Tag Archives: Abortion

Supreme Court Update

Before departing for the holidays, the Supreme Court had a couple of “gifts” of merits review in a couple of high profile cases with the possibility of a third before New Year’s.

Starting at the top of the list is the dubious case brought by Mrs. Senator Josh Hawley.  (Normally, the fact that a relative of a politician is involved in a case would not be noteworthy but whne you put yourself out as a power couple and you file the case in a location which assures that it will be heard by a judge who donated to the relative’s campaign and the relative played a large role in getting that judge appointed to the bench, this clearly qualifies as a team effort for which both share the blame.)  In this case, plaintiffs are a group of doctors who claim that they have standing to challenge the FDA’s decisions on approving Mifepristone because at some point they may be forced to provide treatment for a patient who took Mifepristone and had complications.  These political doctors sought to both invalidate recent changes to the guidance that the FDA gives on Mifepristone and its original approval.  Having filed the case in a location that assured them that the case would be heard by a judge who would twist the law and the facts to rule in their favor, they succeeded at the trial court on both parts of their case.  The FDA and the drug manufacture appealed this rubber stamp decision to the Fifth Circuit.  Even the Fifth Circuit could not twist the law in a manner that would allow them to affirm the decision as it relates to the original approval of Mifepristone, but they did find flaws in the administrative process which allowed them to affirm the decision with regards to the more recent changes approving a broader use for Mifepristone.  Everybody then sought U.S. Supreme Court review.  Several months ago, the U.S. Supreme Court stayed the Fifth Circuit’s ruling.  This past week, the Supreme Court granted the review sought by the FDA and the drug manufacturer, but denied the review sought by the medical hacks.

While this Supreme Court having any case related to abortion is always a matter of concern, the decision to take the FDA’s appeal and reject the appeal by the medical hacks is the best result possible for the pro-choice community.  And, the main issue in the case is the FDA procedures for approving medications and expanding “on label” uses after initial approval.  As such, the impact of a ruling against the FDA in this case would have a major negative impact on pharmaceutical companies.  As such, it is possible that six of the justices might put the abortion aspects of this case to the side and simply focus on it as an administrative procedure case.   If not, there is always the November elections. Continue Reading...

Posted in Donald Trump, Judicial | Also tagged , , , , Comments Off on Supreme Court Update

November 2023 Elections

In the U.S., in something that would be a surprise to the Franers, the presidential election has become the “main” election.  Turnout is always highest for the presidential election.  But that is not the only only election, and other elections can be even more important.  To save money, most states have their statewide elections coincide with federal elections (either the presidential election or the mid-term election).  But a handful of states have taken a different approach and hold their elections in odd-numbered years.  In addition, many states (while holding the elections for state offices at the same time as federal election in even-numbered years) hold local elections in the odd-numbered years.  And most states, even if November in odd-numbered years is not a “regular” election date keep it available as a potential election date for special elections and propositions.   This year, the November election will feature several big races.

At the state-wide office level, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Kentucky hold their elections for governor in the year immediately proceeding the presidential election.  Louisiana is a little different because it holds a “jungle primary” which is actually an open general election (i.e. no party primaries) with a runoff if nobody gets 50%.  This “primary” election was several weeks ago, and the Republicans picked up the governor’s office in Louisiana.  Given that Louisiana is a deep red state, this pickup was not too surprising as it takes the right Democrat to have a chance at winning and the incumbent Democrat was term limited.  The new governor is a right wing extremist, and we will probably be hearing a lot of nonsense out of the Pelican State for the next eight years.

