53.1 F
Seattle
Wednesday, May 6, 2026
type here...
Home Blog Page 5

Takeaways: Supreme Court Signals It Will Side With Trump On Haitian And Syrian Migrants

By
Seattle Medium
-
A person stands with a placard as immigrants' rights activists and demonstrators attend a rally outside the U.S. Supreme Court on April 29. (Nathan Howard/Reuters via CNN Newsource)
A person stands with a placard as immigrants’ rights activists and demonstrators attend a rally outside the U.S. Supreme Court on April 29. (Nathan Howard/Reuters via CNN Newsource)

By John Fritze and Devan Cole, CNN

(CNN) — The Supreme Court indicated Wednesday it will back President Donald Trump’s push to end temporary deportation protections for potentially millions of foreign nationals who hail from countries enduring war and natural disasters.

In one of the most significant immigration appeals to reach the high court during Trump’s second term, the six-justice conservative majority signaled that it believes federal courts might not even have the power to review legal challenges when an administration turns Temporary Protected Status designations on and off.

If that is true, it would have profound implications beyond the Haitian and Syrian nationals who challenged Trump’s decision to end TPS for their countries and could effectively bar suits against other decisions.

More than 1 million immigrants are permitted to live and work in the United States under the program.

Here are five takeaways from oral arguments:

Conservatives signal courts have no role

Several of the conservative justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts, focused on the idea that federal courts have no power to review the legality of TPS decisions. That’s because Congress included a provision in the TPS law that makes clear that an administration’s “determinations” are not reviewable.

“I really don’t understand how you can prevail,” conservative Justice Samuel Alito said, if the court interprets that provision as it has in past decisions.

Ahilan Arulanantham, the attorney arguing on behalf of Syrian TPS beneficiaries, argued that while a final decision isn’t reviewable, the process that officials used to get there can be challenged

But Justice Amy Coney Barrett, another conservative, seemed to doubt that.

“Why would Congress permit review of the procedural aspect when really what everybody cares about is the substance?” she asked.

The court’s focus on procedure, while technical, is also telling. Because the justices were so dialed in on whether the court could even review the case, they spent far less time talking about whether the Trump administration had violated the law or the Constitution in how it made its decisions.

Trump’s comments matter – but only to the liberals

Looming large over Trump’s revocation of TPS for Haiti are a history of offensive comments he has made about the island country and its people who have found a home in the US.

Those comments and similar ones from former DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, the official who formally revoked TPS for Haitians last year, factored heavily into a federal judge’s decision to rule that the policy change was motivated at least in part by racial animus. That is important because if the decision to end TPS was made based on race, it would violate the equal protection clause.

The liberal justices zeroed in on that point Wednesday as they questioned whether the administration’s decision last year was unconstitutionally discriminatory.

“We have a president say at one point that Haiti is a ‘filthy,’ ‘dirty’ and ‘disgusting’ ‘shithole country,’” Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the court’s senior liberal, said at one point to Solicitor General D. John Sauer. “And where he complained that the United States takes people from such countries instead of people from Norway, Sweden or Denmark.”

“He declared illegal immigrants, which he associated with TPS, as ‘poisoning the blood’ of America,” Sotomayor said of Trump, adding: “I don’t see how that one statement” doesn’t show a “discriminatory purpose may have played a part in this decision.”

Sauer responded that the comments from Trump and Noem don’t mention race specifically.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson also pressed Sauer to explain how the court was simply supposed to look past Trump’s comments when the lower court that considerd the TPS move did not.

“The statements about Haiti and eating pets and the names that were called with respect to these immigrants – even though they are lawfully in the United States – those are pretty recent,” she said, referring to Trump’s claims during the 2024 election that Haitian migrants in Ohio were eating dogs. “What do you say about those kinds of things?”

Sauer said the remarks were “made in different contexts that are remote in time” and are therefore “un-illuminating” for this case.

The court’s conservatives, however, largely avoided the president’s comments.

Kavanaugh focuses on present day Syria

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a member of the court’s conservative wing appointed by Trump, was one of the only justices who had questions about the administration’s actual decisions.

But those questions indicated Kavanaugh, who is often a key vote in high-profile cases, agreed with the administration’s decision.

The Obama administration granted TPS for certain Syrians in 2012 following the crackdown on protesters by former Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. That designation was repeatedly extended amid a civil war that erupted there. But Trump officials have noted that the Assad regime fell in 2024, and the Department of Homeland Security announced that it would end the TPS designation last November.

“It’s not the Assad regime anymore though,” Kavanaugh told an attorney representing the Syrian immigrants. “After 53 years of complete oppression and brutal treatment, it’s gone.”

Picking up on a line from the administration’s brief, Kavanaugh pressed Arulanantham on how many Syrians had returned to the country on their own.

“So do you agree the Assad regime change is a significant change in the history of that country and the Middle East more broadly?” he asked.

