الوسم: Federal

  • Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, ends federal abortion rights

    Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, ends federal abortion rights

    Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, ending decades of federal abortion rights

    The Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision on Friday overturned Roe v. Wade, the landmark ruling that established the constitutional right to abortion in the U.S. in 1973.

    The court’s controversial but expected ruling gives individual states the power to set their own abortion laws without concern of running afoul of Roe, which had permitted abortions during the first two trimesters of pregnancy.

    Follow live coverage of reaction to abortion decision here

    Almost half the states are expected to outlaw or severely restrict abortion as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision, which is related to a highly restrictive new Mississippi abortion law. The laws will affect tens of millions of people around the country, who may have to cross state lines to seek reproductive health care.

    Other states plan to maintain more liberal rules governing the termination of pregnancies.

    Supporters of abortion rights immediately condemned the ruling, while abortion opponents praised a decision they had long hoped for and worked to ensure. Protesters descended on the Supreme Court on Friday to speak out both for and against a decision that will upend decades of precedent in the U.S.

    Read the Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade here

    Abortion opponents celebrate outside the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., on June 24, 2022.

    Olivier Douliery | AFP | Getty Images

    Justice Samuel Alito, as expected, wrote the majority opinion that tossed out Roe as well as a 1992 Supreme Court decision upholding abortion rights in a case known as Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

    Alito was joined in that judgment by four other conservatives on the high court. Chief Justice John Roberts voted with the majority to uphold the Mississippi abortion restrictions but did not approve of overturning Roe altogether.

    The majority also included three justices appointed by former President Donald Trump: Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.

    The court’s three liberal justices filed a dissenting opinion to the ruling, which quickly drew protestors to the Supreme Court building on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C.

    “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” Alito wrote.

    “The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely — the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,” Alito wrote.

    “That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be ‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition’ and ‘implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,” he added.

    “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives,” Alito wrote.

    In their scathing joint dissent, the court’s liberal justices wrote, “The majority has overruled Roe and Casey for one and only one reason: because it has always despised them, and now it has the votes to discard them. The majority thereby substitutes a rule by judges for the rule of law.”

    “The majority would allow States to ban abortion from conception onward because it does not think forced childbirth at all implicates a woman’s rights to equality and freedom,” said the dissent by Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

    “Today’s Court, that is, does not think there is anything of constitutional significance attached to a woman’s control of her body and the path of her life,” it said. “A State can force her to bring a pregnancy to term, even at the steepest personal and familial costs.”

    In a concurring opinion with the majority ruling, the conservative Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that in light of the rationale for overturning Roe, the Supreme Court should reconsider its rulings in three other past cases which established a right to use birth control, and which said there is a constitutional right for gay people to have sex and marry one another.

    Friday’s bombshell decision came a day after the Supreme Court in another controversial ruling invalidated a century-old New York law that had made it very difficult for people to obtain a license to carry a gun outside of their homes.

    Anti-abortion protestors march in front of the U.S. Supreme Court building as the court considers overturning Roe v. Wade on June 13, 2022, in Washington, DC.

    Roberto Schmidt | AFP | Getty Images

    The case that triggered Roe’s demise, known as Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, is related to a Mississippi law that banned nearly all abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy.

    Dobbs was by far the most significant and controversial dispute of the court’s term.

    It also posed the most serious threat to abortion rights since Planned Parenthood v. Casey, in which the Supreme Court reaffirmed Roe.

    Dobbs deepened partisan divisions in a period of already intense political tribalism.

    The early May leak of a draft of the majority opinion, which completely overturned Roe, sent shockwaves across the country and galvanized activists on both sides of the debate. It also cast a pall over the nation’s highest court, which immediately opened an investigation to find the source of the leak.

    The publication of the court’s draft opinion, written by Alito, sparked protests from abortion-rights supporters, who were outraged and fearful about how the decision will impact both patients and providers as 22 states gear up to restrict abortions or ban them outright.

    The leaked opinion marked a major victory for conservatives and anti-abortion advocates who had worked for decades to undermine Roe and Casey, which the majority of Americans support keeping in place.

    But Republican lawmakers in Washington, who are hoping to win big in the November midterm elections, initially focused more on the leak itself than on what it revealed. They also decried the protests that formed outside the homes of some conservative justices, accusing activists of trying to intimidate the court.

    The unprecedented leak of Alito’s draft opinion blew a hole in the cloak of secrecy normally shrouding the court’s internal affairs. It drew harsh scrutiny from the court’s critics, many of whom were already concerned about the politicization of the country’s most powerful deliberative body, where justices are appointed for life.

    Roberts vowed that the work of the court “will not be affected in any way” by the leak, which he described as a “betrayal” intended to “undermine the integrity of our operations.”

    The leak had clearly had an impact, however. Tall fencing was set up around the court building afterward, and Attorney General Merrick Garland directed the U.S. Marshals Service to “help ensure the Justices’ safety.”

  • Federal judge lets Iowa keep challenging voter rolls although naturalized citizens may be affected

    Federal judge lets Iowa keep challenging voter rolls although naturalized citizens may be affected

    DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — A federal judge ruled Sunday that Iowa can continue challenging the validity of hundreds of ballots from potential noncitizens even though critics said the effort threatens the voting rights of people who’ve recently become U.S. citizens.

