{"id":290,"date":"2026-06-03T18:38:58","date_gmt":"2026-06-03T18:38:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/?p=290"},"modified":"2026-06-03T18:38:58","modified_gmt":"2026-06-03T18:38:58","slug":"the-supreme-courts-new-decision-tilting-the-midterms-toward-republicans-explained","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/?p=290","title":{"rendered":"The Supreme Court\u2019s new decision tilting the midterms toward Republicans, explained"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

Here\u2019s a familiar story. On Tuesday night, the that will almost certainly give the Republican Party an additional seat in the US House of Representatives. Not all of the justices disclosed how they voted, but the decision appears to have come down 6-3 along partisan lines \u2014 that is, the six Republican justices voted to give the GOP another House seat, while the Court\u2019s three Democrats dissented.<\/p>\n

Read more American cities are paying too much for sprawling housing<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

In fairness, the GOP justices\u2019 most recent decision in fits a broader pattern in this Supreme Court\u2019s gerrymandering cases that can be explained without accusing those Republican justices of deciding election cases solely<\/em> on the basis of partisanship. The Court has spent the past seven years dismantling all federal safeguards against gerrymandering.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Allen<\/em> fits this pattern. On its face, the Republican justices\u2019 brief opinion in the case is just the next iterative step toward a legal regime where states can draw maps however they want, regardless of whether those maps are drawn to favor one political party, or whether they are drawn to lock nonwhite voters out of power.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

But the Republican justices\u2019 new decision stands out because, while the Allen<\/em> opinion is consistent with the Court\u2019s broader trend toward redistricting anarchy, its actual legal arguments are inconsistent with things the same justices said as recently as one month ago. The decision is also inconsistent with previous orders that the Court\u2019s Republican majority handed down in the Allen<\/em> case itself.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

If you want the full rundown of all of these inconsistencies, in this most recent decision. There are so many of them that it is hard to escape the conclusion that the Court\u2019s Republicans aren\u2019t being honest about their true motivations. The simplest explanation for Tuesday night\u2019s decision is that the Court\u2019s Republican majority is bending the rules because they want the Republican Party to hold a majority in the House.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

The decision in Allen<\/em> breaks a rule that the Supreme Court announced one month ago<\/h2>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n

At the end of April, the Court\u2019s Republican majority handed down , which completed a project that at least one member of that majority began more than four decades ago.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

In 1982, President Ronald Reagan signed legislation expanding the Voting Rights Act, the federal law barring race discrimination in elections. Among other things, the 1982 amendment established that many state election laws that have a negative impact on nonwhite voters are illegal, even if the plaintiff challenging that law cannot prove that the law was enacted with racist intent.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

When this bill was being debated in Congress, however, there was a conservative faction within the Reagan administration that opposed it, and which unsuccessfully urged Reagan to veto it. Future Chief Justice John Roberts was a member of this faction, and as a fairly junior lawyer wound up doing much of the granular work that is often assigned to young attorneys. Among other things, Roberts wrote about two dozen memos opposing the 1982 amendment, and he drafted speeches and talking points for senior lawyers who also opposed it.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Although Roberts\u2019 faction failed in 1982, Roberts held onto his grudge against the Reagan amendments to the VRA, and his faction eventually took over the Republican Party. All six of the Court\u2019s Republicans joined Callais<\/em>, which repealed the 1982 amendment and imposed a new rule requiring voting rights plaintiffs challenging a gerrymandered map to show that state lawmakers acted with racist intent.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Under Callais<\/em>, a plaintiff bringing such a challenge may only prevail \u201cwhen the circumstances give rise to a strong inference that intentional discrimination occurred.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

In the Allen<\/em> case, however, a three-judge panel that included two Trump-appointed judges determined that \u201cwe cannot understand [Alabama\u2019s new congressional maps] as anything other than an intentional effort to dilute Black Alabamians\u2019 voting strength.\u201d The panel reached that conclusion in an astonishingly thorough handed down in 2023. After Callais, <\/em>the Supreme Court ordered that panel to reconsider its ruling, and the panel did not change its mind \u2014 concluding again that Alabama engaged in intentional race discrimination.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Among other things, the panel pointed out that the 2023 Alabama law drawing the new maps achieved its racial goals by holding together a majority-white area of the state known as the Gulf Coast, while dividing a Black-majority region known as the Black Belt. Incredibly, the 2023 state law said that the Gulf Coast \u201cshall be kept together to the fullest extent possible,\u201d in part because Alabama lawmakers wanted to preserve its \u201cdistinct culture stemming from its French and Spanish colonial heritage.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