“I don’t think it’s as simple as that,” Arulanantham responded.

But, Arulanantham said, he didn’t need to get into a debate about whether Syria today is safe or not because, he said, the point is the administration did not conduct an adequate review.

Kagan: ‘I mean, really?’

One of the central questions in the cases is whether the Department of Homeland Security sufficiently consulted with the State Department about conditions on the ground in the two countries before it moved ahead with terminating the TPS designations. That consultation is required by federal law, but the attorneys representing the TPS recipients said the Trump administration gave that process short shrift.

In both cases, a DHS lawyer employee emailed a State Department official about the designations, but the communications they received in return simply stated that State has no foreign policy concerns over a termination of TPS for Haiti and Syria.

Lower courts found that consultation to be far short of what federal law requires DHS to do. But Sauer told the justices that such consultation is highly deferential, and that it didn’t matter what other government agencies told DHS as part of the termination process so long as some communication occurred.

That prompted a series of increasingly incredulous hypothetical questions from liberal Justice Elena Kagan.

What if the DHS secretary asked the State Department for an assessment of the conditions in Syria but never received a response, she asked. What if, instead of responding with information about conditions on the ground, the State Department instead responded with thoughts on a recent baseball game?

“If she sought input from State, she has consulted,” Sauer responded flatly, adding that would full under the “plain meaning” of the word “consulting.”

“I mean, really?” Kagan shot back. “The plain meaning of the word ‘consultation’ seems to be, like, you consult with somebody on a topic.”

Sauer held firm. Even if the State Department was completely unresponsive, he said, the Homeland Security secretary had done all that was required under the law.

“If she sought input from State,” he said, “she has consulted.”

TPS for other countries at stake

The court’s decision, which is expected before the end of June, could affect more than 1 million immigrants in the United States, even though the case itself is focused on some 350,000 Haitians and 6,000 Syrians.

When former President Joe Biden left office, the US had provided — or extended — TPS protections for people from 17 countries. Since Trump returned to office last year, his administration has ended — or attempted to end — TPS designations for all 13 countries that have come up for revie.

The administration has also moved to end TPS designations for South Sudan, Syria and Ethiopia, among others. Many of those decisions are still being reviewed by federal courts and those cases will heavily influenced by what the Supreme Court majority concludes.

The Supreme Court reviewed one of those cases last year on its emergency docket. In that case, the justices twice allowed Trump to strip temporary deportation protections from some 300,000 Venezuelans.
The court did not explain its reasoning.

Jackson wrote an dissent in one of those decisions accusing the administration of attempting to “disrupt as many lives as possible, as quickly as possible.”

CNN’s Priscilla Alvarez and Tami Luhby contributed to this report.

The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.

Justice Department Seeks To Roll Back Gun Control Measures Days After Trump Assassination Attempt

By
Seattle Medium
-
People look at handguns during The Nation's Gun Show in Chantilly, Virginia, in October 2015. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post/Getty Images/File via CNN Newsource)
People look at handguns during The Nation’s Gun Show in Chantilly, Virginia, in October 2015. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post/Getty Images/File via CNN Newsource)

By Holmes Lybrand, Hannah Rabinowitz, CNN

(CNN) — Days after a gunman charged security at the White House Correspondent’s Dinner in what investigators say was an attempt to kill President Donald Trump with legally-owned firearms, his Justice Department is further rolling back gun control measures.

“We’re repealing rules that went beyond what the law allows,” Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said Wednesday at a press conference. “We are cutting unnecessary red tape, and we are replacing confusion with clear, straightforward language so that everyday Americans don’t need a law degree just to understand their rights.”

The administration is proposing 34 new rules — marking the largest amount the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has issued “in the last 15 years combined,” Blanche said, adding that “nothing we are doing today weakens law enforcement.”

According to Blanche and the newly confirmed ATF Director Robert Cekada, the new rules will help gun sellers more easily abide by the law, including by adopting a more narrow definition of who must be a licensed seller.

Cekada, who was confirmed by the Senate Wednesday, also said the ATF would formally rescind a 2023 rule that restricted pistol braces. That rule was struck down in federal court.

A pistol brace, commonly used as an attachment for certain pistols, allow the user to hold the firearm against their shoulder while firing — similar to how long guns like shotguns and rifles are fired.

The Biden administration argued that the pistol brace converted the pistol into a barreled rifle, which can be more heavily regulated in the US.

When asked by CNN if the Justice Department would stop efforts to take gun rights away from non-violent offenders, including for marijuana and drug convictions, Blanche said “of course we are.”

“It’s not possible for us to just unwind” everything in one day, Blanche said. “But it’s also not as clunky as taking forever.”

Gun industry leaders stood behind Blanche as he spoke.

The administration has long been looking for ways to review current gun control laws.

Weeks after entering his second term, Trump signed an executive order requiring the Justice Department to review any regulations or “actions by the Biden Administration regarding firearms” and “to eliminate all infringements on Americans’ Second Amendment rights.”