    U.S. District Judge Stephen Locher, an appointee of President Joe Biden, sided with the state in a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union in the Iowa capital of Des Moines on behalf of the League of Latin American Citizens of Iowa and four recently naturalized citizens. The four were on the state’s list of questionable registrations to be challenged by local elections officials.

    The state’s Republican attorney general and secretary of state argued that investigating and potentially removing 2,000 names from the list would prevent illegal voting by noncitizens. GOP officials across the U.S. have made possible voting by noncitizen immigrants a key election-year talking point even though it is rare. Their focus has come with former President Donald Trump falsely suggesting that his opponents already are committing fraud to prevent his return to the White House.

    In his ruling Sunday, Locher pointed to a U.S. Supreme Court decision four days prior that allowed Virginia to resume a similar purge of its voter registration rolls even though it was impacting some U.S. citizens. He also cited the Supreme Court’s recent refusal to review a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision on state electoral laws surrounding provisional ballots. Those Supreme Court decisions advise lower courts to “act with great caution before awarding last-minute injunctive relief,” he wrote.

    Locher also said the state’s effort does not remove anyone from the voter rolls, but rather requires some voters to use provisional ballots.

    In a statement on Sunday, Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds, a Republican, celebrated the ruling.

    “Today’s ruling is a victory for election integrity,” Reynolds said. “In Iowa, while we encourage all citizens to vote, we will enforce the law and ensure those votes aren’t cancelled out by the illegal vote of a non-citizen.”

    Rita Bettis Austen, legal director for the ACLU of Iowa, said some voters could be disenfranchised due to the ruling and Secretary of State Paul Pate’s directive.

    “We are obviously disappointed with the court’s decision not to outright block Secretary Pate’s directive, which we still fear threatens to disenfranchise eligible voters simply because they are people who became citizens in the past several years,” Austen said in a written statement. “Even the Secretary agrees that the vast majority of voters on his list are United States citizens.”

    Even still, Austen said the lawsuit forced Pate to back away from forcing everyone on the list to vote provisionally only. County auditors may permit a voter on the list to cast a regular ballot if they deem it appropriate, and voters can prove they are citizens with documentation, she added.

    After Locher had a hearing in the ACLU’s lawsuit Friday, Pate and state Attorney General Brenna Bird issued a statement saying that Iowa had about 250 noncitizens registered to vote, but the Biden administration wouldn’t provide data about them.

    Pate told reporters last month that his office was forced to rely upon a list of potential noncitizens from the Iowa Department of Transportation. It named people who registered to vote or voted after identifying themselves as noncitizens living in the U.S. legally when they previously sought driver’s licenses.

    “Today’s court victory is a guarantee for all Iowans that their votes will count and not be canceled out by illegal votes,” Bird said in the statement issued after Sunday’s decision.

    But ACLU attorneys said Iowa officials were conceding that most of the people on the list are eligible to vote and shouldn’t have been included. They said the state was violating naturalized citizens’ voting rights by wrongfully challenging their registrations and investigating them if they cast ballots.

    Pate issued his directive Oct. 22, only two weeks before the Nov. 5 election, and ACLU attorneys argued that federal law prohibits such a move so close to Election Day.

    The people on the state’s list of potential noncitizens may have become naturalized citizens after their statements to the Department of Transportation. Pate’s office told county elections officials to challenge their ballots and have them cast provisional ballots instead. That would leave the decision of whether they will be counted to local officials upon further review, with voters having seven days to provide proof of their U.S. citizenship.

    In his ruling, Locher wrote that Pate backed away from some of his original hardline positions at an earlier court hearing. Pate’s attorney said the Secretary of State is no longer aiming to require local election officials to challenge the votes of each person on his list or force voters on the list to file provisional ballots even when they have proven citizenship at a polling place.

    Federal law and states already make it illegal for noncitizens to vote, and the first question on Iowa’s voter registration form asks whether a person is a U.S. citizen. The form also requires potential voters to sign a statement saying they are citizens, warning them that if they lie, they can be convicted of a felony, punishable by up to five years in prison.

    Locher’s ruling also came after a federal judge had halted a similar program in Alabama challenged by civil rights groups and the U.S. Department of Justice. Testimony from state officials in that case showed that roughly 2,000 of the more than 3,200 voters who were made inactive were actually legally registered citizens.

    In Iowa’s case, noncitizens who are registered are potentially only a tiny fraction of the state’s 2.2 million registered voters.

    But Locher wrote that it appears to be undisputed that some portion of the names on Pate’s list are registered voters who are not U.S. citizens. Even if that portion is small, an injunction effectively would force local election officials to let ineligible voters cast ballots, he added.

    Democrats and Republicans have been engaged in a sprawling legal fight over this year’s election for months. Republicans have filed dozens of lawsuits challenging various aspects of vote-casting after being chastised repeatedly by judges in 2020 for bringing complaints about how the election was run only after votes were tallied. Democrats have their own team of dozens of staffers fighting GOP cases.

    Immigrants gain citizenship through a process called naturalization, which includes establishing residency, proving knowledge of basic American history and institutions as well as taking an oath of allegiance to the United States.

    —-

    Hanna reported from Topeka, Kansas, and Goldberg, from Minneapolis.