August, 26 2020, 12:00am EDT
ACLU Comment on Trump Administration Petition To Supreme Court for Permission To Force Unnecessary Travel for Abortion Care During Pandemic
Two Federal Courts Have Already Ruled Against FDA Regulation Making COVID-19 Risks a Condition of Early Abortion Care
WASHINGTON
The Trump administration petitioned the Supreme Court today to reinstate a U.S. Food and Drug Administration rule that requires patients seeking a medication used for early abortion care to make unnecessary trips to their health care provider and therefore face needless COVID-19 risks.
The FDA's policy requires that patients pick up a medication used for early abortion care in person at a hospital, clinic, or medical office--even when they have already been evaluated by a clinician using telehealth or at a prior in-person visit and will be receiving no medical services at the time. The rule has been blocked by a preliminary injunction since July in a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of a coalition of medical experts and reproductive justice advocates, led by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). Earlier in August, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the Trump administration's motion to stay the lower court ruling.
The following is a statement from Julia Kaye, staff attorney at the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project:
"With COVID-19 raging across the nation--and despite being rebuffed twice in the courts--the Trump administration refuses to end its crusade to subject abortion patients and their families to entirely unnecessary exposure risks. Forcing patients to travel during a pandemic just to pick up a pill is irrational and dangerous, which is why the medical community uniformly opposes this senseless rule. We hope the Supreme Court will deny the Trump administration's cruel attempt to score political points by putting people seeking essential reproductive health care at needless risk."
The plaintiffs in this case are: ACOG, the Council of University Chairs of Obstetrics and Gynecology, New York State Academy of Family Physicians, SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective, and an individual family medicine physician. The lawsuit was brought by the ACLU and the law firm Arnold & Porter.
The American Civil Liberties Union was founded in 1920 and is our nation's guardian of liberty. The ACLU works in the courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to all people in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
(212) 549-2666LATEST NEWS
'A Disaster for Democracy': Report Shows Surging Corporate Spending in 2026 Elections
"The intense escalation of corporate spending we are now seeing shows that it is well past time for salvaging American democracy to be treated with the urgency that it deserves."
Jun 30, 2026
As the right-wing majority on the US Supreme Court on Tuesday handed down a 6-3 ruling that campaign finance reform advocates warned would give special interest groups and rich donors yet another way to curry favor with politicians, a new report from government watchdog Public Citizen revealed how "corporate supremacist" groups have already set records for spending in this year's midterm elections.
There are still more than four months to go until the general election, but according to "The Rise of Corporate Supremacist Super PACs,” by research director Rick Claypool, this campaign cycle accounts for nearly one-third of all corporate political spending since the 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC) ruling.
That decision has enabled corporations and groups including super political action committees (PACs) to spend unlimited money on elections, and in the 2026 cycle alone, they have already spent $517 million—"a figure sure to soar as the November general election approaches," said Public Citizen.
"These totals reference disclosed political spending, not any contributions from dark money organizations that keep donors secret," the group emphasized.
The amount spent this year by Big Tech, fossil fuel companies, the cryptocurrency industry, and other sectors whose bottom lines could benefit from lax government regulations represents a sizable chunk of the $1.58 billion that corporations have spent on federal elections since 2010.
The 2024 election cycle saw $461 million poured into campaigns by corporations, a sum that dwarfed previous corporate political spending.
Public Citizen released its report as the Supreme Court ruled in National Republican Senatorial Committee v. FEC, striking down regulations that for decades have restricted political parties from coordinating campaign spending with candidates.
The report offered more evidence that the high court "has reorganized America for the worse," said law professor Zephyr Teachout.
Four industries—crypto, artificial intelligence, Big Tech, and online betting companies—have spent $294 million collectively to influence the elections, said Public Citizen, accounting for 57% of the corporate spending.
In 2024, the crypto sector pioneered the playbook corporations are using this year—"prioritizing corporate priorities over parties or candidates and using their financial power to discipline sitting lawmakers and candidates."
PACs including the pro-AI Leading the Future and the sports betting industry-backed Win for America PAC are some of the top recipients of the corporate case, taking $50.1 million and $43 million, respectively.
A Win for America spokesperson told Axios in April that the super PAC's backers "seek candidates who will thoughtfully approach regulation and ensure legal sports betting can continue to support communities through billions in tax revenue and jobs across America," while Josh Vlasto of the pro-crypto PAC Fairshake said in 2025 that the committee is "building an aggressive, targeted strategy for next year to ensure that pro-crypto voices are heard in key races across the country.”
Claypool said the report shows that "a decade and a half after Citizens United, corporations are starting to spend on politics like never before."