But the races for Governor in Kentucky and Mississippi will be on Tuesday.  (At least the initial vote will be on Tuesday as Mississippi has a runoff provision if nobody gets to 50%.)  The governor in Kentucky is a Democrat and the governor in Mississippi is a Republican.  Both are favored to be reelected but the challengers in both states have chances at pulling an upset.  In Kentucky, the challengers big advantage is that he is a Republican.  But the Republican candidate has been a controversial figure as Attorney General, and the Democratic incumbent is popular which might be just enough to hold onto the office.  In Mississippi, the Governor has gotten entangled in some scandals and the challenger happens to be a member of a famous family even if that fame was over 50 years ago.  But Mississippi is still a deep red state.  In short, the most likely outcome is that there will be no changes, but it is also possible that either or both states could flip. Continue Reading...

Posted in Elections | Also tagged , , , , , , Comments Off on November 2023 Elections

Supreme Court Preview — October Term 2023 — Part 3

In this last part of our Supreme Court preview, the topic shifts from the cases that will definitely be heard this year to the cases in the pipeline.  The U.S. Supreme Court receives around 5,000 petitions for review every year, but they only grant review in approximately 60 cases per year.  Now, some of those 5,000 petitions are clearly frivolous and have zero chance of being granted.  But, even eliminating the clearly delusional petitions, that translates into something like one petition out of seventy petitions being accepted for review.  So any discussion of what cases might get full review is very, very speculative.

Now, we know that some cases will technically be heard.  There is a very limited category of cases that have direct appeals to the U.S.  Supreme Court.  But that does not mean that the Supreme Court grants full merits briefing and argument in all of those cases.  Instead, the U.S. Supreme Court often simply issues a short opinion or order affirming the trial court decision based on the initial pleadings of the parties.  For example, we know that Alabama wants the Supreme Court to take another look at their redistricting case now that the three-judge panel has held that their second attempt at redistricting failed to remedy the previous violation.  The easy decision of the U.S. Supreme Court is to reject this effort, but they might choose to wade back into this area.

So what seems likely?  The first thing that is almost certainly the case is that the U.S. Supreme Court will take a good chunk of cases from the Fifth Circuit and the Ninth Circuit.  There are two reasons for this.  First, these circuits are just big.  The Ninth Circuit is both big geographically and in population (including the states of Arizona, California, Oregon, and Washington).  The Fifth is not as big geographically but it does include Texas.  Second, both courts are somewhat politically lopsided which has made them the “go to” circuits for people who are shopping for a friendly court for an ideological case.  So the Fifth Circuit is likely to issue opinions which are too conservative even for this bunch of justices, and the Ninth Circuit is likely to issue opinions which are too liberal for this Supreme Court. Continue Reading...

Posted in Judicial | Also tagged , , , Comments Off on Supreme Court Preview — October Term 2023 — Part 3

Direct Democracy in Ohio

This Tuesday, voters in Ohio will decide the future of direct democracy in Ohio.  For the most part, the U.S., like many other democracies is a republic.  In other words, the usual way that laws get made is through the legislative process with elected representatives debating, amending, and voting on proposals.  In theory, the will of the majority is expressed through their representatives.  A little over a century ago, reformers during the Progressive Era argued that there were flaws in the representative system that sometimes allowed a minority to block useful and popular legislation.  The remedy was the initiative and referendum process which allowed ordinary voters to get proposals on the ballot were they could be directly determined by the voters.

Now, not every state has authorized the initiative and referendum process.  Even in those that do, the rules differ as to how many signatures are required.  However, for the most part, states that allow for direct democracy (whether through proposals initiated by voters or by proposals referred to the voters by the government) only require a simple majority for the proposal to pass.

Even from the beginning, there has been resistance to the initiative and referendum process.  After all, special interests that are able to get what they want from elected officials do not like the voters having the ability to override those efforts. Continue Reading...

Posted in Elections, GOP, Politics | Also tagged , Comments Off on Direct Democracy in Ohio

What you Need to Know about the FDA

The latest fight about abortion is once again in the courts.  This time the battle is over “medical” abortion.  Even before the Dobbs decision last year, there has been a move away from “surgical” abortions to medical abortions. (According to the latest statistics, it is close to a 50-50 split between surgical abortions and medical abortions.)  The reasons for this trend are somewhat simple.

