Tag Archives: Supreme Court

Supreme Court temporarily blocks Louisiana abortion law

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Supreme Court, two days after hearing a major abortion case from Texas, on Friday temporarily blocked a Louisiana law imposing regulations on doctors who perform abortions in a move that would allow two recently closed clinics to reopen.

In a brief order, the court granted a request by abortion providers seeking to reinstate a lower-court injunction that blocked the Republican-backed 2014 law, which required doctors to obtain a formal affiliation with a local hospital.

The abortion providers contend the law was designed to shut down abortion clinics by requiring hospital “admitting privileges” that are difficult for their doctors to secure.

Louisiana will now have four clinics in total.

The order noted that one of the eight justices, conservative Clarence Thomas, said he would have denied the application.

The order said the court’s action was in line with its decision in June to temporarily block part of a Texas abortion law that was challenged by abortion providers in a high-profile case. The justices heard oral arguments in that case on Wednesday.

The Louisiana law mandates that physicians who perform abortions have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the abortion clinic. The regulation matches one in the Texas law.

U.S. District Judge John deGravelles in January granted a preliminary injunction sought by abortion providers, finding the law violated the constitutional right to an abortion established by the Supreme Court in 1973. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals blocked that decision on Feb. 24, allowing the law to go into effect.

The high court’s action sent mixed signals on how it might rule in the Texas case, in part because the justices previously allowed the Texas admitting privileges provision to go into effect.

The action could suggest the court has greater concerns about admitting privileges requirements than were indicated during Wednesday’s argument in the Texas case. Friday’s move effectively put Louisiana’s law on hold while the justices prepare a ruling, expected by the end of June, in the Texas case.

Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which represents abortion providers in both cases, welcomed the court’s action.

“These underhanded tactics to cut off women’s access to safe, legal abortion simply cannot stand,” Northup said.

The Texas case also involves a separate provision that requires clinics to have costly, hospital-grade facilities.

The Louisiana law was signed by Republican then-Governor Bobby Jindal in 2014.

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Will Dunham)

Key justice Kennedy wavers as Supreme Court confronts abortion

By Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A closely divided Supreme Court struggled with its biggest abortion case in years on Wednesday, with pivotal Justice Anthony Kennedy voicing concerns about a restrictive Texas law yet stopping short of signaling he would strike it down.

The court’s four liberal justices indicated they believed the law, which imposes strict regulations on abortion doctors and clinic buildings, intrudes on a woman’s constitutional right to end a pregnancy established in a 1973 ruling.

Conservative justices including Kennedy expressed doubt during the 85-minute oral argument about claims by abortion providers who asserted that the Republican-backed 2013 law forced numerous clinics to shut down.

Kennedy at one point suggested sending the case back to a lower court to get further evidence on the law’s impact, including an assessment of the ability of existing Texas clinics to meet the demand for abortions.

If there is evidence new clinics that meet the state’s regulations have increased capacity to perform abortions, it would show the law has provided a “beneficial effect,” Kennedy said.

The outcome appeared to be in the hands of Kennedy, who often casts the deciding vote in close rulings. In past abortion cases, he has backed a fundamental right to abortion while supporting some restrictions.

The court was shorthanded with only eight justices following the Feb. 13 death of conservative Antonin Scalia, leaving the liberals and conservatives evenly divided.

The best that supporters of the law could hope for would be a 4-4 split that would let stand a lower-court ruling that affirmed the Texas regulations but set no nationwide legal precedent on whether other states could enact similar measures.

However, a such ruling leaving the Texas law intact could encourage other states with anti-abortion legislatures to pass similar laws.

Kennedy gave little indication he would be willing to uphold the law in full, as his three conservative colleagues would be expected to do. If Kennedy sides with the court’s four liberals, the court could either send the case back to the lower court or strike it down.

A ruling is due by the end of June. A decision sending the case to a lower court could mean the dispute might not be resolved for years.

Some justices questioned the lack of evidence on why specific clinics closed after the law was passed, which could be addressed if new legal proceedings take place. Abortion providers assert that the law caused 22 of 41 clinics to close, but the state contests those numbers.

“What is the evidence in the record that the closures are related to the legislation?” conservative Chief Justice John Roberts asked.

Texas contends the law, passed by a Republican-controlled legislature and signed by a Republican governor, protects women’s health. The abortion providers who have challenged it assert that the regulations are aimed at shutting down their clinics.

MEDICALLY INDUCED ABORTIONS

In a sign that he was not comfortable with aspects of the law, Kennedy sounded concerned about a possible increase in surgical abortions prompted in part by the state’s separate new restrictions on medically induced abortions, in which women take pills to terminate a pregnancy. Kennedy said that “this law has really increased the number of surgical procedures as opposed to medical procedures, and that this may not be medically wise.”

