.@TedCruz: Today is one step closer to Judge #NeilGorsuch being confirmed as the next Associate Justice on the Supreme Court. pic.twitter.com/tMOLio7qrj

— Fox News (@FoxNews) April 3, 2017

As Senate Democrats gained enough votes to block Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch’s vote on the floor with a filibuster, the Republicans are poised to blow the entire process up with the “nuclear option” that President Trump alluded to while nominating the judge. Sen. Ted Cruz (who you can see above), Sen. Lindsey Graham, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell all indicated on Monday that the GOP leaders are prepared to go “nuclear” in a fight to prevent the filibuster. In doing so, they’d pass a law that would lower the number of votes necessary to end a debate on a Supreme Court nominee from 60 to 51. As of Monday, Republicans held 55 votes, including three Democrats who have said they would cross party lines.

Texas Senator Ted Cruz delivered a short statement on Monday, chastising the Democrats for opposing the Gorsuch nomination for no reason other than revenge (presumably, after Republicans blocked Obama nominee Merrick Garland). Cruz lashed out at the Democrats for not voting on Gorsuch based on his resume, but rather voting against his nomination for political reasons:

“For those who value the Consitution and the Bill of Rights, today is one step closer to judge Neil Gorsuch being confirmed as the next Associate Justice on the Supreme Court … what we saw today is the position of the modern Democratic party, as they are opposed to Donald Trump appointing anyone to the Supreme Court.”

The irony in this is of course that just a few months ago Cruz floated the idea of blocking Hillary Clinton from nominating any Supreme Court justices when it appeared as though she was a shoo-in to win the election.

Earlier in the day, Sen. Graham also scolded the Democrats for turning the confirmation of the Supreme Court seat into a partisan exercise and asserted that the Democrats’ attempts to stand in the way of a Gorsuch vote would be ultimately fruitless:

“We will not have a successful filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee because if we have to we will change the rules, and looks like we are going to have to. I hate that. I really, really do.

On Sunday, Mitch McConnell pulled no punches during his appearance on Meet The Press, also saying the GOP will go ahead with the “nuclear option” to change Senate rules and avoid a filibuster:

“Neil Gorsuch will be confirmed this week. How that happens will really depend on what will happen with our Democratic friends.”

It’s looking more and more likely that in order to pass the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch, Republicans are going to have to effectively change House rules. Gorsuch was nominated by President Donald Trump to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia, whose seat has remained open since February 2016.

(Via Fox News)

Getty Image

After two weeks of confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Judge Neil Gorsuch of Denver’s 10th Circuit Court of Appeals faces a third and final week of hurdles. By Friday, Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee may finally replace the ninth seat left vacant after Antonin Scalia’s passing in early 2016. Though Democrats seem determined to do everything they can to stop that from happening.

The Road To The Filibuster

Unsurprisingly, Republicans both on and off the Judiciary Committee have showered Gorsuch with praise while tossing him a collection of softball questions about his judicial record. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minnesota), on the other hand, was nowhere near as nice. Franken was especially enraged over a 10th Circuit Court of Appeals case in which Gorsuch, citing what’s called the “plain meaning” rule, ruled in favor of TransAm over Alphonse Maddin in the infamous “frozen trucker” case. Maddin was fired for disobeying TransAm after his brakes froze, putting him in a perilous place between death by hypothermia or illegally delivering his shipment.

With those concerns, the investigation into Russia’s ties to the Trump administration, and the notion of payback for the Republicans decision to deny Merrick Garland a hearing prior to the election when President Obama nominated him to take Scalia’s seat, it appears that many Democrats are inclined to oppose Gorsuch and trigger a filibuster. Which could, in turn, trigger a response from Senate Republicans with far reaching implications.

And McConnell plans on using it. During an interview on Fox News Sunday, McConnell avoided saying the term “Nuclear Option” directly but argued that “Judge Gorsuch is going to be confirmed” regardless of Democrats’ intended filibuster. And by admitting “the way in which [Gorsuch’s confirmation” occurs is in the hands of the Democratic minority,” the Senate majority leader all but confirmed that he will push a 2013 rule change (that was initiated by Democrats) further by changing the threshold from 60 votes to a simple majority for Supreme Court nominees. Judiciary Committee member Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) later admitted as much on CNN.

Where Senate Democrats Stand

So far, three Senate Democrats have come out in support of Gorsuch’s nomination. As the New York Times astutely notes, all three hail from state won by Trump during the presidential election, and all three are up for re-election in 2018. Whether or not these political motivations directly played into their individual decisions to vote in Gorsuch’s favor remains to be seen. Also unknown is whether or not a fourth Democratic senator, who announced he would not support the filibuster, will outright vote for Gorsuch.

Though Democrats reportedly have enough votes to fillibuster, there’s still the chance that a deal will be struck with Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona) currently driving that effort. We’ll keep you updated on that and on the Democrats that voice support for a Yes vote on Gorsuch.

Here are the Democrats who fit that description presently:

Heidi Heitkamp (D-North Dakota)

Getty Image

Heitkamp previously criticized Republicans for their treatment of Garland. “Senate Republicans played politics at its worst with an honorable, deeply qualified jurist — arguably the most well qualified nominee in modern history — who had long been supported by Republican and Democratic senators for his unmatched experience,” she said, adding she was “disturbed” by Garland’s mistreatment.

Even so, the North Dakota politician came out on Thursday, March 30th with a statement declaring her intent to vote for Gorsuch. “He has a record as a balanced, meticulous, and well respected jurist who understands the rule of law,” Heitkamp said of Trump’s nominee. “He has unique and critical experience with tribal sovereignty, Indian law, and public lands issues in the west, and has received the endorsement of numerous tribes and major Native American organizations.”

Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia)

Getty Image

West Virginia’s Joe Manchin also blasted his Republican colleagues’ treatment of Garland while declaring his support for Gorsuch last Thursday. What they did, he told CNN’s Chris Cuomo, was “wrong” and “disgraceful.” As a result, Manchin argued, Democrats en masse felt “that’s how we were treated, so we’re going to treat them the same.” Even so, the senator state he would “vote to confirm [Gorsuch] to be the ninth justice on the Supreme Court” after “considering his record, watching his testimony in front of the Judiciary Committee and meeting with him twice.”

Joe Donnelly (D-Indiana)

Getty Image

The pendulum swung further in Gorsuch’s favor Monday morning, when Sen. Joe Donnelly of Indiana proclaimed he would vote for Trump’s Supreme Court nominee. In a statement to the press during the Judiciary Committee’s deliberations, Donnelly described Gorsuch as “a qualified jurist who will base his decision on his understanding of the law and is well respected among his peers.” He also spoke out against the threatened nuclear’s options potential use, saying the Senate should keep the previous 60-vote threshold necessary to end a filibuster.

Michael Bennet (D-Colorado)

Getty Image

Unlike Heitkamp, Manchin and Donnelly, Sen. Michael Bennet of Colorado didn’t necessarily come out and say he would vote for Gorsuch. However, he did lend his political weight against the Democrats’ desired filibuster: “I don’t think it’s wise for our party to filibuster this nominee or for Republicans to invoke the nuclear option.” Unlike his party colleagues, Bennet finds himself in an odd position as the politician described as a “centrist” by Politico introduced Gorsuch, a Colorado judge, during the first day of his Senate confirmation hearing two weeks prior. The traditionalist is “struggling” with the matter, according to the political news blog, and his pseudo defection on Monday doesn’t bode well for his party’s case against Gorsuch.

Getty Image

Trump Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch will likely pass muster when all is said and done in the Senate. Many have expressed the desire for a Democratic filibuster, but while Sen. Jeff Merkley recently held the floor for 15-hours, his speech wasn’t technically a filibuster (because he wasn’t yet preventing a vote). However, Senate Democrats have successfully blocked Gorsuch’s nomination from advancing further in the Senate.

Gorsuch did not receive the 60 votes needed to end the debate over his nomination, so the block was successful. Of course, this is a temporary measure, since Senate Republicans — led by Mitch McConnell — have made no secret of their intention to change the rules. Via the New York Times:

The 55-45 Senate vote was five short of the 60 needed to cut off debate on Judge Gorsuch’s nomination and move to a final confirmation vote. The Democrats’ opposition is unlikely to stop Judge Gorsuch, however. Republicans were expected later on Thursday to pursue the so-called nuclear option: changing longstanding rules to bypass the filibuster and lift President Trump’s nominee with a simple majority vote. Judge Gorsuch’s final confirmation is expected on Friday.

What comes next? 24 full hours of Senate angst, which will almost undoubtedly result in the 52 votes needed to confirm, provided that the GOP does change the rules as promised. Such a rules change will also prevent a pesky filibuster from burning tonight’s midnight oil.

Yet a rules change will not arrive without consequence. This so-called “nuclear option” will only breed resentment and lead to even more combative Supreme Court-related debates for future nominees. If the GOP can elevate their nominees without much resistance (and a simple majority vote is currently easy to pull off, given the Senate’s composition), Trump will be tempted to bring in judges who lean even further to the right than Gorsuch does. This will only breed more fiery showdowns than what we’re seeing today. This is America in 2017.

UPDATE – 12:35pm: The Associated Press reports that Senate Republicans have voted to “go nuclear” and will change the rules while bypassing a filibuster.

(Via New York Times & Washington Post)

VP Pence: “The nomination of Neil M. Gorsuch of Colorado to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States is confirmed.” pic.twitter.com/y3FxmMUaMO

— This Week (@ThisWeekABC) April 7, 2017

Thanks to the Republicans’ use of the “nuclear option,” Neil Gorsuch is now a member of the Supreme Court. The chamber voted 54-45 to confirm the 49-year-old Denver-based judge, making him the ninth Supreme Court Justice and replacing Justice Antonin Scalia, who passed away in February of 2016. The Republicans moved to change Senate rules in an effort to push Gorsuch, althrough the process was considered a last-resort option to bypass a Democratic filibuster. Now, Gorsuch is set to serve on the Supreme Court for what could be a 30-plus year term.

On Monday, Gorsuch will be sworn in as the 113th person to ever sit on the Supreme Court. The private ceremony will be led by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who will administer the Constitutional Oath. Later in the day, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy will administer the Judicial Oath at public ceremony at the White House.

In early February, President Trump warned that if the Democrats attempted to filibuster the nomination of Gorsuch, he would implore Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Republicans to use the “nuclear” option, meaning that Gorsuch could be confirmed with only 51 votes, instead of the usual 60 that are generally required to break a filibuster. Fast forward to this week when the Democrats did indeed block the Gorsuch vote, resulting in the warned action by McConnell and his crew. By blowing the entire process up, the GOP has now changed the Senate rules forever.

(Via ABC News & New York Times)

Shutterstock

Although North Carolina Republicans won a late night budget battle over the weekend, Democratics achieved a higher legislative victory on Monday when the U.S. Supreme Court decided not to review the state’s highly controversial voter ID law. Last July, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the problematic piece of legislation, ruling what the state’s GOP claimed was an attempt to curb voter fraud was actually a form of voter discrimination in violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

In their unanimous decision, the Fourth Circuit’s panel of three Democratic judges struck down key parts of the law, which they argued was designed to “target African-Americans with almost surgical precision” in certain precincts. Then-Governor Pat McCrory — who became nationally infamous for his state’s anti-LGBT “bathroom bill” (and subsequent attempts to thwart his Democratic successor) — vowed to repeal the decision. And since then-AG (and future governor) Roy Cooper wouldn’t contend the Fourth Circuit’s decision, McCrory went so far as to claim he would take his case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Per custom, the Supreme Court did not offer an official reason for their decision not to hear the case. However, the New York Times reports Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. issued his own statement, in which he briefly noted “there was a dispute about who represented the state in the case,” adding “that nothing should be read into the court’s decision to decline to hear it.”

