By SCOTT BAUER, Associated Press

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — The Wisconsin Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered a pair of three-judge panels to hear two lawsuits that argue the battleground state’s congressional maps must be redrawn because they unconstitutionally favor Republicans.

The court’s minority conservative justices blasted the creation of the three-judge panels as unimaginable political maneuvering designed to benefit Democrats. It’s unclear whether new districts could be ordered in time for the 2026 midterms as some Democrats want.

The court battle in Wisconsin is playing out amid a national redistricting battle as President Donald Trump is trying to preserve a slim Republican majority in the House in next year’s elections.

Related Articles

DC Mayor Bowser announces she won’t seek fourth term, as Trump’s federal intervention continues

Democratic congressman’s lawsuit claims Trump housing official abused post to target Trump critics

X’s new feature raises questions about the foreign origins of some popular US political accounts

Political consultant defies court order in lawsuit over AI robocalls that mimicked Biden

Trump EPA moves to abandon rule that sets tough standards for deadly soot pollution

Both of the pending redistricting cases in Wisconsin argue that the state’s congressional maps, first adopted in 2011, are an unconstitutional gerrymander favoring Republicans. Six of the state’s eight districts are currently held by Republicans.

Law firms that brought the pending cases in Wisconsin had argued over objections from Republicans that the cases should be heard by three-judge panels as required under a 2011 law passed by the GOP-controlled Legislature and signed by then-Gov. Scott Walker, a Republican. Any decisions of those panels can be appealed to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which is controlled 4-3 by liberal justices.

The court’s rulings to proceed with the three-judge panels were 5-2, with conservative Justice Brian Hagedorn agreeing with liberal justices that the panels were appropriate. But Hagedorn objected to the court assigning the judges to hear the cases, saying a more neutral process should have been used.

“I am not suggesting the judicial panel will fail to do its job with integrity and impartiality,” Hagedorn wrote. “But this approach is an odd choice in the face of a statute so clearly designed to deter litigants from selecting their preferred venue and judge.”

One case will be heard by judges from Dane, Portage and Marathon counties. All three of the judges endorsed Justice Susan Crawford, the liberal candidate in this year’s Wisconsin Supreme Court race, and two of them were appointed by Democratic Gov. Tony Evers.

The other case will be heard by judges from Dane, Milwaukee and Outagamie counties. Two of the judges endorsed the liberal Crawford this year and the third was appointed by Evers.

The two dissenting conservative justices blasted the court’s ruling creating the panels.

“Hand picking circuit court judges to perform political maneuvering is unimaginable,” Justice Annette Ziegler wrote. “Yet, my colleagues persist and appear to do this, all in furtherance of delivering partisan, political advantage to the Democratic Party.”

The Supreme Court did not address the underlying arguments of the lawsuit, only the procedural question of whether the cases should first be heard by three-judge panels.

The lawsuits argue that the state’s current congressional district boundary lines are unconstitutional and need to be redrawn. One case was brought by a bipartisan coalition of business leaders and the other was filed on behalf of voters by the liberal Elias Law Group.

Abha Khanna, a partner with Elias Law Group, said the ruling was a “positive development” in the fight for new maps before the 2026 midterms.

Doug Poland, an attorney with Law Forward which represents the business group, said he looked forward to “delivering competitive congressional maps for the voters of Wisconsin,” but didn’t give a timeframe.

Wisconsin’s six Republican members of Congress also argued that two of the four liberal Wisconsin Supreme Court justices who accepted millions of dollars in campaign donations from the state Democratic Party should not participate in the cases. But both Crawford and Justice Janet Protasiewicz declined to step aside.

Republicans hold six of the state’s eight U.S. House seats, but only two of those districts are considered competitive. In 2010, the year before Republicans redrew the congressional maps, Democrats held five seats compared with three for Republicans.

The current congressional maps, which were based on the previous ones, were approved by the state Supreme Court when it was controlled by conservative judges. The U.S. Supreme Court in March 2022 declined to block them from taking effect.

Democrats are pushing to have the current maps redrawn in ways that would put two of the six seats currently held by Republicans into play. One they hope to flip is the western Wisconsin seat of Republican Rep. Derrick Van Orden, who won in 2022 after longtime Democratic Rep. Ron Kind retired. Van Orden won reelection in the 3rd District in 2024.

The other seat they are eyeing is southeastern Wisconsin’s 1st District, held by Republican Rep. Bryan Steil since 2019. The latest maps made that district more competitive while still favoring Republicans.