Abortion rights advocates say surgical abortions increased because of the delays women seeking an abortion faced as a result of the 2013 law.

Liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg questioned the need for a provision of the law requiring clinics to have costly, hospital-grade facilities, when abortions almost always are low-risk procedures for the woman.

“What was the problem the legislature was responding to that it needed to improve the facilities for women’s health?” Ginsburg asked.

The Texas law requires abortion doctors to have “admitting privileges,” a type of formal affiliation, at a hospital within 30 miles (48 km) of the clinic. Abortion providers say the provision already has forced clinics to close because such an affiliation is hard to obtain.

The abortion providers also challenged a provision, not yet in effect, requiring clinics to have hospital-grade facilities with standards for corridor width, plumbing, parking spaces, room size, the spacing of beds and many other attributes.

Conservative Justice Samuel Alito indicated support for the regulations and referred to evidence that abortion facilities in Texas “have been cited for really appalling violations when they were inspected: holes in the floor where rats could come in, the lack of any equipment to adequately sterilize instruments.”

The Supreme Court’s last major abortion ruling came in 2007 when it upheld a federal law banning a late-term abortion procedure.

The Supreme Court legalized abortion in the 1973 Roe v. Wade case. But abortion remains a disputed issue in the United States, as it does in many countries, and some states have passed laws aiming to place a variety of restrictions on a woman’s ability to terminate a pregnancy.

The court is considering the Texas case in the midst of the heated campaign ahead of the Nov. 8 U.S. presidential election.

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Additional reporting by Joan Biskupic and Clarece Polke; Editing by Will Dunham)

U.S. Supreme Court hears high-stakes Texas abortion case

By Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday heard arguments in a major abortion case focusing on whether a Texas law that imposes strict regulations on abortion doctors and clinic buildings interferes with the constitutional right of a woman to end her pregnancy.

Eight justices were on the bench as arguments began in the case, not the usual nine. The Feb. 13 death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, who opposed abortion and backed restrictions on it, means the court no longer has five conservatives who might support more restrictive abortion regulations nationwide.

The court potentially could split 4-4, with its four liberal justices opposing the abortion restrictions and its four conservatives backing the regulations, an action that would let stand a lower-court ruling that affirmed the Texas law but would not set a nationwide legal precedent.

The state contends the Republican-backed 2013 law protects women’s health. The abortion providers who have challenged it assert that it is aimed at shutting down their clinics.

The court has not ruled in an abortion case since 2007. The Texas case represents a high-stakes constitutional test for a strategic shift that abortion opponents have taken in recent years: to apply restrictive regulations to abortion doctors and facilities rather than try to ban the procedure outright.

Activists on both sides of the issue gathered outside the courthouse on a chilly, blustery day.

Among the hundreds of demonstrators was Taylor Crumpton, who came from rural Texas to protest against the Texas law, saying “every single abortion clinic I’ve ever seen or known has been shut down.”

“This pro-life culture has just erupted in Texas and dehumanized women who even want to have an abortion,” she said.

Annie Piper, a student at Liberty University, a Christian college in Lynchburg, Virginia, voiced support for the law.

“These actually are laws that are trying to help women,” Piper said. “A lot of abortion clinics don’t have the resources to provide proper care for women, so all our legislators are doing is making sure women get safe and proper healthcare.”

ALL EYES ON KENNEDY

There is a chance that conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy, who often casts the deciding vote in close cases, could join the liberals for a majority invalidating the law, or parts of it. Kennedy in past cases has supported a fundamental right to abortion but has endorsed restrictions including bans on a late-term abortion procedure.

The Texas law requires abortion doctors to have “admitting privileges” at a hospital within 30 miles (48 km) of the clinic so they can treat patients needing surgery or other critical care.

Abortion providers say the provision already has prompted clinics to close because this formal hospital affiliation is difficult for clinic doctors to obtain.

The abortion providers also are challenging provisions in the law, not yet in effect, that mandate that clinics have costly, hospital-grade facilities.

The Supreme Court found a constitutional right to end a pregnancy in the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade case. That decision was affirmed in 1992, as the justices ruled that any regulation must not impose an “undue burden” on women seeking an abortion.

At issue in Wednesday’s case is whether the Texas requirements violate that principle by putting a “substantial obstacle” in the path of a woman before a fetus becomes viable.

A ruling is due by the end of June.

Outside the white marble courthouse, there were dueling chants of “Pro women, pro life” and “Stop the sham” as anti-abortion and abortion-rights demonstrators faced off.