(Via New York Times)

Shutterstock

North Carolina is (unofficially) the GOP’s policy lab in that many of the party’s more controversial policies are first tested there. And that has not been going well when it comes to voting rights. First, North Carolina’s controversial voter ID law couldn’t make it to the Supreme Court, meaning it will remain struck down as a violation of the Voting Rights Act. And now, North Carolina has lost another case in a landmark ruling that will likely force many states to completely redraw their districts.

At issue was whether North Carolina’s first and twelfth districts were racially gerrymandered. The court ruled that both were, which doesn’t surprise observers. What did surprise them was that the 5-3 verdict, with the fifth vote cast by conservative justice Clarence Thomas, has made challenging gerrymandering much easier in court. There are, roughly, two types of gerrymandering that come before the court: Gerrymandering by political party, and gerrymandering by race. The former is illegal, but has a higher burden of proof.

Gerrymandering based on race, however, is a violation of the Voting Rights Act. What makes this Supreme Court ruling such a bombshell is that it essentially states that the argument that districts with an unusually large number of non-white voters cannot use race as a proxy for party, or in other words, maps cannot be drawn on the assumption that non-white people will always vote for the Democrat. Many, many districts across the country have been drawn on exactly this argument, so this opens the door, essentially to a wholesale redrawing of dozens of electoral maps.

The court didn’t make this an absolute: Any challenge will need to demonstrate that race, not party, was the deciding factor and that the VRA applies. But that also lowers the standard for challenging a district in court, which will both make gerrymandering that much harder and will also force states to redraw districts more often as demographics shift. It also did this well before the 2018 elections, making life that much harder for a GOP already facing a tough midterm.

(via Election Law Blog)

Getty Image

If you’re not entirely sure what “gerrymandering” is, then you should probably amend this particular knowledge gap as soon as possible. Why? Because it’s the legal process by which elected officials determine the size and scope of electoral districts, more often than not for their or their party’s own advantage, and it has led to many high profile court cases as of late. Even former President Barack Obama has vowed to fight against the practice’s misuses and abuses during his post-presidency, though the Supreme Court of the United States may beat him to the punch.

That’s because the SCOTUS has agreed to hear a case out of Wisconsin concerning the partisan nature of gerrymandering, and whether or not this renders the practice unconstitutional. According to a New York Times story last November, a three-judge panel ruled that the Republican-controlled state legislature’s redistricting in 2011 unfairly favored their party over Democrats, and that such partisan gerrymandering was unconstitutional. The federal court’s decision was the first time in three decades that such a ruling had been made on a redistricting case, thereby setting the stage for a possible showdown in the Supreme Court.

Politico reports that the State of Wisconsin requested that the SCOTUS either overturn the three-judge panel’s ruling or put the matter on hold, but Monday’s announcement means the high court will hear the case sometime in the fall. Meanwhile, CNN notes that while prior cases have concluded partisan gerrymandering to be illegal, none have quantified the matter in explicit terms for future benefit. As a result, CNN analyst and law professor Steve Vladeck adds this case could have “enormous ramifications” for the practice of redistricting — not just in Wisconsin, but in all 50 states.

“The justices have never been able to identify the specific point at which states cross the constitutional line. In this case, a lower court held that Wisconsin had indeed crossed that line,” says Vladeck. “If the justices agree, it would be the first time the court has articulated a constitutional rule in this context, which could — and likely would — have enormous ramifications nationwide.”

Meanwhile, others have a different theory about the Wisconsin gerrymandering case’s real significance…

(Via Politico and CNN)

Shutterstock

The Supreme Court has unanimously rejected a law that banned sex offenders from social media sites like Facebook and Twitter. The Court ruled in favor of convicted North Carolina sex offender Lester Packingham Jr. who was caught on Facebook posting about beating a traffic ticket back in 2010. The North Carolina law, on the books since 2008, sought to keep sex offenders off of websites that children might use.

In 2010, a Durham police officer was patrolling Facebook when he came across a post by Packingham, who registered as a sex offender after pleading guilty to taking indecent liberties with a child after originally being indicted for statutory rape years earlier.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, saying, “To foreclose access to social media altogether is to prevent the user from engaging in the legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights.”

However, Justices John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and Clarence Thomas warned that the ruling, and Kennedy’s “loose rhetoric,” could make it harder for state’s to police (or restrict) sex offenders’ use of the internet. “This language is bound to be interpreted by some to mean that the states are largely powerless to restrict even the most dangerous sexual predators from visiting any internet sires, including for example internet dating sites,” Alito wrote.

While many states have laws that require sex offenders to report their internet activity or limit it as a condition of parole or probation, Louisiana is the only state with a similar law, though it only applies to those convicted of sex crimes with children.

It’s a busy time at the Supreme Court with the term coming to an end in the next couple of weeks. It was announced earlier that the court would soon hear a gerrymandering case from Wisconsin which, like the North Carolina voter ID law that the court recently refused to hear, could have a nation-wide impact.

(via New York Times)

Shutterstock

President Trump will be pleased by news that came out of the Supreme Court’s flurry of Monday announcements. That is to say, the nation’s highest court has agreed to hear Trump’s bid to revive his revised travel ban after the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to reinstate it with a late May ruling. The new ban is much like the old one — it slightly tweaked the visa portions and focused on six Muslim majority countries rather than seven (Trump removed Iraq from the list) — and the Fourth Circuit ruled that the new ban was probably unconstitutional because it discriminated on the basis of religion. SCOTUS will hear formally take up the matter in October, but before that happens, a substantial chunk of the ban will take effect.