The cases are pending after the Wisconsin Supreme Court earlier this year refused to hear other congressional redistricting challenges.

By ALEX VEIGA, Associated Press

The Federal Housing Finance Agency is increasing the size of home loans that the government can guarantee against default as it takes into account rising housing prices.

Beginning next year, mortgage buyers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will be able to acquire loans of up to $832,750 on single-family homes in most of the country, the agency said Tuesday.

The new conforming loan limit is a 3.3% increase from its 2025 level.

FHFA oversees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which buy home loans from banks and other lenders, guaranteeing them against default. The loans are then bundled into securities sold to investors.

But FHFA sets limits to the size of the loans that Fannie and Freddie can buy. Such loans are known as conforming loans, while mortgages above the conforming loan limit are known as jumbo loans.

FHFA adjusts the limits of a confirming loan annually to reflect changes in U.S. home values, which have been rising this year, albeit more slowly.

Related Articles

Political consultant defies court order in lawsuit over AI robocalls that mimicked Biden

Campbell’s IT chief on leave after lawsuit claims he said company’s food is for ‘poor people’

Trump EPA moves to abandon rule that sets tough standards for deadly soot pollution

Civil rights leader Jesse Jackson leaves hospital after treatment for neurological disorder

FBI seeks interviews with Democratic lawmakers who urged US troops to defy illegal orders

The U.S. housing market has been in a slump since 2022, when mortgage rates began climbing from historic lows. Sales of previously occupied U.S. homes sank last year to their lowest level in nearly 30 years.

Sales have remained sluggish this year, running essentially flat compared to last year through the first 10 months of 2025, even after getting a boost this fall as the average rate on a 30-year mortgage declined to its lowest level in more than a year.

The FHFA’s House Price Index showed that, on average, U.S. home prices climbed 3.3% in the July-September quarter compared to a year earlier.

The 2026 single-family home conforming loan limit will apply to most of the country, though the FHFA allows higher loan limits for certain states, such as Alaska and Hawaii, and in counties where the local median home value is more than double the conforming loan limit.

For example, the conforming loan limit for single-family homes in Los Angeles and New York counties will be $1,249,125 starting next year.

By BARBARA ORTUTAY, Associated Press

They go by names like @TRUMP_ARMY— or @MAGANationX, and their verified accounts proudly display portraits of President Donald Trump, voter rallies and American flags. And they’re constantly posting about U.S. politics to their followers, sounding like diehard fans of the president.

But after a weekend update to the social media platform X, it’s now clear that the owners of these accounts, and many others, are located in regions such as South Asia, Africa and Eastern Europe.

Elon Musk’s X unveiled a feature Saturday that lets users see where an account is based. Online sleuths and experts quickly found that many popular accounts posting in support of the MAGA movement to thousands or hundreds of thousands of followers, are based outside the United States — raising concerns about foreign influence on U.S. politics.

Researchers at NewsGuard, a firm that tracks online misinformation, identified several popular accounts — purportedly run by Americans interested in politics – that instead were based in Eastern Europe, Asia or Africa.

The accounts were leading disseminators of some misleading and polarizing claims about U.S. politics, including ones that said Democrats bribed the moderators of a 2024 presidential debate.

Related Articles

Political consultant defies court order in lawsuit over AI robocalls that mimicked Biden

Trump EPA moves to abandon rule that sets tough standards for deadly soot pollution

FBI seeks interviews with Democratic lawmakers who urged US troops to defy illegal orders

Dismissal of Comey, James cases won’t be the final word. Here’s what the path ahead may look like

Some DACA recipients have been arrested in the Trump’s immigration crackdown

What is the location feature?

Nikita Bier, X’s head of product, announced Saturday that the social media platform is rolling out an “About This Account” tool, which lets users see the country or region where an account is based. To find an account’s location, tap or click the signup date displayed on the profile.

“This is an important first step to securing the integrity of the global town square. We plan to provide many more ways for users to verify the authenticity of the content they see on X,” Bier wrote.

In countries with punitive speech restrictions, a privacy tool on X lets account holders only show their region rather than a specific country. So instead of India, for instance, an account can say it is based in South Asia.

Bier said Sunday that after an update to the tool, it would 99.99% accurate, though this could not be independently verified. Accounts, for instance, can use a virtual private network, or VPN, to mask their true location. On some accounts, there’s a notice saying the location data may not be accurate, either because the account uses a VPN or because some internet providers use proxies automatically, without action by the user.

Which accounts are causing controversy?

