By JOHN HANNA, Associated Press

Texas cannot use a new congressional map drawn by Republicans in hopes of securing the party additional U.S. House seats, a panel of three federal judges ruled Tuesday.

Related Articles

Court settlement calls for NPR to get $36M in government funds to operate US public radio system

Education Department offloads some work to other agencies as Trump presses for its closure

Judge tosses DoJ lawsuit challenging a New York law barring immigration agents from state courts

Trump’s comments about Fuentes and Carlson could prolong a Republican rift over antisemitism

Group of South Carolina lawmakers look at the most restrictive abortion bill in the US

The ruling was a blow to President Donald Trump’s efforts to have GOP lawmakers in multiple states redraw their maps to help the party preserve its slim House majority in the potentially difficult 2026 midterm elections.

“The public perception of this case is that it’s about politics. To be sure, politics played a role in drawing the 2025 Map. But it was much more than just politics. Substantial evidence shows that Texas racially gerrymandered the 2025 Map,” the ruling states.

Texas this summer was the first state to meet Trump’s demands in what has become an expanding national battle over redistricting. Republicans drew the state’s new map to give the GOP five additional seats, and Missouri and North Carolina followed with new maps adding an additional Republican seat each. To counter those moves, California voters approved a ballot initiative to give Democrats an additional five seats there.

The 2-1 decision followed a nearly two-week trial in El Paso, Texas. Texas’ expected appeal would be directly to the U.S. Supreme Court, under a federal law dealing with redistricting lawsuits.

A coalition of civil rights groups representing Black and Hispanic voters argued the map reduced the influence of minority voters, making it a racial gerrymander that violates the federal Voting Rights Act and the U.S. Constitution.

They sought an order blocking Texas from using the map while their case proceeded, which would force the state to use the map drawn by the GOP-controlled Legislature in 2021 for next year’s elections.

The panel of judges granted the critics’ request, signaling that they think those critics have a substantial chance of winning their case at trial. Judges appointed by Trump and Democratic President Barack Obama formed the majority. An appointee of Republican President Ronald Reagan dissented.

Republicans in Texas said repeatedly during the Legislature’s debates this summer, and after, that they were redrawing districts solely to help Republicans win more seats. The U.S. Supreme Court gave states the go-ahead to pursue partisan gerrymandering by ruling in 2019 that it’s a political issue beyond the reach of the federal courts.

Republicans hold 25 of Texas’ 38 congressional seats, with Democrats holding two of their 13 seats in districts that Trump carried in 2024. Had the new map been in place last year, Trump would have carried 30 congressional districts by 10 percentage points or more, making it likely that the GOP would have won that many seats as well.

Democrats across the U.S. have described the redistricting in Texas and other states as a power grab by Trump designed to prevent a congressional check on him, regardless of voter anger. Republicans are keen to avoid a repeat of the 2018 midterms, when they lost the majority and the Democratic-controlled House twice impeached Trump.

The new map decreased from 16 to 14 the number of congressional districts where minorities comprise a majority of voting-age citizens.

In doing so, they eliminated what had been five of nine “coalition” districts, where no racial or ethnic minority has a majority but together minorities outnumber non-Hispanic whites in the voting-age population. Five of six Democratic lawmakers drawn into districts with other incumbents are Black or Hispanic.

Yet Republicans argued that the map is better for minority voters. While five “coalition” districts are eliminated, there’s a new, eighth Hispanic-majority district, and two new Black-majority districts.

Critics consider each of those new districts a sham, arguing that the majority is so slim that white voters, who tend to turn out in larger numbers, will control election results.

“They gave your job to AI. They picked profit over people. That’s not going to happen when I’m in office. We’re going to tax companies that automate away your livelihood. We’re going to halt excessive use of AI. We’re going to make sure the American Dream isn’t outsourced to AI labs. Anyone who isn’t with us, anyone who is telling you that AI is the future, is ignoring the here and now — they’re making a choice to trade your livelihood for the so-called future. That’s a trade I’ll never make. There’s no negotiating away the value of a good job and strong communities.”

Persuasive, right? It’s some version of the stump speech we’re likely to hear in the lead up to the midterm elections that are just around the corner—in fact, they’re less than a year away.

