How are the U.S. businesses of Philip Morris International invested in America?

We're invested in advancing science, giving adults who smoke better options.

We're invested in American manufacturing, helping local economies thrive.

We're invested in community, supporting military veterans and their families,

disaster relief, and economic empowerment.

Because we're proud to be invested in America. See how at uspMI.com.

From the opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal, this is Potomac Watch.

The Supreme Court rules 6.3 to limit the judiciary's ability to order racial gerrymandering under the Voting Rights Act

to create minority-majority House seats. One of the justices say, which states might now

redo their district maps, and how might this affect the nation's

political debate in the years to come? Welcome, I'm Kyle Peterson with the Wall Street Journal.

We are joined today by my colleagues on the WSJ's opinion pages, columnist Alicia Finley and Kim Strassel.

For decades, the lower courts have struggled to figure out how and

whether and when to order states to gerrymander by race. And the district maps that issue in

Louisiana v. Calais are a case in point. After the 2020 census, the state created a map that

had one black majority district centered on New Orleans.

One court said that Louisiana had violated the Voting Rights Act because it should have drawn two

minority-majority districts. The state complied by creating a second district running from

Baton Rouge to Shreveport, but then a second court said that that map was too influenced by racial considerations and it violated the Constitution.

On Wednesday, in an opinion by Justice Samuel Alito, the Supreme Court said that Louisiana was never required in the first place to create that second minority-majority district district while tightening the standard for such

claims in federal courts.

Alicia, what is your read of what this ruling says?

...