This week’s policy round-up covers major federal actions impacting our communities—from voting rights and healthcare to climate and data privacy. These updates reflect growing challenges to equity, access, and justice across the country.
Protecting Democracy & Voting Rights
- Court Ruling Restricts Voting Aid Lawsuits to DOJ Only: On July 28, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that only the U.S. Department of Justice—not private individuals or organizations—can sue under Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act. This section protects voters who are blind, disabled, or have limited English proficiency. The underlying case challenged an Arkansas law limiting the number of voters one person can assist with ballot casting. The 8th Circuit’s decision severely limits who can challenge discriminatory voting laws in states under its jurisdiction, leaving many rural, immigrant, and disabled voters without a clear path to defend their rights unless the Federal Government intervenes.
- Power Grab in Progress: Texas Map Could Reshape 2026 Elections: Texas Republicans have proposed a new congressional map that could give them up to five additional House seats by redrawing districts to favor their party—targeting Democratic strongholds like Houston and Austin. The move, encouraged by the White House, has sparked immediate legal challenges and accusations of racial and partisan gerrymandering. If enacted, the map would shift Texas’s delegation from 25 to 30 Republican-held seats, weakening the voting power of communities of color and Democratic voters. This aggressive, mid-decade redistricting—outside the usual post-census cycle—raises national concerns as courts and lawmakers watch whether such partisan maneuvers will be allowed, especially in light of the Supreme Court’s recent narrowing of federal oversight on gerrymandering.
Healthcare Access Under Threat
- Planned Parenthood Wins Key Legal Battle to Protect Medicaid Access: On July 28, a U.S. District Court in Boston blocked a provision in the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” that would have eliminated Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood and its affiliates. The judge ruled the provision unconstitutional for singling out Planned Parenthood without due process, preserving access to care for 1.5 million patients who rely on its services. Without the court’s block, nearly 200 health centers across 24 states faced potential closure, threatening access to reproductive and preventive care nationwide. The Federal Government has announced plans to appeal the decision, setting the stage for a broader legal battle over healthcare access and political targeting.
- New Health Records System Could Deter Care for Vulnerable Patients: On July 30, the Trump administration launched a new health records system aimed at Americans with diabetes and obesity, allowing users to opt in and share their medical data with over 60 private tech companies. While President Trump emphasized that the program is voluntary and overseen by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), privacy experts warn of serious risks—including unauthorized access, data monetization, and potential misuse by immigration enforcement. The system’s rollout follows earlier breaches involving Medicaid data and has sparked fears that wellness data could be used for profiling or eligibility decisions, potentially deterring immigrants and mixed-status families from seeking care.
Immigrant Rights & Legal Protections
- Third Court Blocks Birthright Citizenship Order: A U.S. District Court in Boston has become the third court to block Executive Order 14160, which aimed to end birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to undocumented or temporarily present parents. The judge ruled the order unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment, emphasizing that citizenship is a protected right that cannot be revoked by executive action. The decision prevents the order from taking effect nationwide, preserving citizenship for U.S.-born children of noncitizen parents and avoiding legal chaos across states. While the Federal Government has not yet appealed any of the rulings, the issue is widely expected to reach the Supreme Court.
- Pause on Federal Rule Shields Immigrant Communities—For Now: On July 25, the Federal Government agreed to temporarily pause enforcement of four federal notices that would have redefined “federal public benefit” in ways that could restrict access for certain immigrant communities. The pause applies only to 20 states involved in a legal challenge: New York, Washington, Rhode Island, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont and Wisconsin. The proposed changes would newly disqualify individuals who are currently eligible by requiring states and nonprofits to verify immigration status before providing services, raising concerns about a chilling effect on immigrant families seeking healthcare, education, or job training. While the pause is in effect through September 3, the underlying legal battle continues—and the risk of future enforcement remains.
- Sanctuary Policies Upheld, Immigrant Protections Remain in Place: On July 25, a U.S. District Court dismissed the Trump administration’s lawsuit against Chicago, Cook County, and Illinois, that challenged their sanctuary city policies. The court ruled the Federal Government lacked standing and affirmed that local policies are protected under the Tenth Amendment, which bars federal overreach into state authority. While the case was dismissed without prejudice—meaning it could be refiled—the decision reinforces local control and public safety priorities. The ruling protects immigrant communities from local law enforcement cooperation with ICE and may embolden other states facing similar legal threats. Still, communities should remain alert to future challenges.
- Judge Cites Racism in Blocking TPS Terminations: A federal district court temporarily blocked the Trump administration from ending Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for over 60,000 migrants from Nepal, Honduras, and Nicaragua on July 31. The judge condemned HHS Secretary Kristi Noem’s justification as racially discriminatory, writing that the administration was asking migrants “to atone for their race, leave because of their names and purify their blood.” She cited Noem’s claims that immigrants are “some of the most dangerous people in the world” and accused her of promoting the belief that certain groups would replace the white population. The court found that termination would cause economic losses, separate families, and risk “wrongful removal.” “Color is neither a poison nor a crime,” she wrote, adding that plaintiffs seek only “the freedom to live fearlessly.” The order halts the policy at least until a November hearing, unless the administration successfully appeals the decision, as it has done in similar cases. The ruling offers temporary relief for thousands of families who faced the threat of deportation and the loss of legal status, jobs, and community ties.
Climate & Environmental Justice
- Communities Face Uneven Protections as EPA Undermines Climate Law: The Environmental Protection Agency has proposed revoking the 2009 “endangerment finding,” which legally underpins federal climate regulations by recognizing greenhouse gases as a threat to public health and welfare. The Trump administration argues the rollback will save up to $54 billion annually by easing compliance costs and loosening industry standards. However, environmental scientists, legal experts, and former EPA officials have condemned the move as scientifically baseless and dangerous, warning it undermines decades of climate policy and weakens protections for vulnerable communities. The move also ignores the financial and human costs of climate change. Without this legal foundation, states may adopt uneven standards, communities may lose a key tool for pursuing environmental justice, and climate change will accelerate faster.