Some of the accounts supported slain conservative activist Charlie Kirk as well as President Donald Trump’s children. Many of the accounts were adorned with U.S. flags or made comments suggesting they were American. An account called “@BarronTNews_,” for instance, is shown as being located in “Eastern Europe (Non-EU),” even though the display location on its profile says “Mar A Lago.” The account, which has more than 580,000 followers, posted on Tuesday that “This is a FAN account, 100 % independent, run by one guy who loves this country and supports President Trump with everything I’ve got.”

NewsGuard also found evidence that some X users are spreading misinformation about the location feature itself, incorrectly accusing some accounts of being operated from abroad when they’re actually used by Americans. Investigators found several instances where one user created fake screenshots that appear to suggest an account was created overseas.

It’s not always clear what the motives of the accounts. While some may be state actors, it’s likely that many are financially motivated, posting commentary, memes and videos to draw engagement.

Users were divided over the new ability to see an account’s location information, with some questioning whether it went too far.

“Isn’t this kind of an invasion of privacy?” One X user wrote. “No one needs to see this info.”

Associated Press Writer David Klepper contributed to this story.

By HOLLY RAMER, Associated Press

CONCORD, N.H. (AP) — A political consultant who sent artificial intelligence-generated robocalls mimicking former President Joe Biden to New Hampshire Democrats said Tuesday he will not pay $22,500 to three voters despite a recent federal court order.

The order, issued Friday in a lawsuit brought by the League of Women Voters, came five months after a jury acquitted Steven Kramer of voter suppression and impersonating a candidate. In the civil case, the judge entered a default judgement after Kramer failed to appear in court.

“I never responded to them because I was already acquitted on 22 counts,” Kramer said in an email, insisting that the lawsuit was a publicity stunt that wasted the court’s time. He also has refused to pay a $6 million fine issued by the Federal Communications Commission.

Related Articles

X’s new feature raises questions about the foreign origins of some popular US political accounts

Trump EPA moves to abandon rule that sets tough standards for deadly soot pollution

FBI seeks interviews with Democratic lawmakers who urged US troops to defy illegal orders

Dismissal of Comey, James cases won’t be the final word. Here’s what the path ahead may look like

Some DACA recipients have been arrested in the Trump’s immigration crackdown

Though jurors sided with Kramer in the criminal trial, the judge in the civil case not only ordered him to pay $7,500 to each voter who sued but banned him from engaging in the same conduct nationwide. Caren Short, director of legal and research at the League of Women Voters, described the decision as a “critical precedent against the weaponization of artificial intelligence in elections.”

Plaintiffs will explore further action if Kramer doesn’t pay up, said Courtney Hostetler of Free Speech for People, which provided the League with legal assistance.

“Mr. Kramer has shown a consistent disregard for the law and the rights of voters,” she said. “His plan to defy the court’s order continues this pattern, and reinforces the importance of the injunction and the damages award.”

Kramer, 56, of New Orleans, admitted orchestrating a message sent to thousands of voters two days before the state’s Jan. 23, 2024, presidential primary. Recipients heard an AI-generated voice similar to Biden’s that suggested that voting in the primary would preclude voters from casting ballots in November.

“It’s important that you save your vote for the November election,” voters were told. “Your votes make a difference in November, not this Tuesday.”

Kramer, who would have faced decades in prison if convicted, testified that he wanted to send a wake-up call about the potential dangers of AI when he paid a New Orleans magician $150 to create the recording. He said he was getting frequent calls from people using AI in campaigns, and, worried about the lack of regulations, made it his New Year’s resolution to take action.

“This is going to be my one good deed this year,” he recalled while testifying in Belknap County Superior Court in June.

Kramer argued that the primary was a meaningless straw poll, and therefore the state’s voter suppression law didn’t apply. The primary was held in defiance of the Democratic National Committee, which had dislodged New Hampshire from its traditional spot in the nominating calendar, though the state’s delegates were still seated at the national convention. Biden did not put his name on the ballot or campaign there but won as a write-in.

Lingo Telecom, the company that transmitted the calls, agreed to pay $1 million in a settlement with the FCC in August 2024. The agency, which did not respond to requests for comment, was developing AI-related rules when Donald Trump won the presidency, but it has since shown signs of a shift toward loosening regulations.

And though multiple states have enacted legislation targeting the use of video or audio content that mimics candidates in political campaigns, Trump is considering pressuring states to stop regulating artificial intelligence. Trump and some Republicans argue that such regulation will dampen innovation, while critics worry about allowing big AI companies to operate with little oversight.