In the executive order, Trump alleged the Biden administration went after people who sell firearms as part of their livelihood, known as federal firearms licensees, which Trump said “led to a nearly six-fold increase in enforcement actions against” those sellers.

President Joe Biden’s “zero-tolerance” policy for FFLs was meant to revoke licenses from sellers who failed to conduct background checks, sold firearms to an unlawful buyer, and other violations of the law.

“Firearms manufacturers have been de-banked or denied services simply because they make guns — which allow Americans to exercise a constitutional right,” Trump’s executive order from February last year said.

On Saturday, Trump himself was a target of a gunman, investigators say.

Cole Tomas Allen was arrested after rushing through security at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner in Washington, DC, armed with guns. He allegedly sent a note to his family sharing anti-Trump sentiment around the time of the attack.

“Let me reiterate that the Second Amendment will never be treated as a second-class right in the Trump administration,” Blanche said.

This story was updated with additional information from the press conference.

The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.

Prosecutors Detail Timeline In Singer d4vd Murder Case

By
Seattle Medium
-
d4vd looks on from behind his defense attorney Marilyn Bednarski (right) during his arraignment on charges of murder in the case of Celeste Rivas Hernandez at Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center on April 20, in Los Angeles, California. (Ted Soqui/Pool/Getty Images via CNN Newsource)
d4vd looks on from behind his defense attorney Marilyn Bednarski (right) during his arraignment on charges of murder in the case of Celeste Rivas Hernandez at Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center on April 20, in Los Angeles, California. (Ted Soqui/Pool/Getty Images via CNN Newsource)

By Ray Sanchez, Matthew J. Friedman, CNN

Editor’s note: This story includes graphic and disturbing details.

Los Angeles (CNN) — Prosecutors have laid out a detailed and grisly timeline in their case against singer d4vd, who is accused of sexually abusing Celeste Rivas Hernandez starting when she was 13, then fatally stabbing her when she – at 14 years old – threatened to expose their relationship.

Celeste is believed to have been killed April 23, 2025, one day after she and d4vd, whose legal name is David Anthony Burke, had an argument in which she threatened to disclose damaging information about their relationship “to end his career and destroy his life,” according to a filing Wednesday from the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office.

The singer, whose first studio album was released days later, took “horrifying measures to destroy and discard the victim’s body,” the filing says.

D4vd, now 21, bought two chainsaws online that he used to dismember Celeste’s body in an inflatable pool, prosecutors allege, adding her DNA was found in his garage. The singer also made online purchases of a body bag and heavy-duty laundry bags, according to the court document.

Small blue plastic fragments were embedded in the victim’s remains, and an expert with Los Angeles police made “a physical fit match from the blue fragments to the blue inflatable pool” in which Celeste was dismembered, the document says.

D4vd “amputated her left ring and pinky fingers because her ring finger contained a tattoo of his name,” the filing says. “Her fingers have not been recovered.”

D4vd was arrested this month and has pleaded not guilty to charges of first-degree murder with special circumstances, continuous sexual abuse of a child under 14 and mutilating human remains. He is innocent, his attorney said after his arraignment: Evidence “will show that David Burke did not murder Celeste Rivas Hernandez and he was not the cause of her death,” lawyer Blair Berk said.

A judge on Wednesday denied Berk’s request to seal the evidentiary filing, which the defense attorney says is “one-sided” and “replete with hearsay” and has the potential to taint a future jury pool. CNN has sought further comment from Berk.

Celeste was reported missing by family and friends on several occasions, starting in early 2024, and was last seen alive going to d4vd’s home last April. Her dismembered remains were found in the trunk of d4vd’s impounded Tesla in Los Angeles on September 8, a day after she would have turned 15.

Texts reveal sexual contact began when she was 13, prosecutors say

Evidence outlined by the state includes photos of Celeste and the singer engaged in sexual activity, which investigators say began when she was 13 and he was 18. Investigators believe the two met when Celeste was 11 years old, the filing says.

Text messages through March 2025 show how d4vd allegedly manipulated the victim. Celeste wrote in one message, according to prosecutors: “all we do is have sex and just hang out man I want more than that for myself.”

Celeste’s parents reported her missing in February 2024. Detectives with the Riverside County Sheriff’s Office contacted d4vd, who told them he had only met her once and did not know her age, according to the court document.

When the teen returned home that February, her parents took away her cellphone. The defendant then drove to Lake Elsinore and paid a classmate of Celeste $1,000 to give her a phone, prosecutors say.

Celeste and d4vd spent significant time together throughout 2024, including weekend trips to his Hollywood Hills home and visits to Las Vegas, London and Texas, to meet the singer’s family, according to the court document. Text messages between the pair allegedly included references to sex, pregnancy, abortion and the Plan B emergency contraceptive.