On the grounds of protecting national security, Trump had requested an emergency declaration to stay (or postpone the enforcement of) two appeals’ court rulings that blocked the travel ban. The court agreed to do so, although it could decide in October to lift the stay. Here’s the relevant portion of the SCOTUS announcement that allows Trump’s ban to block some travelers:

“We grant the government’s applications to stay the injunctions, to the extent the injunctions prevent enforcement of” Mr. Trump’s executive order “with respect to foreign nationals who lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.”

However, the ban won’t apply (until further proceedings) to any non-citizens (such as students and those who recently received job offers) with formal relationships to U.S. entities. This will provide relief for most of the plaintiffs in the cases that will be considered by the Supreme Court, including a Ninth Circuit decision, which held that Trump exceeded his executive authority on the entry of refugees from the listed countries. Both the Fourth and Ninth Circuit’s rulings will be included in the Supreme Court’s October consideration of the ban as a whole.

In the meantime, legal gossip and speculation is swirling over a possible retirement announcement from liberal Justice Anthony Kennedy. Should he choose to turn in the robe, Trump would have plenty of time to select (and have confirmed) a conservative replacement, which would not only sway this travel ban case but many others, including a high-profile religious liberty case (on the baker who refused to prepare a same-sex wedding cake) that the court has also agreed to hear this fall.

UPDATE: Trump has victoriously tweeted about this “9-O decision,” although it’s not clear whether he realizes that this is not a final decision.

(Via New York Times & CNN)

Getty Image

The Supreme Court is preparing to hear and make rulings on a number of cases that will affect domestic life in the U.S., such as a Wisconsin gerrymandering case that could very well have national repercussions and President Trump’s travel ban. Joining those cases on the docket? An appeal from a baker who lost a discrimination case after refusing to sell a wedding cake to a same-sex couple.

In 2012, David Mullins and Charlie Craig a href=”https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/26/us/politics/supreme-court-wedding-cake-gay-couple-masterpiece-cakeshop.html” target=”_blank”>tried to buy a cake for their wedding reception from Jack Phillips, one of the owners of Masterpiece Cakeshop in the suburbs of Denver:

Mr. Phillips, who calls himself a cake artist, argued that two parts of the First Amendment — its protections for free expression and religious freedom — overrode a Colorado anti-discrimination law and allowed him to refuse to create a custom wedding cake.

Mullins and Craig filed a complaint against Phillips with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission saying he violated the state’s public accommodations law which prohibits businesses from refusing service to people based on factors like race and sexual identity. The couple won and Phillips lost, but refuses to let this one go. In his Supreme Court brief, Phillips’ faith only allows him “to use his artistic talents to promote only messages that align with his religious beliefs,” which is why he doesn’t make Halloween or atheist cakes, either. The brief closes with that classic defense: Mullins and Craig could’ve gotten a “rainbow” cake from another baker.

According to Jezebel, SCOTUS refused to hear a similar appeal from a photographer who refused to take photos of a lesbian couple’s wedding two years ago (when Scalia was still alive!). Lawyers for the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and the ACLU previously implored SCOTUS to turn down the appeal saying that it could open a “gaping hole” in civil rights laws if businesses could cite religious beliefs to refuse anyone service. Happy Pride week, everyone.

(via New York Times & Jezebel)

Getty Image

Late last week, the Supreme Court allowed much of Trump’s revised travel ban to take effect until the justices hear the case in October. The ban zeroes in on six Muslim majority countries (it removes Iraq from the previous ban), and SCOTUS will consider whether the ban as a whole is unconstitutional because it discriminates on the basis of religion. In the meantime, Trump is thrilled about the “9-O decision,” and while it’s unclear whether he realizes that this isn’t a final deal, he has reason to celebrate because major chunks of his ban will soon become a reality.

Part of the guidelines that are now set to go into effect on Thursday (at 8pm EST) include new visa rules that leave grandmothers, grandkids, fiancées, aunts, and uncles out in the cold. Those labels are among those that will not qualify as “close family” in the requirement of a “bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States” for foreign nationals who wish to enter the country. The “bona fide relationship” language previously remained fuzzy and caused uncertainty, but the New York Times has the explicit definition:

According to a diplomatic cable obtained by The New York Times, “close family” is “defined as a parent (including parent-in-law), spouse, child, adult son or daughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, sibling, whether whole or half. This includes step relationships.”

But it went on to state that “close family” does not include “grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, cousins, brothers-in-laws and sisters-in-law, fiances and any other ‘extended’ family members.”

It must be noted that the NY Times includes “Grandma, No” in its headline, which will set up plenty of late-night talk jokes about Trump disrespecting grandmas. And given that the Senate GOP’s healthcare bill prompted protests by people in wheelchairs (some of whom were dragged down the hallway and probably included grandmothers), the Republican platform’s policies that affect matriarchs do not present a good look as a whole. The ban’s exclusion of fiancées makes some (relative) sense because anyone can claim to be engaged, but in what world are grandmas not “close family”?

(Via New York Times)

Getty Image

In late June, the Supreme Court of the United States approved most of Donald Trump’s revised travel ban, which targeted immigrants from six majority Muslim countries. The decision pleased the president and his allies, but details of the ban’s upheld portions later caused controversy — especially when subsequent reports indicated grandparents, aunts, uncles, grandchildren, cousins and fiances were excluded from exemption since they weren’t defined by the executive order as “close family.” A Hawaii federal judge later struck down this portion of the ban, writing these were “bona fide” family members.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court issued yet another ruling on the latest challenge to the travel ban and sided with U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson. Per the Washington Post, the court “refused the administration’s request that it stay a lower court’s decision” regarding the administration’s strict interpretation of its June decision. They then claimed the White House should “go through normal channels” when responding to lower court challenges to the travel ban, which means their next stop should be the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.