At one point, anti-abortion protesters linked arms to block abortion-rights protesters, forming a protective circle around speakers during a rally. Some sang a religious hymn, “Spirit of the Living God,” as abortion-rights demonstrators surrounded them.

One young woman clutched rosary beads in her hands and had red tape over her mouth with the word “life” written on it.

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Additional reporting by Clarece Polke; Editing by Bill Trott and Will Dunham)

Even with court’s approval, Obama’s immigration plan faces hurdles

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – If the U.S. Supreme Court endorses a key immigration initiative of President Barack Obama protecting more than 4 million illegal immigrants from deportation, his administration could face a surge of applicants and little time to process them before he leaves office in January 2017.

Obama announced the action in November 2014 but it has never gone into effect, being put on hold by a federal judge in Texas in February 2015. The plan was designed to help illegal immigrant parents of children who are U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents. It would protect them from deportation and give them work authorization.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday said it would decide whether Obama acted lawfully in creating the program by executive order, bypassing a gridlocked Congress. If Obama wins when the court rules by the end of June, his administration would have just seven months to implement the program.

Obama’s victory could be short-lived because the next president, set to be elected in November, would have the final say on whether to keep the program in place.

Democrats including presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton have embraced Obama’s plan. Republican presidential candidates including businessman Donald Trump and Texas Senator Ted Cruz have assailed it. Cruz said on Tuesday if elected he would rescind Obama’s order on the first day of his presidency.

An earlier immigration program that gave similar relief to children of illegal immigrants who grew up in the United States showed that such policies take time to implement. Launched in June 2012, it took two months to put in place.

After that, there were almost 408,000 applications in the first six months of the program, according to government numbers. By January 2013, only 154,000 applications had been approved. More than 700,000 people have since benefited from the program.

The government has been able to do nothing to prepare while Obama’s executive action has been on hold. In the injunction that halted the plan, U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen specifically said the administration was barred from “implementing any and all aspects or phases” of the program.

A Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman said the federal government is complying with the injunction.

Immigration advocates said they are preparing for a new effort to educate potential applicants about the program. They forecast much higher numbers than those who applied to the earlier 2012 program, largely because many more are eligible.

“There is no way the administration can process the projected volume of people that would be eligible,” said Gregory Chen, director of advocacy for the American Immigration Lawyers Association.

The new program is likely to present additional bureaucratic problems, legal experts say, in part due to the larger pool of eligible people but also because of the specific nature of the applicants. Both programs require proof of continued residency in the United States.

For younger people, this is easier to prove as usually they can cite school records, immigration experts say. For older people, who often do not speak English, it can be harder to provide necessary documentation. Women who do not work could find it especially difficult.

“It’s going to be a little bit more tricky for some applicants,” said Adonia Simpson, managing attorney for the Esperanza Center, an immigrant resource center run by Catholic Charities in Baltimore. In some cases, approval will be delayed while the government asks for additional evidence, she added.

Criticism of Obama’s actions by Republican candidates could also deter some people from applying, Simpson said. In her group’s discussions with immigrants, “we make it very clear that this is an executive action that could be changed,” she said.

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Additional reporting by Richard Cowan and Julia Edwards; Editing by Will Dunham)

Supreme Court to decide major case on Obama immigration plan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday paved the way for a major ruling on the limits of presidential powers, agreeing to decide the legality of President Barack Obama’s unilateral action to shield more than 4 million illegal immigrants from deportation.

The court agreed to hear Obama’s bid to resurrect his plan, undertaken in 2014 through executive action bypassing the Republican-led Congress, that was blocked last year by lower courts after Texas and 25 other Republican-governed states sued to stop it. A ruling is due by the end of June.

The case is not the first time Obama has asked the Supreme Court to rescue a major initiative. The court in 2012 and 2015 rejected conservative challenges to his signature healthcare law.

The White House expressed confidence the court would now deem as lawful Obama’s immigration action, which was crafted to let millions of illegal immigrants whose children are American citizens or lawful permanent residents to get into a program that protects them from deportation and supplies work permits.

Texas and the other states contend Obama exceeded his presidential powers and usurped the authority of Congress. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican, said courts have long recognized the limits to presidential authority.

“The court should affirm what President Obama said himself on more than 20 occasions: that he cannot unilaterally rewrite congressional laws and circumvent the people’s representatives,” Paxton said.

The nine justices will review a November ruling by the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld a February 2015 decision by U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen in Brownsville, a city along the Texas border with Mexico, to halt Obama’s action.