The state legislature, in other words, wrote into the statute itself that it wished to preserve a European American region of the state\u2019s ability to elect its preferred representative, while the same law also broke up an African American region of Alabama. If that doesn\u2019t give rise to a strong inference that intentional discrimination occurred, nothing does.<\/p>\n

Read more AI can replicate human-made art. Here\u2019s why it can never replace it.<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

The Republican justices\u2019 latest opinion in Allen<\/em>, meanwhile, is . And it spends only a single sentence responding to the hundreds of pages of evidence the lower court compiled, which shows that Alabama engaged in intentional race discrimination. According to the Republican justices, the lower court \u201c\u201d that judges are supposed to apply to state lawmakers who are accused of race discrimination.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

So, to summarize, just over one month after the Court\u2019s Republicans declared in Callais<\/em> that racial gerrymandering plaintiffs could still prevail if they can show that a state\u2019s legislature engaged in intentional race discrimination, those same Republicans appear to have abandoned that rule. And the upshot is that the Republican Party gets an extra seat in the US House.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

The GOP justices\u2019 Allen<\/em> opinion isn\u2019t even consistent with their previous decisions in the same case<\/h2>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n

As Sotomayor , there are several other examples of the Republican justices taking one position in previous decisions, then abandoning them in order to hand a victory to Alabama Republicans.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

The most galling is that, in Callais<\/em>, the Republican justices explicitly stated that \u201cwe have not overruled Allen<\/em>,\u201d a reference to the Supreme Court\u2019s 2023 ruling in this very same case, where the Court struck down Alabama\u2019s maps and ordered it to draw new ones. It\u2019s now clear that the Republican justices were lying when they said that in Callais<\/em>. The Court\u2019s 2023 ruling in Allen<\/em> held that Alabama must draw maps with at least two Black congressional districts, while its 2026 ruling in Allen<\/em> holds that Alabama does not need to do so after Callais<\/em>. So Callais<\/em> overruled the 2023 opinion in Allen<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Sotomayor also spends much of her opinion warning that the Court\u2019s latest Allen<\/em> decision is likely to cause \u201cchaos\u201d in Alabama\u2019s upcoming congressional election, because the primaries in that election are supposed to take place on August 11, leaving the state with very little time to complete the time-consuming task of going through each voter\u2019s record to make sure they are assigned to the correct district.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

According to Sotomayor, after a federal district court first struck down an earlier version of Alabama\u2019s maps in 2022, the state told the Supreme Court that it needed to block that decision because the district court handed it down four months before a primary election, and \u201cfour months was not enough time to change congressional maps.\u201d Sotomayor\u2019s Republican colleagues appear to have agreed with that claim. Indeed, when the Court agreed to block the 2022 decision, two justices warned that the lower court\u2019s order \u201cwould require heroic efforts by . . . state and local authorities in the next few weeks\u2014and even heroic efforts likely would not be enough to avoid chaos and confusion.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

So, when a lower court handed down a decision that would have benefited the Democratic Party by requiring Alabama to draw a map that would elect an additional Black Democrat, the Republican justices appear to have concluded that four months wasn\u2019t enough time for Alabama to comply with that decision. Now, however, those same justices have decided that the state can pull off the same \u201cheroic efforts\u201d in just two months.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

In fairness, the Court\u2019s Republicans have occasionally ruled against their political party when that party presents particularly weak arguments. In 2020, for example, the Supreme Court famously rejected President Donald Trump\u2019s attempt to overturn his loss to former President Joe Biden.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

As I wrote at the time, handing a victory to Trump would have required herculean efforts by the justices, because Biden won by a wide enough margin that the Court would have needed to overturn the election results in three different states. That was too much even for this Supreme Court.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

But this is still the same Supreme Court which held in 2024 that Trump is allowed to use the powers of the presidency to commit crimes. So the Republican justices are willing to do extraordinary favors for their political party and its leadership, even if they don\u2019t do the GOP\u2019s bidding in literally every case that comes before them.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

It is safe to say, in other words, that the Republican justices are putting a thumb on the scales of the 2026 midterms. That\u2019s not the same thing as putting a one-ton sack of concrete on those scales. But the most reasonable explanation for the GOP justices\u2019 behavior is that they want to give an advantage to the Republican Party and are willing to contradict their own past decisions in order to do so.<\/p>\n

Read more The very casual fan\u2019s guide to the NBA Finals<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

