US top court mulls scrapping Syrians', Haitians' protection

The US Supreme Court on Wednesday leaned toward ruling in favor of moves by the Donald Trump administration to strip Haitians and Syrians living in the country of humanitarian protections.

While hearing arguments in the case, several of the court's conservative justices appeared sympathetic toward moves to strip over 350,000 Haitians and 6,100 Syrians of the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designation. 

What to know about the TPS status for Syrians and Haitians 

TPS gives migrants whose countries were struck by war, natural disaster or other catastrophes the right to live and work in the US as long as it is unsafe for them to return to their home countries.

Venezuelans fear deportation after Trump changes TPS rule

To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video

The State Department currently advises against all travel to either Haiti or Syria, with a level 4 travel advisory, the highest level, for both countries.

Haitians earned the TPS designation after a major 2010 earthquake, whereas Syrians were added to the list in 2012 after their country descended into civil war.

The Trump administration has been trying to revoke the TPS designation of 13 of the 17 countries designated.

During his election campaign, Trump vowed to rescind TPS for Haitians, falsely claiming they were eating household dogs and cats in Ohio.

US Supreme court votes against second majoriy-Black district in Louisiana

Also on Wednesday, in a separate case related to voting rights, the Supreme Court sharply limited the use of race in drawing electoral districts, with the justices ruling in favor of a challenge to a map that creates a second majority-Black district in the southern state of Louisiana.

The decision could alter congressional maps nationwide in favor of the Republicans ahead of the November midterm elections.

The court's ruling found that the map in question amounted to an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.

Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito said that compliance with the Voting Rights Act (VRA) "could not justify" the use of race in this case, arguing that Section 2 of the act does not require states to draw districts primarily on racial lines.

"That map is an unconstitutional gerrymander, and its use would violate the plaintiffs' constitutional rights," he said, referring to the group of non-Black voters who brought the case.

Justice Elena Kagan, one of the three liberal-leaning justices at the top court, warned in a dissent that the decision would have sweeping consequences, saying it risked letting states "systematically dilute minority citizens' voting power" without legal redress.

Texas lawmakers approve electoral map favoring Republicans

To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video

It is unclear how much the ruling would impact the November midterms, with a primary election slated for May 16 in white-majority Louisiana, where Black people make up roughly a third of the population.

Black people and other minorities tend to support Democratic candidates.

Both the Republicans and Democrats are trying to redraw electoral maps, in ways that could potentially shift the balance of power in the currently Republican-dominated Congress.

Edited by: Srinivas Mazumdaru