The Details Behind the Recent Obama Developments You May Have Missed...
Federal investigators raided a Soros-funded voter mobilization group on Thursday as part of an ongoing fraud investigation.
MS Now reported that on June 11, FBI agents raided the Ohio Organizing Collaborative (OOC) headquarters and went across the state questioning members of the group, sometimes with subpoenas or electronic devices.
Multiple sources familiar with the events told CBS News a day later that the operations were part of a fraud-related investigation.
The raid is the latest flashpoint in the Trump administration’s expanded use of federal law enforcement to probe alleged voter fraud and election-related misconduct.
The push has been cheered by conservatives who have long argued such cases were underenforced and condemned by Democrats and voting rights groups who say the effort risks turning the FBI into a political weapon against liberal voter registration operations.
OOC is a nonprofit organization that partners with the Democratic Party in Ohio on voter mobilization and registration efforts. It is especially active in ballot referendums, using its huge network of donors, including the philanthropies of the Soros family.
The Justice Department declined to comment on the specifics of the alleged investigation.
“Search warrants are authorized by a judge, and anything said by any organization or others in the media is unfounded speculation, as the target of any investigation is not privy to the search warrant affidavit until after indictment,” a DOJ official told Fox News.
Last year, the group spent $250,000 to oppose a GOP-led effort to block codifying the right to an abortion in Ohio’s constitution and another $300,000 on a subsequent Republican redistricting effort.
OOC funds these things by tapping a deep well of liberal donors at the very top level.
Recent tax documents show the organization had more than $10 million in revenue in 2024.
OOC’s considerable financial resources are derived from a host of high-profile Democratic-aligned donor organizations like the Soros family’s philanthropies, New Venture Fund, and the Tides Foundation, as well as unions including the American Federation of Teachers and the Service Employees International Union.
Between 2019 and 2020, the Soros family’s Foundation to Promote Open Society gave OOC around $1.9 million.
In 2021, the Open Society Action Fund gave another $1 million to OOC’s sister organization, the Ohio Organizing Campaign, and followed up with another $1 million in 2023.
OOC has described the federal scrutiny as an example of the Trump administration politicizing the justice system.
OOC faced criticism in 2017 when a paid canvasser working with the group pleaded guilty to his involvement in a fraudulent voter registration operation.
Republicans, however, have yet to produce conclusive evidence of widespread voter fraud in recent election cycles.
“How can they distract and intimidate civil rights leaders and voters and community leaders who are helping people get registered to vote, and create a national spectacle about it?” Prentiss Haney, an OOC board member authorized to discuss the matter on behalf of the group, told MS Now.
“That is the only reason why they would choose to do that, do it now, in the middle of a contested political election in the state. There’s no other reason. They have no evidence of that,” Haney added.
Earlier this year, President Donald Trump called for federal racketeering charges against Soros and his son, Alexander.
“George Soros, and his wonderful Radical Left son, should be charged with RICO because of their support of Violent Protests, and much more, all throughout the United States of America,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.
“We’re not going to allow these lunatics to rip apart America any more, never giving it so much as a chance to ‘BREATHE,’ and be FREE. Soros, and his group of psychopaths, have caused great damage to our Country! That includes his Crazy, West Coast friends. Be careful, we’re watching you! Thank you for your attention to this matter!” Trump added.
JUST IN - MISSOURI REDISTRICTING BATTLE
KAVANAUGH REJECTS MISSOURI GOP STAY REQUEST - BUT FEDERAL JUDGE TEMPORARILY REVIVES TRUMP-BACKED MAP
The U.S. Supreme Court action was real, and Missouri's high court said a citizen referendum suspended the new districts. But a federal judge issued a conflicting 14-day order minutes later, so the claim that Missouri will definitely use its old map in November is no longer settled.
STATUS UPDATE - September 8, 2026: Justice Brett Kavanaugh denied Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins' emergency stay application. Later the same evening, U.S. District Judge Stephen R. Clark temporarily ordered the state to use the newer map. Further appeals were expected.
WASHINGTON / JEFFERSON CITY, MO. - A fast-moving legal fight over Missouri's congressional districts produced two sharply different court orders on September 8, leaving the map for the November 2026 midterm election uncertain even after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to grant Republican state officials emergency relief.
The first part of the viral claim is accurate: Justice Brett Kavanaugh denied an emergency application filed by Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins seeking to pause a Missouri Supreme Court decision that had blocked the state's Trump-backed 2025 congressional map. The U.S. Supreme Court docket, No. 26A304, records the application as denied by Kavanaugh on September 8. The order did not include an explanation and was not a merits ruling on the underlying redistricting dispute.
However, the statement that Missouri therefore "will now use its previous congressional districts in November" became outdated almost immediately. Minutes after Kavanaugh acted, U.S. District Judge Stephen R. Clark issued a temporary restraining order requiring Missouri officials to use the newer map for the time being. His order is set to last 14 days while the federal case proceeds, creating a direct practical conflict with the Missouri Supreme Court's earlier command.