‘He had to silence the victim,’ prosecutors say

The night before authorities say Celeste was likely killed, she had a lengthy argument with d4vd, described later in text messages that “reveal the victim’s jealousy over defendant’s relationships with other women, as defendant led her to believe they had a future together,” according to the court document.

“She became extremely upset and threatened to disclose damaging information about her relationship with defendant to end his career and destroy his life,” prosecutors wrote, noting that his first studio album’s release date was April 25, 2025.

On April 23, 2025, the singer sent an Uber to pick up Celeste at her home in Lake Elsinore at about 8:40 p.m. and bring her to his Hollywood Hills home around 10:10 p.m., the court document says.

At about 10:30 p.m. that night, d4vd texted Celeste in what prosecutors describe as part of his “premeditated plan to cover up the murder, as she was already dead by this time.”

“Knowing he had to silence the victim before she ruined his music career as she had threatened, very soon after her arrival at his home, defendant stabbed the victim to death multiple times and stood by while she bled out,” the filing says. “At no time did he call law enforcement or 911 or take her to an emergency room to attempt to save her life.”

Celeste died of “multiple penetrating injuries,” according to an autopsy report released this month. She had wounds on her chest and abdomen that “may represent sharp force injuries,” the Los Angeles County medical examiner’s office said in the report, which was signed in December but sealed for months at the request of law enforcement.

“The Rivas Hernandez family is absolutely devastated by the findings,” Celeste’s family said in a statement after the release of the autopsy report. “They respectfully ask for privacy, understanding, and patience as they process this information.”

This story has been updated.

The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.

Fed’s Key Inflation Gauge Hits 3.5% As Iran War Pushes Up Gas Prices

By
Seattle Medium
-
Fuel prices are displayed at a Brooklyn gas station on April 28, 2026, in New York City. (Spencer Platt/Getty Images via CNN Newsource)
Fuel prices are displayed at a Brooklyn gas station on April 28, 2026, in New York City. (Spencer Platt/Getty Images via CNN Newsource)

By Alicia Wallace, CNN

(CNN) — Fast-rising gas prices lifted the Federal Reserve’s preferred inflation gauge to 3.5% in March, its highest rate in almost three years, new data showed Thursday.

The Personal Consumption Expenditures price index rose 0.7% from February, a faster-than-expected acceleration from the previous monthly pace of 0.4%, the Commerce Department reported Thursday. The annual rate of inflation, which jumped from 2.8% in February, is now running at its fastest pace since May 2023.

Economists were expecting the price index to rise 0.6% from the month before and 3.6% on an annual basis, according to FactSet.

The PCE Price Index is the inflation gauge the Federal Reserve uses for its 2% target rate.

The US-Israeli war against Iran, which is now entering its ninth week, has sent shockwaves through the global economy. Shipping traffic in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz has slowed to a trickle, choking off a vital waterway for the trade of oil, natural gas, fertilizer and other critical materials.

The sharp hike in energy prices, an aftershock of the Middle East conflict’s squeeze on the oil trade, was largely responsible for the sudden jump in inflation.

When excluding food and energy costs, prices rose 0.3% from the month before (a slight downshift from the 0.4% monthly gain notched in February) and increased 3.2% on an annual basis. That’s in line with what economists were expecting; however, the annual rate did move up from 3%.

In addition to the PCE price index, which the Federal Reserve uses for its 2% inflation target, Thursday’s Commerce Department report also provided a look at how households’ spending, income and savings were holding up.

Consumer spending jumped 0.9% from February, but when taking inflation into account, it rose just 0.2%.

The dollars consumers put in their gas tanks and toward other energy goods accounted for 42% of the month’s spending change, Commerce Department data shows.

Households’ personal and disposable (after-tax) income both rose at 0.6% paces in March; however, when accounting for inflation, disposable income dropped by 0.1%, the second consecutive monthly decline.

The personal saving rate fell for the second month in a row as well, dropping to 3.6% from 3.9% and landing at the lowest rate in four years.

Americans have had to adjust to sharply rising gas prices; however, the energy shock hit at a time when many consumers’ coffers were buffered a bit by larger tax refunds. Additionally, wage gains, although slowing, continue to outpace inflation, and some Americans are seeing wealth boosts from rising stock and home values.

The economy has remained “quite resilient,” despite inflation “misbehaving,” Fed Chair Jerome Powell said Wednesday as the US central bank opted to leave interest rates unchanged.

Separate data released Thursday added some support to that resiliency diagnosis: The economy grew at a 2% annualized rate during the first quarter; the estimated 189,000 jobless claims filed last week mark a nearly 60-year low; and workers’ wages and benefits rose at a stronger-than-expected rate of 3.4% during the first quarter.

The US economy does appear to still have “some gas in the tank,” but how much longer households can sustain high oil prices and potential accelerations in inflation remains a key question, noted Scott Anderson, chief US economist at BMO Capital Markets.