First, it is easy for a state to regulate surgical abortions.  While most surgical abortions are not what most people would consider to be surgical, a surgical abortion is still a hands-on, in-person procedure.   It requires an office, and a state can enact rules about that physical facility — size, location, and equipment.

Second, the need for a physical location for surgical abortions creates two problems.  On the one hand, that makes it easy for anti-abortion activists to target the facility in various ways.  On the other hand, the need for a physical facility makes it harder for patients to access the facility.  Due to the regulations, an abortion clinic is rather expensive investment.  As a result, abortion clinics are in the biggest cities.  If you live in the rural part of your state, the nearest abortion clinic can be over three or four hours away. Continue Reading...

Posted in Healthcare, Judicial | Also tagged , , Comments Off on What you Need to Know about the FDA

The Supreme Court — Faux Originalism and the Reactionary Ascendency

This is a hard week to post about.  There were three opinion days this week.  And each one featured a new decision that ripped at the fabric of modern society and featured a rewriting of history in the service of originalism to allow the reactionary members of the court to push through an agenda that lacks electoral support based on a misreading of the Constitution.

Tuesday started off the week with Carson vs. Makinthe Maine school voucher case.   Traditionally, there have been two prongs to the Free Exercise Clause — one prong involves the power to follow one’s religious beliefs without penalty and the other prong involves discrimination based on religion.  Posed against the Free Exercise Clause is the Establishment Clause which forbids the government from establishing an official religion or religions.  Traditionally, the big fights have been in the “no penalty” prong.

On the penalizing religion prong, the battle has always been the reasonableness of the proposed accommodations measured against the significance of the government interest.  And in the late 1980s, after one of the low points of religious freedom in which Justice Scalia basically limited this prong to the right to have beliefs without penalty for those beliefs (but no right to act on those beliefs), Congress overreacted by enacting the Religious Freedom Restoration Act which went to the other extreme.  The RFRA and the Free Exercise Clause are on the verge of being interpreted as allowing people to claim religious exemptions from civil rights laws.  And we are likely to see another case in this prong later this week allowing a coach at a public school to pray publicly while on the job at a school function. Continue Reading...

Posted in Civil Rights, Judicial | Also tagged , , , , Comments Off on The Supreme Court — Faux Originalism and the Reactionary Ascendency

Supreme Court — End of Term Preview 2022

Normally, by this time of the year, the Supreme Court term is coming into focus.  With three weeks to go, typically, there is one or two cases left from the Fall.   While there are always question marks, it is possible to try to figure out results in the key case by who is in the running for getting the remaining opinions from a month.

This year is different.  There are still 29 opinions outstanding out of 62 cases.  While there have been years with more opinions outstanding heading into the last three weeks, those years were back when the Supreme Court was hearing a lot more cases per year.

To date, almost all of the opinions have been in cases that (other than the parties) mostly interested those practicing in that field.  The biggest attention getting case was the decision reinstating (at least for now) the death penalty against the surviving Boston Marathon bomber.  The legally biggest case of the year so far also came from Boston in a Free Exercise/Free Speech case involving Boston’s refusal to let a Christian group use one of the city’s flagpoles in connection with an event even though it routinely gave such permission to nonreligious groups.  That decision may be an indicator of the likely result in some of the remaining cases, but it was merely a continuation of the recent trend in Free Exercise cases. Continue Reading...

Posted in Judicial | Also tagged , , , , , Comments Off on Supreme Court — End of Term Preview 2022

A background on the issues in Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health

The Supreme Court heard arguments on Wednesday in a case involving Mississippi’s law banning pre-viability abortions after fifteen weeks.  For those not familiar with court terminology, here is a brief primer on the legal terminology that you might hear during coverage of this case.

SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS & THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY

The Bill of Rights contains a rather extensive list of “enumerated” rights.  It also contains a catch-all provision in the Ninth Amendment.  Both the Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment contain a due process clause which forbids the denial of liberty without due process of law.  Over the years, the courts have had to deal with the limits of the rights contained in the Bill of Rights.  For example, the First Amendment expressly covers two forms of communication — oral (free speech) and written (free press).  But that leaves issues about other forms of expressive conduct (is dancing or painting speech) and whether press was limited to news or does it cover other written publications.  Similarly, there is debated about the due process clause — does it merely require appropriate proceedings (laws being properly passed, cases being properly head) before a person is deprived of their freedom (i.e. goes to prison) or does it also provide substantive protections against the passage of laws that eliminates rights. Continue Reading...

Posted in Civil Rights, Judicial | Also tagged , , , , , , Comments Off on A background on the issues in Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health

Senate Bill 8 and the Supreme Court

This week, the Supreme Court will take up issues related to Texas’s new abortion law — Senate Bill 8.  There are several key things to know about this case.

First, this case has been expedited.  The Supreme Court turned down the request for a stay and granted review on the  “merits” on October 22.  The  Supreme Court ordered the parties to file the written arguments on the merits by October 27.  The Supreme Court will be hearing argument on November 1, just ten days after granting review.  By contrast, the “normal” schedule set forth in the rules (which is typically condensed somewhat for cases in which review is granted between October and January) establishes a minimum of 115 days between the grant of review and argument.  This expedited hearing, probably represents a compromise between the Justices that wanted to reinstate the trial court’s stay of the law and those that wanted to take this case in the ordinary course of Supreme Court review.

Second, the Supreme Court permitted the parties to bypass the Court of Appeals.  While the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (covering Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas) has issued rulings on the stay entered by the trial court, it has not yet ruled on the merits of the case.  The Rules of the Supreme Court permit parties to ask to bypass the appellate court (a petition for certiorari before judgment), but the Supreme Court rarely grants that request.  Again, this decision probably represents a compromise between those that wanted to grant the stay (which would have been in effect until the Fifth Circuit decided the case) and those that wanted things to proceed in the ordinary course of review.   It may also reflect the view that the Supreme Court has of the Fifth Circuit.  There are several circuits known for their tendencies in litigation.  There are three or four perceived to be ultra liberal with the Supreme Court needing to frequently correct them.  The Fifth Circuit has the same reputation for being ultra conservative and has been frequently reversed on abortion cases.  Given this reputation, the Supreme Court may have decided that there was no need to see what the Fifth Circuit would write. Continue Reading...

Posted in Judicial | Also tagged , , , , , , Comments Off on Senate Bill 8 and the Supreme Court

Supreme Court October Term 2021 — Part II

Last week, we took a look at the upcoming Supreme Court Term with a focus on the cases scheduled for the October and November argument sessions.  This week, we take a look at the cases set for December and those with no argument date yet (most likely January) with some comments on pending applications.

The big case on the December docket is Hobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization — the Mississippi abortion case.  Putting the media hype to the side, the technical issue is “whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional.”   Roe and Casey both allow some pre-viability restrictions on abortion.  What they do not allow is a pre-viability ban on all abortions.  The real issue for this case will be how the majority tries to chip away at Roe and Casey to allow more restrictions on abortion.  My expectation is for some plurality opinion written by the Chief Justice or Justice Kavanaugh that makes it likely that the lower courts will nominally uphold Roe and strike down this statute while making it easier for states to regulate abortion in ways that will make it harder for women to get abortions in red states.

There are a couple of cases involving Medicare reimbursements.  One of these two cases involves issues of Chevron deference — the principle that, if a statute is ambiguous, courts should defer to the interpretation made by agency charged with applying the statute.  Conservatives have been chipping away at Chevron deference for many years.  The typical approach has been to use the tools of statutory construction to find that the statute is not ambiguous.  In this approach, Chevron deference is a tie-breaker at the end of the interpretive process, and you rarely get a tie at the end of the interpretive process. Continue Reading...

Posted in Judicial | Also tagged , , , Comments Off on Supreme Court October Term 2021 — Part II