voting Rights Act protections. He says the broader problem is not just racial gerrymandering but the Court’s role in normalizing a mid-decade election-rule change that erodes trust in democracy. Longwell then raises the question of court reform, including expanding the Supreme Court. …
Immediate setup looks politically charged: the Court’s Louisiana action may accelerate redistricting fights before the midterms, with procedural timing itself becoming the battleground. The actionable risk is further map changes or legal brinkmanship rather than any direct market catalyst.
Over the next several weeks to months, the base case is continued escalation around redistricting, court legitimacy, and FISA renewal, with policy outcomes hinging on congressional and state-level follow-through. The key validation signal is whether these disputes become durable election-cycle narratives or fade after the maps and legislation settle.
The structural read is that U.S. institutions are being forced into a more overtly partisan operating regime, where courts, elections, and surveillance powers are all contested as political tools. If that persists, the long-run implication is a weaker trust environment for governance and rule-setting across the system.
The Louisiana redistricting situation after the Supreme Court decision is unusually partisan in practical effect because states are rushing to redraw maps before the midterms.
Weissmann says states wanted to slow elections when it helped them before, but now they want to race to the finish after the ruling.
The Supreme Court’s expedited remand effectively lets the new ruling take effect before the election cycle, which Weissmann sees as a kind of procedural end-run around normal timing.
He objects to the unusual speed and says the normal 30-day mandate period exists for a reason.
Weissmann believes the Supreme Court is effectively updating a congressional voting-rights statute on its own authority.
He criticizes the Court for acting as if it can revise the statute without Congress.
Can you explain the significance of the Supreme Court fast-tracking its Voting Rights Act opinion to allow immediate effect?
Weissmann characterizes the fast-tracking as highly partisan, drawing parallels to how the Senate handled the Garland and Barrett Supreme Court nominations — slow-walking when it benefits one side and racing when it benefits the other.
Can you tell us about what's happening with the Voting Rights Act decision and the fast-tracking of redistricting? Is my characterization that this is downright partisan correct?
Weissmann explains that states are rushing to push through redistricting before the midterms, despite previously arguing that you can't change things 6-8 months out from an election. He compares it to the Merrick Garland vs. Amy Coney Barrett nominations — taking time when it's a Democrat but racing when it's a Republican. He notes that while Congress is entitled to be partisan, there should be areas where it is not a partisan issue, particularly mentioning the Voting Rights Act.
Do you have any stories about working in Washington that you can share with the audience?
Weissmann shares two acronym stories. First, when training at the FBI, a colleague used so many acronyms that Weissmann asked what 'ABP' meant — it turned out to be 'OB' (the coffee shop). Second, Janet Napolitano, head of DHS, bet her staff a case of beer that no one could brief her without using an acronym, and she never had to pay up. He ties this to Robert Mueller's preference for speaking plain English rather than 'newspeak.'
Unlock the full claims, asset map, scores, related transcripts, follow-up questions, and AI chat — shaped around your portfolio, watchlist, favorite speakers, and risks.