“If inflation pressures continue to build in the months ahead, it will be more and more difficult for consumers to keep up,” Anderson wrote in a note to investors on Thursday. “The rapid drop in the personal saving rate since the beginning of the year is a cautionary flag as we move into the second quarter.”

The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.

Are Hidden Fees Quietly Costing You Money?

By
Seattle Medium
-
Photo: peopleimages12 via 123RF

Finances FYI Presented by JPMorgan Chase

Hidden fees rarely show up in big, obvious ways. Instead, they tend to appear as small charges that blend into everyday spending, which is exactly why so many people miss them.

A few dollars here and there might not seem like a big deal in the moment, but those charges can quietly build up over time.

According to Consumer Reports, Americans may lose around $3,200 per year to hidden fees and charges tied to things like banking services, subscriptions, and everyday financial transactions.

The good news is that once you know where these fees tend to hide, it becomes much easier to spot them and decide whether they are worth keeping in your budget.

1. Watch for Banking Fees

Banking fees are one of the most common ways money quietly slips out of an account.

Overdraft fees are a good example. These charges happen when a purchase goes through, even though there isn’t enough money in the account to cover it. According to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the typical overdraft fee has historically been about $34 to $35 per transaction, meaning a small purchase can suddenly become much more expensive than expected.

The CFPB also reports that about 23 million households pay overdraft fees every year, showing just how common these charges still are.If you want to avoid these charges, take a few minutes to review your bank statements from the last couple of months.

Look for anything labeled overdraft, NSF, or maintenance fees. Many banks allow customers to set up balance alerts or link another account as a backup so purchases do not trigger these penalties.

2. Review Your Subscriptions

Subscriptions are another place where hidden spending tends to appear.

Streaming platforms, music services, fitness apps, software tools, and delivery memberships often renew automatically each month or each year. When those renewals happen quietly in the background, it becomes easy to keep paying for services you rarely use.

A quick subscription audit can reveal a lot. Open your banking app or credit card statement and scroll through the last few months of transactions. If you see the same charge appearing over and over again, ask yourself whether the service is something you actually use enough to justify the cost.

Many people find at least one forgotten subscription this way.

Photo: peopleimages12 via 123RF

3. Look Closely at Financial Apps

Modern financial apps are convenient to use, but it’s important to read the fee section before you use them so you understand exactly how the company makes money.

Some budgeting apps, payment platforms, or digital banking tools offer premium versions that come with monthly charges, while others offer services like instant transfers or early paycheck access that include optional fees.

Buy Now, Pay Later services also fall into this category. Though they usually advertise interest-free payments, they may still charge late fees if you miss a due date.

4. Run a Simple Fee Audit

Once you start looking for hidden charges, you will probably notice them more often.

One of the easiest ways to spot them is by doing a quick financial audit. Look at your bank and credit card statements from the past three months for recurring charges, service fees, or penalties.

Make note of anything that repeats or looks unfamiliar. Then ask yourself whether you actually want to keep paying for it.

Paying Attention Makes a Difference

Hidden fees work because a few dollars here and there rarely trigger concern, but over time, those small charges can quietly take a noticeable bite out of a budget.

Taking a few minutes to review your statements, question recurring charges, and understand how your financial apps work can go a long way toward keeping more of your money where it belongs.

Finances FYI is presented by JPMorgan Chase. JPMorgan Chase is making a $30 billion commitment over the next five years to address some of the largest drivers of the racial wealth divide. 

How Gas Prices Have Changed In Seattle In The Last Week

By
Seattle Medium
-
pan demin // Shutterstock
pan demin // Shutterstock
Written By: Stacker

Stacker compiled statistics on gas prices in Seattle-Bellevue-Everett, WA metro area using data from AAA. Gas prices are current as of April 27.

Seattle by the numbers
– Gas current price: $5.70
— Washington average: $5.47
– Week change: +$0.09 (+1.7%)
– Year change: +$1.23 (+27.4%)
– Historical expensive gas price: $5.70 (4/27/26)

– Diesel current price: $7.01
– Week change: -$0.02 (-0.3%)
– Year change: +$2.40 (+52.1%)
– Historical expensive diesel price: $7.11 (4/10/26)

Metros with the least expensive gas
#1. McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX: $3.34
#2. Brownsville-Harlingen, TX: $3.35
#3. Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers, AR: $3.38

Read on to see which metros have the most expensive gas prices.

Rangsarit Chaiyakun // Shutterstock

#5. San Luis Obispo-Atascadero-Paso Robles, CA

– Regular gas price: $6.12
Istvan Csak // Shutterstock

#4. Santa Rosa, CA

– Regular gas price: $6.13
Daniel Avram // Shutterstock

#3. San Francisco, CA

– Regular gas price: $6.14
Elen Nika // Shutterstock

#2. Napa, CA

– Regular gas price: $6.14
Christian Mueller // Shutterstock

#1. San Rafael, CA

– Regular gas price: $6.20

What’s Happening With House Prices In Seattle In 2026?

