Albertans voted overwhelmingly to remain in Canada on Monday, but the result may do little to quiet the separatist movement that helped bring the question to the ballot.

Preliminary results early Tuesday showed that roughly 76% of voters rejected beginning the process toward a future binding referendum on separation. While approval would not have authorized Alberta’s independence from Canada, it would have allowed the province to take the next steps in the process of separation.

Even before the vote, most Albertans expected the debate to continue. Polling from the nonprofit Angus Reid Institute, released last week, found that 62% of people in the province think that “there will never be an end to the separatist movement.”

Responding to former Alberta Premier Jason Kenney’s suggestion that the movement should end if the referendum were to fail, Keith Wilson, one of the most prominent separatist leaders, said at a rally on Oct. 17, “That’s not happening."

“We are going to build on our successes, build on our relationships," he added.

Speaking to TIME before the results came in on Monday, Jared Wesley, a professor of political science at the University of Alberta, said that even if the referendum were to fail, “it seems unlikely that separatism as a political strategy, if not an actual objective, is going anywhere soon.” 

He added that the next provincial general election is next year, so it’s possible that voters could be faced with a similar question on the ballot then.

“The country is very familiar with western alienation and western grievances—that is a very long-standing political phenomenon in Canada,” Andrew McDougall, an associate professor of political science at the University of Toronto Scarborough, tells TIME. “There’s been a long history of regional tensions in Canada where the west feels disaffected from what, historically, has been the larger and, in many ways, sometimes more prosperous central Canada.”

“The idea, though, of having a vote on separatism—that is a little bit new,” he continues.

The Alberta independence campaign got more traction after the Liberal Party, headed by Prime Minister Mark Carney, won the federal election last year, with many Albertans expressing frustration that their views aren’t sufficiently represented by the Liberal government.

That dissatisfaction, driven in large part by the federal government’s energy policies, comes as Canadian leaders are placing particular emphasis on national unity.

Why did Alberta hold this referendum?

Alberta is an oil-rich province; mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction made up about a quarter of the province’s GDP in 2025. But Albertans have expressed dissatisfaction with the level of support the industry has received from Ottawa, criticizing the federal government for blocking pipeline projects, among other industry initiatives.

The feeling among some residents in the province, McDougall says, is “that central Canada is taking advantage of Alberta; that the central government has, at times, through environmental regulations, for example, hindered the development of the oil resources that exist in Alberta.”

He adds that the independence campaign may also have been fueled by Albertans’ dissatisfaction with representation in the federal government. 

Alberta is considered a conservative stronghold, but the Liberal Party has led the country for over a decade. The western province has about 5 million residents, compared to 16 million in Ontario and 9 million in Quebec, which means “it could be difficult sometimes for the West to get representation in the government,” McDougall says.

At the beginning of May, separatists turned in a petition with hundreds of thousands of signatures to push for a vote on leaving Canada, while opponents collected signatures in support of staying. A court ruling on May 13 complicated matters: A judge halted the petition, finding that the province could not advance the discussion without consulting First Nations.

The government instead asked voters whether it should take the steps needed to hold an independence referendum later, leading to this month’s vote. Alberta Premier Danielle Smith supported staying in Canada.

Polling suggests that, for many voters, support for the referendum was not necessarily about wanting to leave Canada—it was a way to underscore dissatisfaction with the federal government. 

The Angus Reid Institute found that 60% of respondents who were in favor of holding a future independence referendum said their motivation was sending a message to Ottawa, compared with 37% who wanted Alberta to take the necessary steps toward secession.

As early results emerged Tuesday, Wilson, the separatist leader, observed: “It’s fair to say that at least a quarter of Albertans feel that Alberta needs to be treated better.”

Carney stressed unity amid tensions with U.S.

Alberta’s independence referendum came as Carney’s government promotes national unity amid a trade war with the U.S.

McDougall says that the issues behind the referendum are "longstanding grievances,” but the fact that it advanced at a time of strong pro-Canada sentiment is “a little out of step with the times.”

The trade dispute escalated after negotiations between the two nations broke down in August. On Sept. 8, Canada responded to new tariffs from the U.S. with matching, retaliatory levies.

Tensions have continued to escalate in recent weeks as Trump repeatedly insists that Canada is ripping off Americans and should join the U.S. He said at a rally in Arizona on Oct. 14 that Canada will “end up being the 51st state, because it’s the only way it works.”

The following day, Carney spoke at a rally in Calgary, emphasizing the importance of Canadian unity amid outside tensions, though he did not explicitly reference Trump’s remarks.

“The stakes are high. This referendum, it comes at the worst possible time. The world has become more dangerous and divided," Carney said. “There are some outside our borders who are working to break us, so they can own us.”

The speech was another effort by the Carney government to promote national unity, just days before the referendum in Alberta. 

The message became especially poignant that weekend when four service members died in a fire at a military base in Alberta. The nation came together to provide resources and support for the province. At a press conference on Sunday, Carney emphasized that “Canadians come together in crisis.”

Wesley says he believes that “the vast majority of Albertans are viewing this referendum through a broader global lens.”

“They know their votes send a message—not just to governments here in Alberta or Ottawa, but to Washington,” Wesley says. “Albertans are overwhelmingly opposed to Trump’s trade war and even more averse to becoming the 51st state. They know that voting to destabilize Canada makes it harder to weather the economic storm and easier to fall into the American orbit.”

“Albertans made a clear choice,” Carney said Tuesday after preliminary results became available. “They chose unity, to build together, and to take care of each other. Above all, Albertans chose Canada.”

The U.S. Supreme Court said Tuesday that it will take up a case to decide whether a watchdog organization can obtain information to help establish whether the now-defunct Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is subject to a federal public records law.

