Republicans have taken control of the U.S. Senate and are fighting to keep their majority in the U.S. House, which would produce a full sweep of GOP power in Congress alongside President-elect Donald Trump in the White House.

A unified Republican grip on Washington would set the course for Trump’s agenda. Or if Democrats wrest control of the House, it would provide an almost certain backstop, with veto power over the White House.

Trump, speaking early Wednesday at his election night party in Florida, said the results delivered an “unprecedented and powerful mandate” for Republicans.

He called the Senate rout “incredible.” And he praised House Speaker Mike Johnson, who dashed from his own party in Louisiana to join Trump. “He’s doing a terrific job,” Trump said.

From the U.S. Capitol, Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell, privately a harsh Trump critic, called it a “hell of a good day.”

Vote counting in some races could go on for days, and control of the House is too early to call.

The rally for Republicans started early on election night in West Virginia, when Jim Justice, the state’s wealthy governor, flipped the seat held by retiring Sen. Joe Manchin. From there, the Republicans marched alongside Trump across the Senate map.

Republicans toppled Democrat Sen. Sherrod Brown in Ohio, the first incumbent senator to fall, with GOP luxury car dealer and blockchain entrepreneur Bernie Moreno. They chased Democrats in the “blue wall” states of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, where Vice President Kamala Harris strained to carry the party forward, though Democrats avoided a total wipeout as Elissa Slotkin won an open Senate seat in Michigan and Sen. Tammy Baldwin was reelected in Wisconsin.

Democratic efforts to oust firebrand Republicans Ted Cruz of Texas and Rick Scott of Florida collapsed. The unexpected battleground of Nebraska pushed Republicans over the top. Incumbent GOP Sen. Deb Fischer brushed back a surprisingly strong challenge from independent newcomer Dan Osborn.

In one of the most-watched Senate races, in Montana, Democrat Jon Tester, a popular three-term senator and “dirt farmer” in the fight of his political career, lost to Trump-backed Tim Sheehy, a wealthy former Navy SEAL, who made derogatory comments about Native Americans, a key Western state constituency.

All told, Senate Republicans have a chance to scoop up a few more seats, potentially delivering their most robust majority in years — a coda to outgoing GOP Leader McConnell, who made a career charting a path to power, this time by recruiting high-wealth Republicans aligned with Trump.

He told reporters at a Capitol news conference that a Senate under Republican control would “control the guardrails” and prevent changes in Senate rules that would end the filibuster.

McConnell declined to answer questions about his past stark criticism of Trump or about the prospects of potential nominees in a new administration. He also said he viewed the election results as a referendum on the Biden administration.

“People were just not happy with this administration and the Democratic nominee was a part of it,” McConnell said.  Ohio Republicans have tightened their grip on the Ohio Supreme Court from 4-3 to 6-1 by ousting two incumbent Democratic justices and winning a third, open seat, the Associated Press projects based on unofficial results. Results remain unofficial until they are certified by local county boards of elections and the Ohio Secretary of State.

The Ohio Supreme Court will rule on a variety of issues that affect the daily lives of Ohioans ranging from education and environmental issues to gerrymandering and elections to civil and reproductive rights.

The state’s highest court has been under Republican control since 1986 and Republicans currently have a 4-3 majority that will increase to 6-1 starting in 2025.

Republican Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas Judge Megan Shanahan defeated incumbent Democratic Justice Michael P. Donnelly, according to unofficial results.

“I’m honored and grateful to the millions of Ohioans who have put their trust in me to be their Ohio Supreme Court Justice,” Shanahan posted on her campaign Facebook page. “I’ll be true to what I campaigned on and will be a Supreme Court Justice who knows that my job is to interpret the law, not to make it. I’ll go to work each day and focus on protecting Ohio’s citizens, communities, and constitution.”

Incumbent Republican Justice Joseph Deters defeated incumbent Democratic Justice Melody Stewart — ousting her from the court, unofficial results show.

Deters decided not to run for his current seat and won a full six-year term. Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine appointed Deters, a former prosecutor, to a vacant seat in January 2023, even though he had no prior experience as a judge.

In the race for an open seat, Republican Judge Dan Hawkins defeated Democratic Judge Lisa Forbes, the AP projected.