It’s a message that will resonate with Americans who have bounced from one economic crisis to the next — wondering when, if ever, they’ll be able to earn a good wage, pay their rent, and buy groceries without counting pennies as they walk down each aisle.

It’s a message that’s also destined to leave Americans economically worse off in the long run.

Technology causes job displacement. It’s a tale as old as innovation. In the short run, this can lead to a spike in unemployment and, as a result, a demand for political action to ease economic insecurity. One tactic may be to stop the development and spread of the technology itself. The thinking goes that if today’s jobs are artificially protected from tomorrow’s technology, then more Americans can hang on to their current role and maintain some degree of stability.

Politically, such thinking might make sense — politicians are rewarded for thinking about the here and now under our current electoral system. Yet, economically, this approach lacks support. The surest way to help everyday folks achieve the American Dream in the Age of AI is not to wrap them and our economy in an AI bubble wrap. That’s actually a recipe for economic calamity.

The states and nations that survive and thrive through the disruptions brought on by AI will be the ones that focus on economic resiliency, not economic entrenchment. This tactic involves three key strategies: AI literacy, AI adoption, and economic dynamism.

On AI literacy, beware the party that effectively encourages you to ignore AI or even actively avoid it. Fundamental knowledge of whether and how to use AI tools will become as basic as Outlook proficiency in a few years. In the same way that most folks no longer include “Word” and “Excel” as core competencies on their resume, employers will soon come to expect that applicants and employees have familiarity with AI tools.

Policymakers should help you prepare for that world rather than try to dodge it. Any delayed introduction to AI will diminish the long-term competitiveness of U.S. workers. It’s no secret that ongoing exposure and education to new technology make it easier to pick up the next tool. The individuals who continually experiment with AI and learn its faults and strengths will have an easier time keeping up with the rapid advances in the field. On the other hand, when protectionist measures expire and workers with little AI training find themselves back on the market, they will have a much tougher time.

On AI adoption, beware the party that chastises companies for using AI and otherwise attempts to block certain professions from trialing new AI uses. There are many unproductive ways to use AI — uses that detract from a company’s bottom line, that hinder operational efficiencies, and that harm consumers.

Critically, however, there are uses that will result in new products, new services, and, most importantly, new jobs. Discovery of both the good and the bad will not happen by accident. If we’re going to uncover the jobs of the future, then we need businesses today to act as AI laboratories.

Finally, on economic dynamism, beware the party that treats it as its mission to freeze our economy in amber by constructing barriers to entry for AI-forward firms. At these early stages of AI, it’s easy to spot bad apples — firms that come up with the latest “AI” play that’s actually a poorly disguised scam.

This may be particularly likely in areas like education, mental health, and financial services. Short-term political thinking may lead candidates to urge whole bans on AI in certain industries. This may generate applause at a pep rally, but it’s also likely to quash entrepreneurial activity in those areas. Startups that could have developed the next great app that empowers more Americans in the classroom or supports them through hard times will pivot to other fields or simply not get off the ground. That’s not a dynamic economy; that’s an economy that rewards entrenched incumbents.

In sum, the future isn’t a trade-off between livelihoods and technology. That’s a false choice, born of short-term political thinking and economic anxiety. The real trade is between a nation that chooses to bury its head in the sand—and one that chooses to adapt and lead.

Instead of trying to halt the inevitable march of progress, our focus should be on preparing Americans for the future. That means championing AI literacy in our schools and workplaces, so that every citizen can become an active participant in this new economy. It means fostering AI adoption by giving businesses the freedom to experiment and discover the new products, services, and jobs that will drive our growth. And it means cultivating economic dynamism by removing the regulatory barriers that stifle innovation and protect powerful incumbents.

The true American Dream isn’t about clinging to the past; it’s about building a better future. The path to a strong, prosperous, and resilient nation in the age of AI isn’t through prohibition — it’s through preparation. Now’s the time to anticipate and refute those who want to score political points with short-term perspectives.

Kevin Frazier is an AI Innovation and Law Fellow at Texas Law and author of the Appleseed AI substack.He wrote this column The Fulcrum, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news platform covering efforts to fix our governing systems.