See More:<\/span><\/p>\n
    \n
  • Midterm Elections 2026<\/li>\n
  • Politics<\/li>\n
  • Supreme Court<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    The Republican Party just keeps winning election cases in a Supreme Court controlled by Republicans.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":289,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-290","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-interesting"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Supreme Court\u2019s new decision tilting the midterms toward Republicans, explained - American Living Report<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/?p=290\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Supreme Court\u2019s new decision tilting the midterms toward Republicans, explained - American Living Report\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The Republican Party just keeps winning election cases in a Supreme Court controlled by Republicans.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/?p=290\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"American Living Report\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-06-03T18:38:58+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanlivingreport.com\\\/?p=290#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanlivingreport.com\\\/?p=290\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanlivingreport.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/7b970e3bc484fe2e26860a4380d70de8\"},\"headline\":\"The Supreme Court\u2019s new decision tilting the midterms toward Republicans, explained\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-06-03T18:38:58+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanlivingreport.com\\\/?p=290\"},\"wordCount\":1614,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanlivingreport.com\\\/?p=290#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanlivingreport.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/b7bcf9dd2770506841920ab1c188f723.webp\",\"articleSection\":[\"Interesting\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/americanlivingreport.com\\\/?p=290#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanlivingreport.com\\\/?p=290\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanlivingreport.com\\\/?p=290\",\"name\":\"The Supreme Court\u2019s new decision tilting the midterms toward Republicans, explained - American Living Report\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanlivingreport.com\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanlivingreport.com\\\/?p=290#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanlivingreport.com\\\/?p=290#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanlivingreport.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/b7bcf9dd2770506841920ab1c188f723.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-06-03T18:38:58+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanlivingreport.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/7b970e3bc484fe2e26860a4380d70de8\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanlivingreport.com\\\/?p=290#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/americanlivingreport.com\\\/?p=290\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanlivingreport.com\\\/?p=290#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanlivingreport.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/b7bcf9dd2770506841920ab1c188f723.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanlivingreport.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/b7bcf9dd2770506841920ab1c188f723.webp\",\"width\":1200,\"height\":624},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanlivingreport.com\\\/?p=290#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanlivingreport.com\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Supreme Court\u2019s new decision tilting the midterms toward Republicans, explained\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanlivingreport.com\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanlivingreport.com\\\/\",\"name\":\"American Living Report\",\"description\":\"\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanlivingreport.com\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanlivingreport.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/7b970e3bc484fe2e26860a4380d70de8\",\"name\":\"admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"http:\\\/\\\/americanlivingreport.com\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanlivingreport.com\\\/?author=1\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Supreme Court\u2019s new decision tilting the midterms toward Republicans, explained - American Living Report","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/?p=290","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Supreme Court\u2019s new decision tilting the midterms toward Republicans, explained - American Living Report","og_description":"The Republican Party just keeps winning election cases in a Supreme Court controlled by Republicans.","og_url":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/?p=290","og_site_name":"American Living Report","article_published_time":"2026-06-03T18:38:58+00:00","author":"admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/?p=290#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/?p=290"},"author":{"name":"admin","@id":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/#\/schema\/person\/7b970e3bc484fe2e26860a4380d70de8"},"headline":"The Supreme Court\u2019s new decision tilting the midterms toward Republicans, explained","datePublished":"2026-06-03T18:38:58+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/?p=290"},"wordCount":1614,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/?p=290#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/b7bcf9dd2770506841920ab1c188f723.webp","articleSection":["Interesting"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/?p=290#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/?p=290","url":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/?p=290","name":"The Supreme Court\u2019s new decision tilting the midterms toward Republicans, explained - American Living Report","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/?p=290#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/?p=290#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/b7bcf9dd2770506841920ab1c188f723.webp","datePublished":"2026-06-03T18:38:58+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/#\/schema\/person\/7b970e3bc484fe2e26860a4380d70de8"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/?p=290#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/?p=290"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/?p=290#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/b7bcf9dd2770506841920ab1c188f723.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/b7bcf9dd2770506841920ab1c188f723.webp","width":1200,"height":624},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/?p=290#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Supreme Court\u2019s new decision tilting the midterms toward Republicans, explained"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/","name":"American Living Report","description":"","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/#\/schema\/person\/7b970e3bc484fe2e26860a4380d70de8","name":"admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"admin"},"sameAs":["http:\/\/americanlivingreport.com"],"url":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/?author=1"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/290","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=290"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/290\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/289"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=290"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=290"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=290"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}