With some of his major legislative initiatives suffocated by Republican lawmakers, the Democratic president has resorted to executive action to get around Congress on issues including immigration, gun control and the Obamacare law. The most recent executive action came this month when he acted unilaterally to expand background checks for certain gun purchases.

His executive actions have antagonized Republicans who accuse him of unlawfully taking actions by executive fiat that only Congress can perform.

The case raises several legal issues, including whether states have legal standing to sue the U.S. government over decisions on how to enforce federal laws.

‘FAITHFULLY EXECUTED’

The high court added a separate question on whether the president’s action violated a provision of the U.S. Constitution that requires the president to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

The Obama administration called the president’s action mere guidance to immigration officials on how to exercise discretion given by Congress on how to enforce immigration laws.

Obama’s action was “consistent with the actions taken by presidents of both parties, the laws passed by Congress and the decisions of the Supreme Court,” White House spokeswoman Brandi Hoffine said.

Those eligible for Obama’s program, directed at illegal immigrants with no criminal record, would be able to work legally and receive some federal benefits. States were not required to provide any benefits. His order expanded on a 2012 program that provided similar relief for people who became illegal immigrants as children.

The case could have repercussions beyond immigration because it would set a precedent for the circumstances under which states can sue the federal government over a range of executive actions. Future presidents, Republican or Democratic, could face new constraints if the states win.

The case is one of the most important the Supreme Court will decide during its current term, along with a challenge to a restrictive Texas abortion law.

If the court sides with Obama, he would have until his term ends in January 2017 to implement the immigration plan. With the U.S. presidential election looming in November, it would be up to the next president to decide whether to keep it in place.

Obama’s action came after a bipartisan immigration policy overhaul bill passed by the Senate died in the House of Representatives.

The immigration issue has driven a wedge between Hispanics, an increasingly important voting bloc, and Republicans, many of whom have offered tough words about illegal immigrants. Most of the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants are Hispanics, coming from Mexico and other Latin American countries.

The ruling is due just months before the presidential election. The two leading Democratic presidential hopefuls, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, said on Tuesday the court should uphold Obama’s action. Republican candidates Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio said as president they would undo Obama’s immigration moves.

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid said Obama’s executive action relied on well-established constitutional authority.

He said he recently met with the illegal immigrant parents of U.S citizens and lawful permanent residents, saying that “these law-abiding men and women continue to live in constant fear of being separated from their children. These families must be allowed to step out of the shadows and fully contribute to the country that they love and call home.”

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Additional reporting by Roberta Rampton, Richard Cowan and Julia Edwards; Editing by Will Dunham)

Supreme Court to Hear First Major Abortion Case in 8 Years

On Friday, the Supreme Court made a decision to hear a challenge against a Texas law that put strict requirements on abortion providers in the name of protecting women’s health. This is the first major abortion case that the Supreme Court has agreed to give a voice to in 8 years. This ruling could raises questions about the legal fate of similar laws in more than a dozen other states.

The 2013 law requires abortion clinics to meet the same medical standards as standalone surgery centers, and forces doctors who provide abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals within 30 miles of their clinics.

Conservative groups that approve of the laws say they’ll protect women and prevent abuses like the case of Dr. Kermit Gosnell, a Philadelphia abortion provider sentenced to life in jail for first-degree murder.

Gosnell, was a doctor that ran an abortion clinic called the Women’s Medical Society in West Philadelphia.The grand jury report is full of horrific and gruesome details about the clinic that Gosnell ran for more than three decades. Patients were neglected; providers were not certified. Most abortions were done after 24 weeks and at a clinic that was described as a filthy house of horrors.

On May 13, 2013 a jury found Gosnell guilty on three of four charges of murder of babies born in his clinic who were born alive but whom he killed. The jury also found him guilty of involuntary manslaughter from the death of one of his abortion patients.
“Until recently, abortion clinics were held to similar health regulations as beauty salons or public pools,” the March for Life Education & Defense Fund said in a statement.

Supporters of the clinics note that when the laws were passed in 2013, there were more than 40 clinics in the state. Only 10 would remain if the laws are upheld, to serve 5.4 million women of reproductive age.

Whatever the court’s ruling will set precedent for either imposing clinic regulations or cause similar requirements in other states to be challenged. Ten of the 50 U.S. states have imposed requirements similar to those in Texas. Six have enacted laws requiring hospital grade facilities.

The Court’s ruling is set for June.

Sixteen States Back Christian Universities in Appeal Against ACA

Three Christian Universities found themselves with unexpected supporters for their appeal to the Supreme Court over the contraception mandates in the Affordable Care Act (ACA):  16 state governments.  Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia announced their support for the school’s appeal.