By
Seattle Medium
-
Sundry Photography // Shutterstock
Sundry Photography // Shutterstock
Written By: Stacker

Home prices across the U.S. have remained at record highs for years, driven by a limited supply and a persistent homebuilding shortage. More recently, economic uncertainty has kept more homebuyers on the sidelines, but it’s also discouraged home sellers, further limiting new listings and putting upward pressure on prices. Sellers who are in the market often have to offer incentives to attract offers from buyers—many of whom are wary of how much they can afford.

On the bright side, prices have begun to grow more slowly, and Redfin predicts that housing will become more affordable as wages outpace prices. But so far this year, the housing market has remained very slow, leaving buyers and sellers trying to time their next move.

So, what’s been happening with home prices in Seattle, WA, in 2026, and how do they compare to previous years? Redfin Real Estate analyzed the city’s January-March average median sale price over the last four years to find out. All data represents the three-month average median from January-March 2026, 2025, 2024, 2023, and 2022.

How have house prices changed in: Seattle, WA

2026

  • Median sale price: $797,333
  • Year-over-year change: -0.5%
  • Percent change from 2022: +4.2%

2025

  • Median sale price: $801,667
  • Year-over-year change: +1.5%
  • Percent change from 2022: +4.8%

2024

  • Median sale price: $789,667
  • Year-over-year change: +9.2%
  • Percent change from 2022: +3.2%

2023

  • Median sale price: $723,317
  • Year-over-year change: -5.5%
  • Percent change from 2022: -5.5%

2022

  • Median sale price: $765,333

How have house prices changed nationwide?

2026

  • Median sale price: $429,526
  • Year-over-year change: +1.0%
  • Percent change from 2022: +9.3%

2025

  • Median sale price: $425,170
  • Year-over-year change: +3.3%
  • Percent change from 2022: +8.2%

2024

  • Median sale price: $411,608
  • Year-over-year change: +5.6%
  • Percent change from 2022: +4.7%

2023

  • Median sale price: $389,707
  • Year-over-year change: -0.8%
  • Percent change from 2022: -0.8%

2022

  • Median sale price: $393,018

This story was produced by Redfin and reviewed and distributed by Stacker.

SCOTUS Voting Rights Decision is ‘Almost As Bad As It Gets’

By
Seattle Medium
-
Intended to provide Black voters an equal opportunity at political power, the Voting Rights Act is an important lever to prevent discrimination at the ballot box. But legal experts warn a Supreme Court decision hollowing out the law could reshape representation for a generation. Credit: iStock
Intended to provide Black voters an equal opportunity at political power, the Voting Rights Act is an important lever to prevent discrimination at the ballot box. But legal experts warn a Supreme Court decision hollowing out the law could reshape representation for a generation. Credit: iStock

by Joseph Williams

When the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision on Wednesday that all but invalidates the Voting Rights Act, legal and voting-rights analysts called it a knockout blow to a powerful tool against racial discrimination at the ballot box. Political analysts predicted it would dismantle Black political power for a generation — or longer. 

Damon Hewitt, president and executive director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, was more succinct: “It’s evil genius, man.” 

“This is a really slick opinion” that technically leaves the Voting Rights Act in place, but dismantles the enforcement mechanism and prevents an easy legislative fix, he says. “It ends up being a rewriting of the VRA” that “usurps” Congress’s power to write laws. 

“We’re left with rights on paper but very few remedies, in fact,” Hewitt says. “This is about as bad as it gets.” 

Louisiana Map Disputed

In a 6-3 decision, the court’s conservative supermajority dismantled Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the last remaining powerful provision of the 1965 civil rights law that prevents racial discrimination in voting. Section 2, which requires states to seek federal permission before changing voting laws, has been a bulwark against the marginalization of minority voters in redistricting.

At issue was a Louisiana congressional map that was specifically redrawn to create two majority-Black districts. Opponents of the plan sued, alleging the map was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander under the Fourteenth Amendment. 

Writing for the conservative majority, Justice Samuel Alito said taking race into consideration in creating Louisiana’s two new congressional seats — even though the state’s Black voters had been underrepresented in Congress for decades — represents “a departure from the constitutional rule that applies in almost every other context.”

“Black people in this country have never enjoyed full representation of power. This decision makes it much less likely that we ever will.” 

Damon Hewett, President, Lawyers Committee for civil rights Under law

The court’s three liberals, however, decried the decision and accused the conservative majority of “eviscerating” voting rights for millions of Americans. Their dissent, written by Justice Elena Kagan, warned that this ruling, combined with other actions, could lead to a resegregation of American society, effectively locking out minority voters.

Upending Decades of Law

“The Voting Rights Act is—or, now more accurately, was—‘one of the most consequential, efficacious, and amply justified exercises of federal legislative power in our Nation’s history,’” she wrote.