Like their June decision, however, the Supreme Court did nothing to clarify its loose definition of “close family,” for which they previously gave a list of examples: “a close relative in the United States, a spot in an American university, a job offer or speaking engagement.” What’s more, Wednesday’s ruling also reiterated the court’s previous decision to allow the Trump administration to enforce its revised travel ban as is.

(Via Washington Post)

Getty Image

Over forty years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court established a woman’s fundamental right to an abortion. Since then, lawmakers, special interest groups, and confused presidential candidates have worked to reverse this right. The court’s landmark case, Roe v. Wade (1973), struck down a Texas law that criminally punished the act of helping a woman get an abortion. Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) established an equally important precedent. The case ruled against a Pennsylvania law that placed “a substantial obstacle” in front of women wishing to obtain an abortion as an “undue burden.” Thus, the undue burden test was born to measure state abortion laws’ constitutionality. And now this test has thrust Texas back into the legal spotlight.

To be fair, Texas did plenty of thrusting on its own.

Few people will ever be convinced by opposing arguments on abortion. The eight justices are no exception to this rule, especially without a ninth, tie-breaking vote. In early 2016, Justice Scalia died in Texas and removed a conservative voice from the court, which remains sharply divided on social issues. The current case in question — Whole Women’s Health vs. Texas — revolves around the 2013 Texas HB2 law. John Oliver recently shredded the legislation’s new clinic requirements as arbitrary and geared more toward eliminating abortion than a medical purpose. The law places these restrictions upon abortions:

• Pregnancies past 20 weeks don’t qualify for an abortion unless the life of the mother or child is at serious risk. In these cases, the abortion doctor must perform the procedure in a way that “provides the best opportunity for the unborn child to survive.”
• Patients using the abortion pill must make up to four in-person clinic visits. These include two pill-taking visits, a follow-up appointment, and a mandatory 24-hour waiting period after an ultrasound for any woman who lives within 100 miles of the clinic.
• Abortion clinic doctors must also have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles. This is the hardest point to satisfy because hospitals aren’t jumping to grant such privileges.

HB2 has already caused clinic shutdowns. If left in place, the law could drive down existing facility numbers from 40 to 10. In a state as expansive as Texas, such a drastic cutback would make getting an abortion insanely difficult. The law has already driven up procedure prices too, which presents difficulty for low-income women looking for safe, legal abortions.

In March, SCOTUS considered case arguments about the constitutionality of HB2. And as expected, the proceeding’s transcript revealed conflict. Four liberal justices hammered away with their belief that the law serves no medical benefit and therefore presents an undue burden on patients. Three conservative justices felt otherwise. And an unconvinced Justice Anthony Kennedy had questions. He suggested that this law could increase surgical abortions, which he worried, “May not be medically wise.” But he thought there wasn’t enough evidence to tell how many clinic abortions would be affected. Kennedy’s vote will mean everything to this verdict.

A 4-to-4 SCOTUS tie would leave the appellate ruling in place and uphold the Texas law, which would hinder an untold number of women in the state, and the new legal precedent it would set would also potentially affect millions of women across the country, minority women in particular. Marcela Howell, founder and executive director of In Our Own Voice: National Black Women’s Reproductive Justice Agenda) explained to us how the stakes are high for her community.

“For the 725,000 Black women of reproductive age in Texas, HB2 creates higher costs, longer delays and extra steps for women seeking an abortion,” Howell said. “Black women already face significant barriers to accessing reproductive health care. HB2 dramatically heightened these barriers. Economic hardships, inflexible work schedules and extensive family obligations are facts of life for many Black women living in Texas. The obstacles resulting from HB2 — longer waiting times, extensive travel, costs of child care — make accessing abortion services all but impossible for many women.”

Jessica González-Rojas, executive director of the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health, echoes that sentiment, adding more sobering statistics along with the bottom line, which is a virtual abortion ban upon her community.

“The 2.5 million Latina women of reproductive age in Texas are placed under increased burden by these laws because of their immigration status, zip code and income level,” González-Rojas told us. “For Latinas, particularly in the rural lower Rio Grande Valley, they would have to travel several hours and hundreds of miles to the next available clinic in Austin if the McAllen clinic shutters its doors. These barriers could mean a de facto ban on abortion for Latinas living in the Rio Grande Valley.”

Miriam Yeung, executive director of the National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum, believes it’s unjust to elevate an abortion-seeking woman’s already high emotional burden with additional obstacles.

“Texas is home to the third largest community of Asian American and Pacific Islander women and girls in the United States,” Yeung said. “If HB2 is not struck down, abortion clinics will literally become hundreds of miles harder for our women to access. The emotional distance that women already have to travel to get an abortion is harrowing enough with all the unnecessary laws in place that make women endure waiting periods and undergo sonogram descriptions. By shutting down clinics, HB2 makes the physical distance all but impossible for some in our community to navigate.”

On a national level, the effects on these minority communities would be even more devastating. Howell references the Guttmacher Institute’s research of 288 recent laws that have quietly passed in many (predominantly Southern) states, which effectively shut down abortion access for 12.5 million black women. She also notes the additional difficulties presented by the federal Hyde Amendment that slaps funding restrictions on facilities that provide abortions. González-Rojas points towards the 28 million Latinas in the United States who would be “disproportionately impacted” by clinic shutdowns. And Yeung highlights the Indiana case of Purvi Patel, who ordered abortion pills online and received 20 years in prison for feticide. If HB2 stands, Yeung warns, “We are bound to see more Purvi Patels.”

All three experts we spoke to lament the paternal nature of laws such as HB2 and the Hyde Amendment, which disproportionately target women of color. Hyde did so by limiting funding, and HB2 seeks to eliminate the only available abortion facilities for poor women. As Howell puts it, “Laws cutting off access to abortion services for low-income women who are predominantly women of color are symptomatic of systemic discrimination.” She also believes that it’s time to push back and “trust all women to make the important personal decisions about abortion that are right for themselves.” González-Rojas agrees that these clinic shutdown laws “perpetuate already existing systems of systemic discrimination against immigrants, low-wage workers, mothers, and Latinas who are all three.” And Yeung did not hold back when questioned about whether these laws illuminate systemic discrimination.