This race was for Deters’ open seat, a term that expires on Dec. 31, 2026. Hawkins currently serves on the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas and Forbes is on the 8th District Court of Appeals. Hawkins will face reelection for a full six-year term in 2026.

In 2021, Republican state lawmakers added party labels to the Ohio Supreme Court races, which were previously nonpartisan.

Democratic Justice Jennifer Brunner’s seat will be up in 2026. The seats of Republican Chief Justice Sharon Kennedy, Republican Justice Pat DeWine, and Republican Justice Pat Fischer will be up in 2028.  The fight for control of the House became a state-by-state slog, much of which unfolded far from the presidential race.

House races are focused in New York and California, where Democrats are trying to claw back some of the 10 or so seats where Republicans have made surprising gains in recent years.

Other House races are scattered around the country, with some of the most contentious in Maine, the “blue dot” around Omaha, Nebraska, and in Alaska.

Democratic House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said the House “remains very much in play.”

To gain control of the House, Democrats need to flip four seats from Republicans, while holding all of their own, a tall task especially in congressional districts where Trump has won.

A federal appellate court is set to hear oral arguments Monday in a civil rights lawsuit alleging a south Louisiana parish engaged in racist land-use policies to place polluting industries in majority-Black communities.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans is reviewing a lawsuit filed by community groups claiming St. James Parish “intentionally discriminated against Black residents” by encouraging industrial facilities to be built in areas with predominantly Black populations “while explicitly sparing White residents from the risk of environmental harm.”

The groups, Inclusive Louisiana, Rise St. James and Mt. Triumph Baptist Church, seek a halt to future industrial development in the parish.

The plaintiffs note that 20 of the 24 industrial facilities were in two sections of the parish with majority-Black populations when they filed the complaint in March 2023.

The parish is located along a heavily industrialized stretch of the Mississippi River between New Orleans and Baton Rouge, Louisiana, known as the Chemical Corridor, often referred to by environmental groups as “Cancer Alley” because of the high levels of suspected cancer-causing pollution emitted there.

The lawsuit comes as the federal government has taken steps during the Biden administration to address the legacy of environmental racism. Federal officials have written stricter environmental protections and committed tens of billions of dollars in funding.

In the Louisiana case, U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier of the Eastern District of Louisiana in November 2023 dismissed the lawsuit largely on procedural grounds, ruling the plaintiffs had filed their complaint too late. But he added, “this Court cannot say that their claims lack a basis in fact or rely on a meritless legal theory.”

Barbier said the lawsuit hinged primarily on the parish’s 2014 land-use plan, which generally shielded white neighborhoods from industrial development and left majority-Black neighborhoods, schools and churches without the same protections. The plan also described largely Black sections of the parish as “future industrial” sites. The plaintiffs missed the legal window to sue the parish, the judge ruled.

Yet the parish’s land-use plan is just one piece of evidence among many revealing ongoing discrimination against Black residents in the parish, said Pamela Spees, a lawyer for the Center of Constitutional Rights representing the plaintiffs. They are challenging Barbier’s ruling under the “continuing violations” doctrine on the grounds that discriminatory parish governance persists, allowing for industrial expansion in primarily Black areas.

The lawsuit highlights the parish’s decision in August 2022 to impose a moratorium on large solar complexes after a proposed 3,900-acre (1,580-hectare) solar project upset residents of the mostly white neighborhood of Vacherie, who expressed concerns about lowering property values and debris from storms. The parish did not take up a request for a moratorium on heavy industrial expansion raised by the plaintiffs, the lawsuit states.

These community members “have tried at every turn to simply have their humanity and dignity be seen and acknowledged,” Spees said. “That’s just been completely disregarded by the local government and has been for generations.”

Another part of the complaint argues the parish failed to identify and protect the likely hundreds of burial sites of enslaved people by allowing industrial facilities to build on and limit access to the areas, preventing the descendants of slaves from memorializing the sites. The federal judge tossed out that part of the lawsuit, noting the sites were on private property not owned by the parish.

At its core, the complaint alleges civil rights violations under the 13th and 14th amendments, stating the land-use system in the parish allowing for industrial buildout primarily in majority-Black communities remains shaped by the history of slavery, white supremacy and Jim Crow laws and governance.