It’s the latest update on a lawsuit filed by a nonprofit called Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) that argues DOGE, the initiative that was spearheaded by Tesla CEO Elon Musk, is subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). 

The Trump Administration has argued that FOIA does not apply to DOGE because it was not a federal agency—it was a presidential advisory body.

Signed into law in 1966 by President Lyndon B. Johnson, FOIA grants “the public the right to request access to records from any federal agency,” according to the federal government’s website. Johnson said at the time that he hoped the government would, in upholding the law, weigh national security, individual privacy, confidential government deliberations, and the benefit of a well-informed constituency.

“The founding principle of FOIA is that it’s crucial in a democracy to have an informed citizenry,” says Sara Creighton, an associate professor at Georgetown Law and the former Deputy Chief Counsel at American Oversight, a government transparency nonprofit. “The whole idea is that we need an informed voting public.”

Justices have agreed to hear arguments over whether, and to what extent, discovery can proceed for CREW v. DOGE Service. This phase of the legal process allows opposing parties to collect information, including records and depositions, with which to make their cases.

Experts say this decision will not only affect the pending lawsuit, but may also have ramifications for the future of government transparency.

How did the DOGE records case reach the Supreme Court?

CREW filed an FOIA request seeking expedited processing for information about DOGE on Jan. 24, 2025, seeking insights about its structure and communications with other agencies. When it didn’t receive the documents it requested, the organization sued.

“The law is clear about how government records should be preserved so that, when the public requests them, they are easily and readily accessible. If the administration valued transparency, following records laws would be a priority,” CREW President Noah Bookbinder said in a statement announcing the lawsuit on Feb. 20, 2025. “Instead, US DOGE Service and OMB are acting as though the law does not apply to them. It does.”

“The fight ultimately in the DOGE case, and what CREW was hoping to test with its litigation, was whether DOGE [is] subject to FOIA,” says Ryan Mulvey, a senior policy counsel at the Americans for Prosperity Foundation.

On April 15, 2025, Judge Christopher Cooper ruled on behalf of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia that the case could proceed to discovery. The Department of Justice, however, filed an emergency appeal in May 2025 asking the Supreme Court to intervene. The Supreme Court paused the discovery orders on May 23, 2025. On June 6, 2025, it directed the appeals court to narrow the requests, finding that those concerning DOGE’s recommendations and whether agencies followed them were “not appropriately tailored.”

CREW then pared back its requests for discovery, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld them. The Trump Administration again filed a request to the Supreme Court, arguing that the lower court was not adhering to the previous ruling by granting “wide-ranging and intrusive discovery.”

In response, the Supreme Court agreed this week to take up the question of whether the case can proceed to discovery. It’s unclear at this point when oral arguments would begin, but a ruling is expected by the end of term in late June or early July 2027.

What could the Supreme Court’s DOGE ruling mean for public access?

The Supreme Court’s ruling will determine if CREW can access the information that could help it make its case that DOGE acted as a federal authority that is subject to FOIA, according to Creighton. If not, the nonprofit may have difficulty pursuing its argument. 

“Because so much about how DOGE operated … was not publicly explained, discovery is the only way to unearth key facts about DOGE’s operations and exercises of authority,” says Margaret Kwoka, the Frank R. Strong Chair in Law at Ohio State University’s Moritz College of Law, who joined a brief supporting CREW as an outside legal expert. “Those details will illuminate whether it is in fact exercising independent authority or whether it is acting as an advisor to the President.”

The outcome of the case could have implications beyond the current Administration, Creighton says.

“Whether an entity is subject to FOIA really determines how much information the public gets to know about it, and whether [entities] have any obligation to disclose their documents to the public,” Creighton says. 

The current issue before the Supreme Court pertains to discovery, but Creighton warns that if the Supreme Court ultimately rules that DOGE is not subject to FOIA, that could potentially “open the door for future presidents to create entities inside the Executive Office of the President that do significant work—even potentially work relating to the work of agencies who are usually subject to FOIA—but allow that work to be outside the scope of FOIA.”

CREW did not respond to TIME’s request for comment, but it has previously said that government transparency is at stake.

“The lower courts have uniformly ruled that CREW is entitled to discovery in this case to help the court determine whether DOGE wields the type of authority that would make it subject to FOIA,” CREW’s chief counsel, Nikhel Sus, told POLITICO in a statement on Tuesday. “We will continue to pursue transparency for the American people, who deserve to know the details of the Trump Administration’s efforts to unilaterally remake the federal government.”

Solicitor General D. John Sauer, meanwhile, argued in his filing to the Supreme Court that the appeals court ruling “intrudes into the autonomy and confidentiality of presidential advisors and augurs time-consuming and burdensome discovery litigation.” 

He further claimed that the lower court decision “threatens to burden future presidential administrations” with similar legal cases.

The White House referred TIME to the Department of Justice, which did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

What other records lawsuits has the Trump Administration faced?

The DOGE dispute is among several legal battles over access to, and preservation of, government records under the Trump Administration.

In 2025, American Oversight filed a lawsuit asking the court to order multiple national security officials to preserve official communications that were exchanged on the encrypted messaging app Signal. The request was filed after it came to light that the officials were exchanging messages regarding planned military strikes in Yemen. The case is still ongoing.

In April, the same group, along with the American Historical Association, sued the Trump Administration over a legal opinion released by the Department of Justice that claimed the Presidential Records Act—which stipulates that presidential records be preserved and transferred to the National Archives when the President leaves office—is unconstitutional. That case is also ongoing.

While those cases remain ongoing, American Oversight has secured a win in another records dispute. In August, a federal judge struck down an Energy Department policy that would have permitted it to close pending FOIA requests filed earlier than Oct. 1, 2024, unless requesters reaffirmed their interest within 30 days. The court sided with the watchdog group.