Related Articles

David Brooks: Quest for a better way to be faithful in the world

Bret Stephens: Meet the new antisemites, same as the old antisemites

Linda Hansen: Rebuilding civic trust in the age of algorithmic division

Allison Schrager: Cash is no longer king. It’s cringe

Parmy Olson: Mark Zuckerberg is picking groupthink over an AI godfather

By BARBARA ORTUTAY

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Meta has prevailed over an existential challenge to its business that could have forced the tech giant to spin off Instagram and WhatsApp after a judge ruled that the company does not hold a monopoly in social networking.

U.S. District Judge James Boasberg issued his ruling Tuesday after the historic antitrust trial wrapped up in late May. His decision follows two separate rulings that branded Google an illegal monopoly in both search and online advertising, dealing yet another regulatory blow to the tech industry that for years enjoyed nearly unbridled growth.

The FTC “continues to insist that Meta competes with the same old rivals it has for the last decade, that the company holds a monopoly among that small set, and that it maintained that monopoly through anticompetitive acquisitions,” Boasberg wrote in his ruling. “Whether or not Meta enjoyed monopoly power in the past, though, the agency must show that it continues to hold such power now. The Court’s verdict today determines that the FTC has not done so.”

Related Articles

Artificial intelligence sparks debate at COP30 climate talks in Brazil

What does ‘agentic’ AI mean? Tech’s newest buzzword is a mix of marketing fluff and real promise

Honda recalls 256,600 Accord Hybrids due to software error that may lead to loss of drive power

Wall Street drops again as Nvidia, bitcoin and other stars keep swinging

Will the price be right? What shoppers can expect for the holiday season

By DEE-ANN DURBIN

Kroger said Tuesday it’s closing three automated fulfillment centers as part of an effort to make its delivery operations faster and more profitable.

Related Articles

Artificial intelligence sparks debate at COP30 climate talks in Brazil

What does ‘agentic’ AI mean? Tech’s newest buzzword is a mix of marketing fluff and real promise

Honda recalls 256,600 Accord Hybrids due to software error that may lead to loss of drive power

Wall Street drops again as Nvidia, bitcoin and other stars keep swinging

Will the price be right? What shoppers can expect for the holiday season

The nation’s largest grocer said it will close facilities in Pleasant Prairie, Wisconsin; Frederick, Maryland; and Groveland, Florida, in January. The company said it will monitor the performance of its five remaining facilities.

“We are taking decisive action to make shopping easier, offer faster delivery times, provide more options to our customers, and we expect to deliver profitable sales growth as a result,” Kroger Chairman and CEO Ron Sargent said in a statement.

Kroger partnered with British grocery technology company Ocado Group in 2018 to build warehouses where robots would pick and pack grocery delivery orders. Initially, the companies planned 20 locations, but only eight have been built so far.

Kroger said it will incur a $2.6 billion charge in its fiscal third quarter related to the closure of its operations. The company said it expects the closures will improve its e-commerce operating profit by $400 million in 2026.

Ocado shares fell 16% Tuesday on the London Stock Exchange. Kroger shares were up 1% Tuesday morning on the New York Stock Exchange.

During a conference call with investors in September, Sargent said that in most locations, it makes sense to use stores to fulfill delivery orders instead of centralized warehouses.

Stores are closer to customers, so orders can be delivered more quickly and cheaply, Sargent said. He said Kroger is capable of delivering orders in less than two hours from 97% of its 2,700 U.S. stores.

“Stores are our most important asset,” Sargent said.

Sargent said that in some high-density areas with strong delivery demand, automated fulfillment facilities are delivering better results.

At the same time, Kroger is also leaning more heavily into partnerships with third-party providers. In September, the company said it was expanding its partnership with DoorDash. DoorDash offered delivery of sushi, flowers and prepared meals from Kroger starting in 2022, but it now offers delivery of Kroger’s full assortment of products.

Last month, Kroger announced a similar expanded partnership with Uber Eats. And earlier this month, Kroger said it was working with Instacart to expand express delivery from its stores. Kroger will also be one of the first retailers to offer access to Instacart’s AI assistant, which builds delivery orders automatically based on customers’ preferences and provides meal ideas.