“Absolutely. What else do you call it when you’ve got laws that were passed by a majority of straight, cisgender, white men but the burdens are born disproportionately by poor, women of color? Laws like HB2 are absolutely manifestations of systemic racism, sexism, classism, homophobia, ableism and nativism,” she argued.

Indeed, these shutdowns will only increase the level of difficulty in obtaining abortions. HB2 has not only shuttered clinics, which causes access hurdles associated with travel, but the increased demand at the remaining clinics has lengthened wait times and spiked the cost of obtaining an abortion. The effect of HB2 is akin to a ban — which zeroes in on women of color — on an entirely legal procedure. Thus, these experts hope the Supreme Court will rule that the law creates an undue burden and is therefore unconstitutional. Such a verdict would not only be a pro-choice victory but also a strike against systemic discrimination.

Getty Image

The Supreme Court has refused to hear challenges to the constitutionality of assault weapons bans in New York and Connecticut.

Both cases were challenging laws passed in the two states in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting that left 20 students and six faculty members dead. The Connecticut law banned over 100 types of firearms and made magazines that could hold more than 10 rounds illegal in the state. The New York law banned any further sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines while also creating a registry of existing assault weapons in the state. SCOTUS declined to hear both and offered no comment on their reasoning.

The decision to not hear the cases means lower court rulings that allowed the law to stand will remain in place. Connecticut’s Attorney General George Jepsen, in court paper’s arguing for the legality of the ban, said that the law was aimed at “firearms that are owned by a small percentage of gun owners and are disproportionately used in…the most heinous forms of gun violence.”

The move by the Supreme Court isn’t particularly surprising given their reaction to similar cases since the 5-4 decision in 2008’s District of Columbia v. Heller established the right to own a firearm for home defense. Since that time, the court has largely taken a hands-off approach to gun laws passed at the state level. Just last year, they declined to consider a similar weapons ban in the Chicago suburb of Highland Park, though that decision came with dissents from Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. That decision came days after the San Bernardino shooting, much as this one does the worst mass shooting in modern U.S. history.

Assault weapons were banned nationwide from 1994 to 2004. However, attempts to reinstate that ban have been unsuccessful. Currently, seven states have passed their own bans on assault weapons: California, Maryland, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland and Hawaii.

(Via USA Today)

Getty Image

With the absence of the deceased Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court’s entering into a whole lot of deadlock. Most of the current term’s cases will drop by Monday (although the court may add days to its calendar), and some big ones are rolling out today. And somehow, the most significant immigration case in decades was shut down in a 4-4 deadlock with a mere one sentence ruling: “The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.” Those few words — with no further elaboration — have potentially decided the fates of up to 4 million undocumented immigrants.

The case, United States v. Texas, revolves around President Obama’s 2014 executive action on immigration. This was a bold, controversial move to be certain. Obama moved to protect certain unauthorized immigrants (these include parents of children who are legal residents and spouses of legal residents) though a “deferred action,” which would allow them to avoid deportation and obtain work authorization. The court’s deadlock will leave the appeals court ruling — which blocks Obama’s plan — in place.

Well, Obama issued a statement to condemn the Supreme Court’s decision. He points a finger at the Republicans’ refusal to consider Merrick Garland as his Supreme Court nominee. Obama notes that no more action on this issue can be taken until a ninth justice is confirmed. He also hints at his perception of being “challenged for taking the kinds of actions that other administrations have taken” and expresses disappointment:

“Today’s decision is frustrating to those who seek to grow our economy and bring a rationality into our immigration system — and to allow people to come out of the shadows and lift this perpetual cloud on them. I think it is heartbreaking for the millions of immigrants who’ve made their lives here; who’ve raised families here; who’ve hoped for the opportunity to work, pay taxes, serve in our military, and more fully contribute to this country we all love in an open way.

“It is my firm belief that immigration is not something to fear. We don’t have to wall ourselves off from those who may not look like us right now or pray like we do or have a different last name because being an American is about something more than that.”

Even as Obama shades Donald Trump’s Wall, the effect of this ruling does the same to his use of executive orders. Obama has grown particularly fond of using this method while encountering a frequently uncooperative Congress who — even when it comes to vital issues — has to resort to a filibuster and a sit-in to try and force its own action. But it seems that the Supreme Court has sent a clear message to the president on this executive order.

Indeed, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton issued a statement to celebrate the ruling: “One person, even a president, cannot unilaterally change the law. This is a major setback to President Obama’s attempts to expand executive power, and a victory for those who believe in the separation of powers and the rule of law.” Here’s a video of Obama’s response to the SCOTUS ruling.

(Via SupremeCourt.gov, WhiteHouse.gov and New York Times)

Getty Image

On Thursday, the Supreme Court upheld the affirmative action policy at the University of Texas again. They considered the same case brought forth by Abigail Fisher, in a move that says she was denied admission to the University of Texas based on her race. In 2013, the Supreme Court sent her case back to an appeals court. This time, they ruled definitively against her.

According to Politico, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, in which he said that University of Texas’ admissions policy does not violate the Constitution’s equal protection clause. However, he also said that the university must continually reevaluate its policy in accordance with the times. As Politico quotes his opinion:

“The record here reveals that the university articulated concrete and precise goals (for example) ending stereotypes, promoting ‘cross-racial understanding,’ preparing students for ‘an increasingly diverse workforce and society,’ and cultivating leaders with ‘legitimacy in the eyes of the citizenry’ — that mirror the compelling interest this Court has approved in prior cases,” wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy in an opinion joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote the dissenting opinion, saying that UT had not adequately defined what purpose considering race in their admissions decisions served. He lamented the possibility that this ruling would empower other universities to use race as more of a consideration in admitting students.