“It was born of the literal blood of Union soldiers and civil rights marchers. It ushered in awe-inspiring change, bringing this Nation closer to fulfilling the ideals of democracy and racial equality,” she added. “And it has been repeatedly, and overwhelmingly, reauthorized by the people’s representatives in Congress. Only they have the right to say it is no longer needed—not the Members of this Court.”

The court’s decision is a major upheaval in U.S. civil rights law and gives lawmakers permission to draw districting plans that weaken the influence of Black and other minority voters. Some states may even rush ahead to try to redraw districts ahead of this year’s midterm elections.

In a statement, former President Barack Obama was blunt, calling the decision “just one more example of how a majority of the current Court seems intent on abandoning its vital role in ensuring equal participation in our democracy and protecting the rights of minority groups against majority overreach.”

But Obama also saw a silver lining: “The good news is that such setbacks can be overcome” at the ballot box.  “But that will only happen if citizens across the country who cherish our democratic ideals continue to mobilize and vote in record numbers” in every election, not just the upcoming midterms. 

‘Herculean Task’

Hewett, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights president, agrees. But, he says, it won’t be easy. 

The ruling “impairs black political power but doesn’t impair access to the ballot,” he says, noting that only a handful of states have the time and inclination to take advantage of the ruling this year. That’s because it takes time to redraw the maps and find candidates who qualify, and several states have already held congressional primary elections. 

“I think the real action is between now and what happens in state houses next year,” he says. “A year from now, I think we’ll see a lot of damage” when states, looking for an edge in the 2028 congressional elections, begin redrawing voting maps. 

“By that point, it’s completely open season on racial gerrymandering masked as partisanship,” Hewett says. “There will be a lot of bad results” with Black representatives losing their seats in newly gerrymandered districts. 

Nevertheless, he says, his and other organizations “will keep pushing” even though “there is no easy solution. It’s a Herculean task. We’re in a time right now where we can only defend the laws of the past,” and a new approach is needed. 

The bottom line, Hewett says, is “Black people in this country have never enjoyed full representation of power. This decision makes it much less likely that we ever will.” 

The GOP’s Gerrymandering War May Backfire

By
Seattle Medium
-

By David W. Marshall

(Trice Edney Wire) – These are not normal times we are living in when it comes to the partisan gerrymandering war. The state of Virginia successfully passed a referendum that allows Democrats to hit back hard in their redistricting counteroffensive against the Republicans. Virginia’s current congressional delegation has six Democrats and five Republicans, which accurately reflects the state. The new map turns what was a fair depiction into an advantage, giving Democrats 10 of the state’s 11 districts.

This leaves the Republicans with 9% of the state’s congressional representation, despite Republicans and Republican-leaning voters comprising nearly half of the state’s electorate. The gerrymandering war demonstrates the latest action-reaction dynamic in electoral politics while becoming another example of Sir Isaac Newton’s third law of motion. Newton’s third law states that for every action (force) in nature, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

This means if object A exerts a force on object B, object B will exert an equal and opposite force on object A. President Donald Trump started this current redistricting madness by pressuring Texas legislators to adopt a map that favored Republicans in five seats currently held by Democrats. When Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and the Republican-led legislature complied, the Democrats didn’t accept it without a national fight. Voters in California and now Virginia have aggressively pushed back, “Donald Trump and Republicans launched this gerrymandering war,” House Democratic Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries told reporters. “And we’ve made clear as Democrats that we’re going to finish it.” The political version of Newton’s third law is definitely in play with the president pushing Republicans to gerrymander their states on one side and the House minority leader doing the same with the Democrats on the other.

As I lead a social justice ministry at a local church in Maryland, we are challenged with the reality that many people are not paying attention to and understanding the political climate we face. Particularly, those with long-lasting consequences for the Black community. During a recent SJM meeting, I asked the members to tell me why they felt so many Black people do not consistently vote. The purpose of the question was to identify the reasons and then discuss ways to address them.

The variety of answers included: people don’t understand the voting process and its impact, people are in “survival mode” and focused more on the personal issues of their lives, people see politics as a game and are turned off by it, people don’t vote because there is too much division and voting adds to the division, people lost hope and believe their vote doesn’t count. Each response is understandable. The gerrymandering war can easily turn off voters because it is a game. It is a political game that reflects the constant power grabs for control in our social and political systems, and it feeds into the wide range of reasons people don’t vote.

If I were a voter in Virginia, I too would have voted for the referendum’s passage. In the past, I disagreed with any methods of mapmaking that disproportionally and unfairly flip congressional seats. Generally, gerrymandering is wrong when both parties act to predetermine election results. Before this latest war, Democratic states such as Maryland, New York, and Illinois were already heavily gerrymandered. But these are not normal times, and Newton’s law is needed to keep the aggressive Republican tactics in check.

