Tag: SCOTUS

Supreme Court rejects bid to restore Alabama abortion law

The Hill logoThe Supreme Court on Friday declined to hear a case on a 2015 Alabama abortion law that bans a common form of the procedure during the second trimester of pregnancy.

Alabama had sought to overturn lower court rulings that struck down the law, but the justices rejected that bid in their order.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a concurring opinion that he agreed the court should not hear the case, but called it a “stark reminder that our abortion jurisprudence has spiraled out of control.”

View the complete June 28 article why Jacqueline Thomsen on The Hill website here.

Trump rage-tweets an idea that would violate the Constitution in furious response to the Supreme Court

AlterNet logoIn a blow to the Trump administration’s plans, Chief Justice of the United State John Roberts issued an opinion Thursday ruling against the Commerce Department’s plan to include a citizenship question on the upcoming 2020 Census.

While the administration claimed that the question was designed to help the Justice Department enforce the Voting Rights Act, Roberts and a majority of the court found that this explanation was not supported by the evidence in the case, and the Supreme Court upheld a lower court’s decision to remand the decision back to the agency. Many observers argued this will likely prevent the department from adding the question to the Census in time for the upcoming Census (though there’s some debate about this), and President Donald Trump, in two rage-filled tweets sent from his Japan trip, said he wants to delay the process:

View the complete Jun 27 article by Cody Fenwick on the AlterNet website here.

Supreme Court Ruling Fails to End Gerrymandering

House DFL logoRep. Klevorn Proposes People-focused, People-Driven Redistricting Reforms

SAINT PAUL — Today the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision in two landmark redistricting cases, Rucho v. Common Cause and Lamone v. Benisek. In a 72-page decision written by Justice Roberts, the majority concluded it could not set a constitutional standard against partisan gerrymandering.

Justice Kagan highlighted in her dissent, “The partisan gerrymanders here debased and dishonored our democracy, turning upside-down the core American idea that all governmental power derives from the people.”

Representative Ginny Klevorn (DFL-Plymouth) chief authored legislation during the 2019 session that would establish a nonpartisan Redistricting Advisory Commission comprised of 12 members of the public and five retired judges. Representative Klevorn released the following statement:

“Minnesotans deserve an honest election process, one that allows the people an opportunity to fairly elect their local elected officials. I wholeheartedly agree with Justice Kagan’s dissent. Although the Court came to this decision today, the Minnesota Legislature can set clear standards that put people before partisan or special interests. I’ll continue to work on people-focused and people-driven redistricting reforms putting all Minnesotans ahead of party, incumbency, and special interests.”

EXCLUSIVE — Trump: I would fill Supreme Court vacancy before 2020 election

The Hill logoPresident Trump on Monday said he would make a nomination to the Supreme Court if there’s a vacancy before the 2020 presidential election.

“Would I do that? Of course,” Trump said in an exclusive interview with The Hill when asked if he would try to fill a high court vacancy during election season.

The position is an apparent reversal for the president, who as a candidate in 2016 backed Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s (R-Ky.) decision to block former President Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the high court.

View the complete June 24 article by Jordan Fabian and Saagar Enjeti on The Hill website here.

Supreme Court set to deliver ruling on census citizenship question

The Hill logoThe Supreme Court is set to hand down its much-anticipated decision on whether the Trump administration can include a citizenship question on the 2020 census.

The question has been the subject of multiple legal challenges since it was announced in early 2018. And a courtroom twist this past week added a new level of drama that could affect the Census Bureau’s timeline for finalizing and printing the decennial questionnaire.

Opponents of the citizenship question cite studies that indicate it might lead to an inaccurate population count, which would impact the data used to determine congressional representation and the allocation of federal funds to states.

View the complete June 23 article by Jacqueline Thomsen on The Hill website here.

Supreme Court decisions could affect makeup of Congress for years

Redistricting, census questions among big-ticket items left on docket

The Supreme Court faces decisions during its last two weeks of the term that could influence congressional districts for the next decade and make the justices an even larger topic in the 2020 presidential campaign.

The court left its most consequential and politically contentious opinions for the end of the term, as it tends to do every year. The justices on Monday will release some of the 24 decisions yet to come before the end of June.

During that same period, the justices will announce which additional cases it will hear next term, which could include challenges to the Trump administration decision to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program and whether the socially contentious LGBT rights issue about whether bakers who claim religious objections can refuse to make cakes for same-sex weddings.

View the complete June 17 article by Todd Ruger on The Roll Call website here.

Supreme Court rejects Trump request to fast track decision on DACA case

The Supreme Court on Monday rejected the Trump administration’s request to fast track a decision on whether it will hear a case over the president’s rescission of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.

The justices, in an unsigned order, denied the request, which was filed on behalf of the administration last month to expedite a decision on whether to review the case.

Solicitor General Noel Francisco, who represents the administration in cases before the Supreme Court, had urged the justices to announce their decision on whether they will hear the case by the end of their term later this month.

View the complete June 3 article by Jacqueline Thomsen on The Hill website here.

‘A gross misuse of historical facts’: Scholars tear apart conservative Justice Thomas’s latest anti-abortion screed

In that latest sign that at least that the Supreme Court conservative is eager to start tearing down abortion rights, Justice Clarence Thomas issued a decision this week trying to link the pro-choice movement to eugenics.

He drafted a concurrence in the case of Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, where the Supreme Court upheld Indiana’s fetal remains disposal law and declined to review the state’s law banning abortions on the basis of race, sex, or disability, which the Seventh Circuit had struck down. In the opinion, he argued that there was a strong historical connection between abortion and the eugenics movement. To support this claim, he cited Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger and her defense of eugenic aims.

But scholars are rounding rejecting Thomas’s historical claims and legal arguments.

View the complete May 31 article by Cody Fenwick on the AlterNet website here.

Justice Thomas launches an utterly bizarre attack on birth control

Blessed be the fruit.

The Supreme Court announced on Tuesday that it would not hear a case seeking to reinstate a trolly anti-abortion law targeting sex, race, and disability-selective abortions signed by former Indiana Gov. Mike Pence (R).

Justice Clarence Thomas didn’t disagree with the decision not to take up this issue, but he did see it as the perfect opportunity to publish a 20-page rant claiming that the “use of abortion to achieve eugenic goals is not merely hypothetical.”

Such a response is not surprising — Justice Thomas’ has not hid his disdain for Roe v. Wade in his past opinions. What is surprising, however, is that Thomas devotes much of his concurring opinion in Box v. Planned Parenthood to an extended attack on early supporters of birth control. The implication is that contraception, and not just abortion, may need to be banned in order to prevent some kind of racial eugenics.

View the complete May 28 article by Ian Millhiser on the ThinkProgress website here.

Supreme Court upholds Indiana law on fetal remains, avoids major

The Supreme Court on Tuesday reversed a lower court’s decision invalidating part of Indiana’s abortion law on the disposal of fetal remains, allowing it to go into effect.
But the court declined to take up a challenge to a provision blocking abortions on the basis of sex, race or disability, avoiding a major ruling on abortion for the time being.
The fetal remains law — signed by then-Gov. Mike Pence (R) — required that the remains from abortions or miscarriages be buried or cremated. The court reversed a ruling from the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals that found the law unconstitutional.

View the complete May 28 article by Jacqueline Thomsen on The Hill website here.