Houston Baptist University (HBU), East Texas Baptist University (ETBU) and Westminster Theological Seminary have appealed to the Supreme Court over a lower court’s ruling they expand the contraception options in their health insurance plans.  The schools currently offer 10 different forms of contraception, but do not want to carry four forms of contraception that fall into the category of abortifacient drugs, or drugs that cause an abortion.

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, who is defending the school’s rights, says the support of 16 states through friend-of-the-court briefs is a major bonus to the school’s case.

“This strong show of support for HBU and ETBU (and Westminster Theological Seminary) demonstrates just how important it is that the Supreme Court address the impact of the HHS mandate, particularly on religious groups,” said Diana Verm, Legal Counsel at the Becket Fund, in a statement. “It is especially significant that the 16 state governments are supporting HBU and ETBU at the Supreme Court.

The 16 states claim in their briefs that the schools maintain “a sincere religious conviction that complying with the disputed mandate is forbidden.”  The Attorneys General for the states also endorsed providing the schools with the same exemptions that are given to churches.

A federal appeals court ruled against the Little Sisters of the Poor in a similar case last month.  If the exemptions are not given to the schools and organizations challenging the mandate, they could face millions of dollars in IRS fines for not making the abortifacient drugs available as part of their health care plans.

Oklahoma Court Denies State’s Appeal on Ten Commandments Monument

The Oklahoma state Supreme Court has refused to hear the state’s appeal of their decision to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the state’s capitol grounds.

The ruling to reject the appeal had the same 7-2 vote as the initial decision that claimed the monument was unconstitutional.

 

The lawsuit against the monument was brought in 2013 by the American Civil LIberties Union of Oklahoma.

Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin was bold in her opposition to the court’s ruling.

“The Ten Commandments monument was built to recognize and honor the historical significance of the Commandments in our state’s and nation’s systems of laws,” Fallin said in a statement. “The monument was built and maintained with private dollars. It is virtually identical to a monument on the grounds of the Texas State Capitol which the United States Supreme Court ruled to be permissible. It is a privately funded tribute to historical events, not a taxpayer funded endorsement of any religion, as some have alleged.”

Pakistani Court Suspends Asia Bibi Death Sentence

Pakistan’s Supreme Court has suspended the death sentence of a Christian woman that many claim was falsely accused of blasphemy by Muslims.

Asia Bibi, who has spent the last five years on death row, was also given permission to appeal the conviction against her.  No date has been set for the appeal.

“The execution of Asia Bibi has been suspended and will remain suspended until the decision of this appeal,” her lawyer told reporters.

The accusations against Bibi came in June 2009 when a group of Muslim women objected to the Christian woman collecting water from a bowl after being ordered to do it by her bosses.  The women then incited a mob by saying Bibi had insulted Muhammad leading to Bibi’s beating by a mob and eventual arrest.

“Today is the happiest day for me and my five children. I am now hopeful that my wife, my children and I will get justice from the Supreme Court of Pakistan,” Bibi’s husband Ashiq Masih told reporters from a hidden location as the family is continually being threatened.

“When I have ever met my wife in her cell before, I have found her weeping most of the time, but today she is happy.”

While Pakistan has never executed someone for blasphemy, several convicted people have been lynched by mobs after their release from prison.

Oklahoma Governor: The Ten Commandments Stay

Oklahoma governor Mary Fallin is standing up to her state’s Supreme Court and refusing to remove a monument of the Ten Commandments the court said violated their state Constitution.

The governor noted that Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt has asked the Oklahoma Supreme Court to reconsider the 7-2 decision which supported a challenge by the ACLU of Oklahoma.

The justices said the monument violated Article II, Section 5 of the state constitution:  “No public money or property shall ever be appropriated, applied, donated, or used, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, or system of religion, or for the use, benefit, or support of any priest, preacher, minister, or other religious teacher or dignitary, or sectarian institution as such.”

Legislators are pushing to allow a vote of the citizens to remove that passage from the state constitution.

“Oklahoma is a state where we respect the rule of law, and we will not ignore the state courts or their decisions,” Fallin said. “However, we are also a state with three co-equal branches of government.”

“Legislators and supporters of the monument intended it as a tribute to the importance of the Ten Commandments in our history and our system of laws,” Fallin added in a statement. “Celebrating the historical importance of religions and religious values is not a new idea. Our nation is steeped in references to God and the rights He bestows on all men and women.”

“None of these represent state endorsement of or support for any religion. They are celebrations or visual representations of our culture and events of historical importance,” she added.

Attorney General Pruitt noted that the monument is almost identical to one in Texas that the Supreme Court ruled constitutional.  The monument was erected by private donations, not with state funds.