Seven Supreme Court justices participated in the decision. Justice Elena Kagan recused herself, as she had worked on the case as U.S. solicitor general. The late Justice Antonin Scalia’s seat remains unfilled.

As the New York Times explains, The UT System’s admissions policy has garnered significant controversy over the years. In large part to ensure racial diversity, it guarantees admission for the top students at every high school in the state. It’s commonly known as the Top 10 Percent program, though the ranking cutoff for this policy varies by year. Abigail Fisher challenged the second part of the university’s policy, which fills the remainder of its class based on a holistic process that considers race as one factor.

The Huffington Post points out that when Fisher applied for admission to UT’s flagship campus in Austin, her application wasn’t strong enough for admission under either policy, because her GPA was too low. After Thursday’s ruling, Twitter users taunted her under the hashtag #StayMadAbby and #BeckyWithTheBadGrades. Below, a sampling of these tweets:

You can read the entire Supreme Court opinion here.

(via Politico, New York Times and Huffington Post)

Getty Image

On Monday, the United States Supreme Court delivered rulings on three final cases before adjourning for summer recess. Voisine v. United States and McDonnell v. United States concerned domestic violence misdemeanors turned federal violations and Former Virginia governor Bob McDonnell’s past convictions respectively, but the third case posed the biggest challenge and the greatest potential for nationwide ramifications. That’s because Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, a challenge to the 2013 Texas HB2 law, could shift the national conversation about abortion and women’s rights — that is, if Justice Scalia’s death and the court’s current even split of liberal and conservative justices doesn’t get in the way.

Yet the strong possibility of a tie was trumped when, by a 5-3 decision, the SCOTUS reversed the 5th Circuit Court’s decision and struck down the HB2 law. In other words, they invalidated the two specific restrictions Texas and subsequent lower court rulings had placed on, and enforced for women seeking abortions in the state.

The two provisions in question required (1) doctors who performed abortions to have hospital admissions privileges, and (2) clinics that provided abortions to provide surgical outpatient-like facilities. At first glance, these two restrictions might not seem like much — in fact, they may even sound medically sound. Yet specialized clinics were already routinely inspected and certified for state and federal health code restrictions, which required neither of these new limitations. As a result, Texas began closing clinics all over the state.

This placed an undue burden on doctors and clinics, and the SCOTUS’s majority opinion agreed:

Both the admitting-privileges and the surgical-center requirements place a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a previability abortion, constitute an undue burden on abortion access, and thus violate the Constitution.

The majority opinion was written by Justice Stephen Breyer, who was joined by none other than Justice Anthony Kennedy, a Republican whose vote on the matter was considered the swing that made the final 5-3 decision possible. “There was no significant health-related problem that the new law helped to cure,” Breyer wrote, adding that the provisions placed “an ‘undue burden’ on [women’s] constitutional right to do so.”

Meanwhile, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg provided the decision’s concurring opinion:

When a State severely limits access to safe and legal procedures, women in desperate circumstances may resort to unlicensed rogue practitioners, faute de mieux, at great risk to their health and safety.

Chief Justice John Roberts and justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented. Thomas in particular was unhappy with the majority’s ruling and wrote his own letter of dissent:

Today’s decision creates an abortion exception to ordinary rules of res judicata, ignores compelling evidence that Texas’ law imposes no unconstitutional burden, and disregards basic principles of the severability doctrine. I write separately to emphasize how today’s decision perpetuates the Court’s habit of applying different rules to different constitutional rights — especially the putative right to abortion.

Soon after the news broke, Whole Woman’s Health founder and CEO Amy Hagstrom Miller lauded the majority opinion:

Every day Whole Woman’s Health treats our patients with compassion, respect and dignity — and today the Supreme Court did the same. We’re thrilled that today justice was served and our clinics stay open.

(Via SCOTUSblog and United States Supreme Court)

Shutterstock

On Monday morning, the Supreme Court upheld women’s basic rights and safety in a landmark abortion case (while striking down Texas’ extremely restrictive abortion law). And the highest court in the land also upheld a federal ban on convicted domestic abusers being able to get access to guns.

According to CBS News, the case concerns two men from Maine, who tried to argue that pleading guilty to misdemeanor domestic violence charges shouldn’t disqualify them from owning guns. The men also argued that since their crimes were committed “in the heat of an argument” and not with intention, a federal law banning them from owning a gun should not apply to them. The Supreme Court rejected such an argument.

One of the men challenging the federal ban pled guilty for simple assault in 2003 for slapping his girlfriend while drunk. In 2009, an anonymous person called in a tip that they saw the man, Stephen Voisine, shoot a bald eagle. He was then convicted for violating the federal law. The other challenger was charged with illegal gun possession under this statute after police found firearms at his house, as the Wall Street Journal reports.

The Wall Street Journal also reveals that the Supreme Court upheld the federal law in a 6-2 decision, with Justice Elena Kagan authoring the majority opinion. Along with its implications for violence against women and gun control, this case became notable when Justice Clarence Thomas made headlines for asking a question for the first time in 10 years during oral arguments in this case. His questioning involved underlining whether a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction really necessitates taking away someone’s constitutional right to bear arms, as encoded in the 2nd amendment. He redrew this association in his dissent on Monday.

(via CBS News and Wall Street Journal)

Getty Image

Whether or not you’re a fan of The Daily Show with Trevor Noah, it’s safe to say the South-African comedian’s turn as the host of Comedy Central’s flagship late night program is going okay. He and his batch of correspondents have proven this time and time again with segments about everything from the Orlando night club shooting to Donald Trump’s bid for the White House. Besides, the post-Jon Stewart iteration of the series isn’t even a year old, and building a following after a comedic force like that takes time. Though it’s probably going to take a lot more time after a jokey tweet about Monday’s abortion ruling by the Supreme Court.