People must always have the assurance that their one vote does matter, even in this toxic political climate. The results of gerrymandered districts remain in the hands of the voters. The positive signs from Texas show that Hispanic support is not guaranteed to meet 2024 levels. As a result, the president’s plan to create five GOP-friendly districts may actually backfire. While people are correct in their assessment about the divisiveness of politics, it should never mean that political power and control are automatically turned over to elected officials by not casting their vote. Applying Newton’s law to aggressive Republican tactics doesn’t have to be left solely to Democratic-controlled state legislatures. It still comes down to voters in the general elections, especially in gerrymandered districts that remain competitive. It is an encouraging sign to see the opposition party step up. Just as the Democratic leadership pushed back on the issue of gerrymandering by way of a national strategy, can they do the same with the anti-DEI attacks?

David W. Marshall is the founder of the faith-based organization TRB: The Reconciled Body and the author of the book God Bless Our Divided America.

Seattle Public Schools To Implement New Cellphone Policy Beginning Next Week

By
Seattle Medium
-
iStock
iStock

Seattle Public Schools will implement a new districtwide cellphone policy starting next Monday, May 4, requiring students to keep phones off and out of sight during the school day, with rules varying by grade level.

The policy establishes a consistent standard across all schools, following years of uneven enforcement and growing concerns about the impact of cellphone use on student focus, classroom engagement and overall learning environments.

Under the new guidelines, students in grades K–8 must keep phones off and stored away for the entire school day, including during lunch and passing periods. High school students will not be allowed to use phones during instructional time but may access them during lunch and between classes.

District officials said the policy is designed to reduce distractions while still allowing age-appropriate flexibility for older students.

“Cell phones have become one of the biggest barriers to focus and learning in our classrooms,” said Superintendent Ben Shuldiner. “It’s time for us to act decisively, in a commonsense manner. Students deserve the chance to think deeply, engage fully, and be present, and this change makes that possible for every learner in Seattle Public Schools.”

District leaders also say the policy is intended to create more equitable learning environments, where all students are held to the same expectations and have fewer distractions, regardless of school or neighborhood.

At the same time, some advocates note that for certain students, particularly those from immigrant or working-class families, phones can serve as an important tool for communication, translation and access during the school day. That has led some to call for careful implementation that balances consistency with flexibility for student needs.

The district said many schools have already implemented similar restrictions with positive results. The new policy builds on those efforts by creating a single, districtwide expectation, reducing confusion for families and eliminating differences in how rules are applied from one school to another.

The updated procedure was developed following a districtwide review of cellphone practices, including observations at pilot schools, analysis of policies in other districts, and input from educators, families and students. District officials said that process helped shape a policy that reflects both research and real classroom experience.

School leaders and educators say the consistency will make enforcement more manageable and improve classroom dynamics.

“One of the hardest parts of enforcing a school-based procedure is when families don’t have the same experience at the school down the street,” said Adrian Manriquez, principal of Washington Middle School. “This districtwide standard changes that. It gives school leaders a clear, unified expectation to stand behind.”

Teachers also say limiting phone use has already made a noticeable difference in schools that adopted earlier versions of the policy.

“Middle school is already full of distractions for adolescents, and removing cell phones has made my job immensely better,” said Dennis DeBell, a teacher at Robert Eagle Staff Middle School. “The biggest change is that I’m no longer put in the difficult position of telling students to ignore calls and messages from their parents during class.”

Experts and educators in other districts have also raised questions about how cellphone policies are enforced, noting that discipline practices can sometimes disproportionately impact students of color if rules are not applied consistently. District officials have emphasized that the new policy is intended to create clarity, not increase punitive discipline.

Parents and students expressed support for clearer, more consistent expectations across schools.

“When phone rules change from classroom to classroom, kids get mixed signals and teachers are left holding the bag,” said parent Katherine Cheng. “One clear districtwide standard takes that pressure off everyone.”

Garfield High School senior Samrawit Newton said reducing phone use could help restore a stronger sense of classroom community.

“Before COVID, classrooms felt more collaborative and community oriented,” said Newton. “Creating phone-free academic spaces would foster stronger collaboration and better prepare SPS students for future professional settings.”

Supporters of the policy also say limiting phone use may help reduce social pressures tied to constant connectivity, including social media stress and cyberbullying, which can disproportionately affect students already navigating mental health challenges.

District officials said the policy is grounded in research showing that cellphone use can disrupt learning. Studies indicate students may take up to 20 minutes to refocus after a distraction, and even the presence of a smartphone can negatively impact academic performance and attention.

The Washington State Legislature has also identified mobile device use as a factor that can negatively affect student outcomes, adding to the growing body of research that districts are using to guide policy decisions.

Families will still be able to reach students during the school day by contacting school offices, and district-issued devices will continue to be used for instruction as directed by teachers.

Exceptions will be made for students who require access to personal devices for medical needs or as part of individualized education programs or 504 plans.

1...456...3,762Page 5 of 3,762

© 2026, Tiloben Publishing Co., Inc. All Rights Reserved.

About Us

Popular Category

Info