What Kavanaugh Actually Denied
Missouri Republicans did not ask the U.S. Supreme Court for a final ruling on the legality of the map. They asked for emergency relief - a stay of the Missouri Supreme Court's judgment - so the state could continue using the districts enacted in 2025 while litigation continued. Under the Supreme Court's circuit-assignment system, the application was submitted to Kavanaugh, who handles emergency matters from the Eighth Circuit.
The official docket says simply that the application was denied. That is enough to say the Supreme Court did not give Missouri officials the emergency relief they requested. But it is more precise to write that Kavanaugh denied the emergency stay application than to imply that the full Court issued a detailed final judgment against the map.
Supreme Court docket 26A304: "Sep 08 2026 - Application (26A304) denied by Justice Kavanaugh."
Missouri Supreme Court: The Referendum Suspended the New Map
The state-court ruling that triggered the emergency application was sweeping. The Missouri Supreme Court concluded that the referendum petition challenging House Bill 1 was legal, sufficient and timely. Because the petition was filed before the law's effective date, the court held that HB 1 never took effect and could not take effect unless Missouri voters approved it in the November 2026 general election.
The state high court ordered Secretary Hoskins to certify the referendum petition and put it on the November ballot. It also said the congressional districts enacted in 2022 remained in force for the general election. That decision reversed a lower state court and rejected the secretary's earlier conclusion that the referendum could not be used to challenge congressional redistricting legislation.
More Than 300,000 Signatures - With an Important Qualification
Opponents of the 2025 map, led by People Not Politicians Missouri, submitted more than 300,000 signatures in December 2025 to force a statewide referendum on House Bill 1. The number refers to signatures submitted by the campaign, not a claim that every signature was individually valid. The legal question was whether the petition contained enough valid signatures and complied with state law.
By September 2026, the Missouri Supreme Court had resolved that issue in the petitioners' favor, declaring the referendum petition sufficient and timely. The state's official petition system identifies 2026-R004 as the referendum challenging House Bill 1, and the court directed that the measure be placed before voters in November.
Why the New Map Matters Politically
Missouri currently sends six Republicans and two Democrats to the U.S. House. The 2025 map was drawn during a special legislative session after President Donald Trump urged Republican-led states to pursue mid-decade redistricting ahead of the 2026 elections. The most consequential changes target the Kansas City-area 5th Congressional District represented by Democrat Emanuel Cleaver II.
By splitting portions of Kansas City among neighboring Republican-held districts and extending the remainder of the 5th District farther into more Republican territory, the new configuration was designed to improve Republican chances of winning an additional House seat. That is why the map is often described as potentially producing a 7-1 Republican delegation. The phrase "could give Republicans seven of eight seats" is reasonable as a description of the map's partisan objective, but it should not be presented as a guaranteed election result.
The Twist: A Federal Judge Reinstated the New Map - For Now
The most important correction to the original account came later on September 8. U.S. District Judge Stephen R. Clark issued a temporary restraining order requiring Missouri to use the 2025 map despite the Missouri Supreme Court ruling. Clark emphasized that Missouri had already conducted its August congressional primaries under the newer districts and warned that switching maps between the primary and general election could create candidate, voter and administrative confusion.
Clark wrote that using a different map for the general election would "wreak havoc on the fairness and orderliness of Missouri's congressional elections."
The federal order is temporary. It lasts 14 days pending further proceedings and does not erase the state Supreme Court's interpretation of Missouri's referendum law. The competing orders instead created a new layer of litigation over federal election administration, state constitutional authority and the consequences of changing district boundaries after a primary has already taken place.
As a result, the most accurate status is not that the old map has definitively won or that the new map has definitively survived. The map for November remains contested, with additional litigation and appellate review capable of changing the answer again before ballots are finalized.
A Setback for Trump's Redistricting Push - But Not Yet a Final Defeat
Kavanaugh's denial was a setback for Missouri officials and Republican organizations that had asked the Supreme Court to preserve the Trump-backed map. It also reinforced, at least temporarily, the Missouri Supreme Court's conclusion that citizens could use the referendum process to suspend the redistricting law pending a statewide vote.
But the later federal restraining order means it is premature to describe the episode as a final defeat for Trump's broader mid-decade redistricting strategy. The Missouri dispute is one part of a national fight in which both parties have pursued new congressional maps in multiple states, often with control of a narrowly divided U.S. House in mind.
Conclusion
The core breaking-news claim was substantially correct at the moment Kavanaugh acted: Missouri Republicans failed to obtain the emergency Supreme Court stay they requested, and the state Supreme Court had ruled that a valid citizen referendum prevented the 2025 map from taking effect without voter approval. Organizers had submitted more than 300,000 signatures, and the new map was designed to give Republicans a better chance of expanding their six-seat share of Missouri's eight-member House delegation.
The final sentence of the original version, however, is no longer reliable. Missouri cannot yet be described as certain to use the previous congressional districts in November. A federal judge temporarily ordered use of the new map minutes after Kavanaugh's denial, and the legal battle is continuing. For publication, the safest headline is therefore one that reports the Supreme Court denial while making clear that the November map remains unsettled.