The tweet in question, which remains online as of this writing, offers some snarky advice for how to celebrate the 5-3 decision to overturn a 2013 Texas law limiting women’s access to abortion. Specifically, it suggests the reader “go knock someone up in Texas”:

Via The Daily Show on Twitter

The tweet currently boasts over 180 retweets and 450 likes, though that number is expected to climb the longer The Daily Show‘s social media team decides to keep it up. So too will the number of provocative, sarcastic, and genuinely displeased responses from critics and fans alike.

Obvious detractors like Meghan McCain, a well known conservative commentator and the daughter of Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona), offered their two cents:

So did many Twitter users who identified themselves as pro-choice:

As always, the best and most trollerific bits were reserved for those who just wanted to light the internet on fire.

The Daily Show‘s Twitter account later explained they were “certainly not promoting abortions”:

Of all the things, as Business Insider’s Josh Barro pointed out, it took a tasteless joke about getting people pregnant to unite all sides of the abortion debate for one shining moment.

Getty Image

In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt a devastating blow to the 1965 Voting Rights Act with the Shelby County v. Holder ruling. The court found a centerpiece section of the act to be unconstitutional, which now makes it a lot easier for states to merrily tweak election procedures without federal preclearance. And many new state voting restrictions exist without the act’s full protection. With the third anniversary of this ruling, America sits in the unique position of observing its hellish effects on primary season while wondering how drastically it will affect the general election. What impact will we see upon affected communities, and is there anything citizens can do to quell the damage?

In search of answers, we spoke with Rev. Lennox Yearwood Jr., whose community activism knows few parallels. You may know Yearwood for his post-Hurricane Katrina work for survivors’ rights through the Gulf Coast Renewal campaign. He’s recognized by the White House as a Champion in Change. He founded the nonpartisan Hip Hop Caucus in 2004 and has partnered with many artists (including P. Diddy, T.I., and Vic Mensa) on community action issues including environmental justice, cannabis policy, and the Black Lives Matter movement. The organization’s Respect My Vote! campaign aims to re-strengthen the Voting Rights Act.

The Danger Of A Weakened Act On Election Season

Yearwood lists a number of concerns about Shelby v. Holder‘s effect on voting rights and voting discrimination. For example, states can now change polling locations without reason. This discourages voting through numerous access barriers, and communities can’t complain until after an election. Yearwood knows we’ve already seen damage during primary season and will see more in November. In Arizona, fewer polling booths caused long lines in many locations. New York and Arizona have seen reduced voting rolls, and Texas has tweaked its voter ID process in a way that Yearwood believes “raises suspicion.” To illustrate exactly what’s going on in the Lone Star State, just consider this — one can secure a voter ID by using a gun permit as a form of ID. But a student ID? That doesn’t fly.

Texas’ voter ID restrictions certainly affect millennials. Yearwood believes many new laws also target “elderly, disabled, and communities of color” by inhibiting access in similar ways. As Yearwood points out, the virtual dismantling of the Voting Rights Act allows “states which have historically — have some really bad history in regards to voting rights and voter suppression — it allows them to be in the position where they can change the law.” So, those affected by changes in election procedures will suffer. People and entire communities can start to feel like their voice means nothing. In short order, democracy itself gets shut down by way of a vanishing electorate.

Some Seriously Shady Supreme Court Logic

Moving back into the Shelby v. Holder discussion, Chief Justice Roberts made a curious claim while penning the majority opinion. He asserted that “things have changed dramatically” since the act’s passage in 1965. Yearwood sees things differently.

“I don’t agree with that,” he said. “I think that while some things have definitely improved, and we’re very happy, there are certainly things that have not improved. And if there’s anything that could limit voter participation, why would you want to test the process?”

Yearwood tells us that weakened voting rights support how “many people actually feel that cases of racism have become much more sophisticated.” So, the poll taxes of decades past have been replaced by fancy ID restrictions. And because many requirements are cost-prohibitive (my state charges $30+ for a driver’s license plus $20 for the birth certificate required as proof of identity), some form of poll taxing still exists. Other restrictions apply too. Several states still don’t allow ex-offenders to vote after rejoining society. For all these reasons, Yearwood continues, “I don’t agree with [Roberts’ assertion] at all. I think we have a long way to go. And the data shows that we clearly have a long way to go in making sure that everyone can vote and have a voice in this system.”

Chief Justice Roberts also placed the burden of changing the Voting Rights Act upon Congress. Does Yearwood have any confidence that this will happen in the near future? He laments how “It’s unfortunate that voting rights have become a partisan issue. That actually shows that the system is broken and needs to be fixed … something is really wrong.” He hopes “this Congress or the next Congress will do their duty” to inhibit voting restrictions and ensure rights for all.

Can The Voting Rights Act Be Saved?

This brings Yearwood to the immeasurable work done by the Hip Hop Caucus to engage young people in the political process.

“We want to make voting a lifestyle,” he said. “First step is to vote. And second step is to make sure they are part of the policymaking process. They don’t stop on election day, but they’re also engaging in policies that affect their communities. Everything from climate change, environmental justice, water in Flint, healthcare, education, jobs, economic security, and so we want to shape that.”

Yet these steps alone won’t work change. “The third part comes in with Shelby v. Holder. We want to make sure that vote matters. It doesn’t make any sense for us to do all this work, to get people to register to vote, and want to vote, and then their vote doesn’t count,” Yearwood concludes. “That’s why we want to move forward to broaden and strengthen the act.” He has more plans for the Hip Hop Caucus beyond election season, including a continued focus on civil rights along with healthcare and tax reform. To accomplish these goals, the population must engage, and the easiest way to do that is at the polls. This is why citizens must work to bring the Voting Rights Act back to life.