Lawyers for St. James Parish said the lawsuit employed overreaching claims and “inflammatory rhetoric.” St. James Parish did not respond to a request for comment.

A federal court in Argentina on Monday ordered the “immediate” arrest of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello for alleged crimes against humanity committed against dissidents.

The court order came in response to an appeal by Argentine prosecutor Carlos Stornelli after a previous ruling dismissed the complaint against both Venezuelan leaders.

Federal court members Pablo Bertuzzi, Leopoldo Bruglia and Mariano Llorens ordered that “the arrest warrants for Nicolás Maduro and Diosdado Cabello be executed immediately, and that their international arrest should be ordered via Interpol for the purposes of extradition to the Argentine Republic,” according to the resolution.

The order comes hours after Venezuela’s Supreme Court issued an arrest warrant for Argentina’s President Javier Milei amid a controversy between the two countries over the detention in Argentine territory — and delivery to the United States — of a cargo plane that Washington says was sold by a sanctioned Iranian airline to a Venezuelan state-owned company.

The tit-for-tat heightens the tensions between Venezuela and Argentina that have been brewing since far-right Milei assumed power in December and that has led to a breakdown in diplomatic relations.

The case against Maduro and his right-hand man was brought before the Argentine courts by the Argentine Forum for Democracy in the Region, FADER, in early 2023, taking into account Argentina’s jurisprudence on human rights and the principle of universal jurisdiction that allows action to be taken against crimes against humanity, even if they have been committed outside its borders.

According to the plaintiffs, a systematic plan of repression, forced disappearance of persons, torture, homicides and persecution against dissidents has been in place in Venezuela since 2014.

Israel’s Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled unanimously that the military must begin drafting ultra-Orthodox men for compulsory service, a landmark decision that could lead to the collapse of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s governing coalition as Israel continues to wage war in Gaza.

The historic ruling effectively puts an end to a decades-old system that granted ultra-Orthodox men broad exemptions from military service while maintaining mandatory enlistment for the country’s secular Jewish majority. The arrangement, deemed discriminatory by critics, has created a deep chasm in Israel’s Jewish majority over who should shoulder the burden of protecting the country.

The court struck down a law that codified exemptions in 2017, but repeated court extensions and government delaying tactics over a replacement dragged out a resolution for years. The court ruled that in the absence of a law, Israel’s compulsory military service applies to the ultra-Orthodox like any other citizen.

Under longstanding arrangements, ultra-Orthodox men have been exempt from the draft, which is compulsory for most Jewish men and women, who serve three and two years respectively as well as reserve duty until around age 40.

These exemptions have long been a source of anger among the secular public, a divide that has widened during the eight-month-old war, as the military has called up tens of thousands of soldiers and says it needs all the manpower it can get. Over 600 soldiers have been killed since Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack.

Politically powerful ultra-Orthodox parties, key partners in Netanyahu’s governing coalition, oppose any change to the current system. If the exemptions are ended, they could bolt the coalition, causing the government to collapse and likely leading to new elections at a time when its popularity has dropped.

In the current environment, Netanyahu could have a hard time delaying the matter any further or passing laws to restore the exemptions. During arguments, government lawyers told the court that forcing ultra-Orthodox men to enlist would “tear Israeli society apart.”

A statement from Netanyahu’s Likud party criticized the ruling, saying a bill in parliament backed by the Israeli leader would address the draft issue. Critics say it falls short of Israel’s wartime needs.

“The real solution to the draft problem is not a Supreme Court ruling,” the statement said.

In its ruling, the court found that the state was carrying out “invalid selective enforcement, which represents a serious violation of the rule of law, and the principle according to which all individuals are equal before the law.”

It did not say how many ultra-Orthodox should be drafted, but the military has said it is capable of enlisting 3,000 this year.

Some 66,000 ultra-Orthodox men are now eligible for enlistment, according to Shuki Friedman, an expert on religion and state affairs and the vice-president of the Jewish People Policy Institute, a Jerusalem think tank.

The ruling of Israel’s highest court must be followed, and the military is expected to begin doing so once it forms a plan for how to draft thousands of members of a population that’s deeply opposed to service, and which follows a cloistered and modest lifestyle the military may not be immediately prepared to accommodate. The army had no immediate comment.