"This corporate spending is a disaster for democracy," he said. "If the current, broken campaign finance system remains unchallenged—and corporate spending is allowed to drown out the voices of real voters and real people—these corporate campaigns will keep multiplying, even as voting rights for individual Americans face escalating attacks.”
Behind the "corporate supremacist super PACs," reads the report, the biggest beneficiary of corporate spending is the President Donald Trump-supporting MAGA Inc., which has received $120.6 million in direct contributions from companies including Crypto.com, UnitedHealthcare, and Energy Transfer Partners.
The report comes two weeks after campaigners in Montana announced they had collected signatures that far exceeded the minimum requirement to force a statewide vote on a ballot measure that, if passed, would block corporations from pouring money into elections.
"Time and time again, Americans have demonstrated they want elected officials who are willing to stand up for them against the powerful and predatory corporations that attempt to dominate our daily lives," reads the Public Citizen report. "Lawmakers can demonstrate their fearlessness and independence from corporate influence by passing legislation that empowers the public while reducing the influence of Big Business demands to prioritize profit-maximization over Americans’ health, safety, and democracy."
The group called on Congress to pass the "Abolish Super PACs Act, the DISCLOSE Act, and, ultimately, a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United."
"The intense escalation of corporate spending we are now seeing," concludes the report, "shows that it is well past time for salvaging American democracy to be treated with the urgency that it deserves."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Unconscionable,' Says Khanna as House Panel Blocks Effort to Prevent Deeper US-Israeli Military Ties
"They're not even giving us a vote on the amendment," said Rep. Ro Khanna, who vowed to "continue to fight to make sure we don't compromise American sovereignty."
Jun 30, 2026
A Republican-controlled House panel on Monday refused to allow a floor vote on a bipartisan amendment to prevent closer integration of the American and Israeli militaries, which human rights organizations say would deepen US complicity in Israeli war crimes.
"This is unconscionable," Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who led the proposed amendment alongside Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), said in a video posted to social media on Tuesday. "They're not even giving us a vote on the amendment."
Khanna vowed that "Thomas and I will continue to fight to make sure we don't compromise American sovereignty."
Watch:
Congress has blocked the amendment @RepThomasMassie and I introduced to stop the integration of our military with Israel’s. It is unconscionable to not even have a vote. We will be continuing on and will not be intimidated by the pro-Israel lobby. pic.twitter.com/6ai93L0rAY
— Ro Khanna (@RoKhanna) June 30, 2026
The Khanna-Massie amendment would have removed the US-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative from annual military policy legislation currently moving through Congress. The initiative, laid out in Section 219 of the House's National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), instructs the Pentagon to "designate an executive agent... responsible for synchronizing cooperative efforts between the United States and Israel, to expand and accelerate bilateral defense technology research, development, testing, evaluation, integration, and industrial cooperation."
On Monday, the House Rules Committee unveiled a list of NDAA amendments that it decided would get a full House vote, and the Khanna-Massie proposal was absent. Ben Freeman noted at Responsible Statecraft that the rules panel made its decision "after no debate" on the amendment.
"By rejecting the Khanna and Massie amendment, the Rules Committee on Monday ensured the American public would not even get to see how their representatives would vote on this pivotal issue," Freeman wrote. "This is despite unprecedented levels of public distrust in the Israeli government and widespread public outrage directed at these proposals."
The fight to block the US-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative—which is enthusiastically backed by the pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC—is not necessarily over.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said earlier this month that lawmakers "must" strip the initiative from the NDAA, signaling a possible fight over the provision in the upper chamber. A summary of the Senate version of the NDAA states that the legislation would establish "the United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative to expand and accelerate bilateral defense technology research, development, testing, evaluation, coordination, and industrial cooperation between the US and
Israel."
Leading human rights organizations, including Amnesty International USA and Human Rights Watch (HRW), have urged lawmakers to reject the cooperation initiative, with the latter group warning that the proposal would "deepen US military cooperation with Israel while walling that cooperation off from further congressional oversight."
"Israeli forces’ widespread war crimes, crimes against humanity, and its ongoing acts of genocide in Gaza should give the United States pause about closer military association," said Akshaya Kumar, HRW's director of crisis advocacy. "Instead, Section 219 proposes to deepen entanglement, in a way that makes the risks of complicity ongoing. Legislators still have a chance to strip this damaging proposal out."
Keep ReadingShow Less
In Gift to Billionaires, Supreme Court Buys Vance's Argument Against Post-Watergate Campaign Finance Rule
"Americans deserve a Supreme Court that upholds our fundamental freedoms—not one that consistently sides with billionaire donors and diminishes the power of everyday citizens," said one democracy defender.
Jun 30, 2026
Just days after Vice President JD Vance suggested that if Watergate happened today, it would barely make the news, let alone end a presidency, the US Supreme Court's right-wing supermajority on Tuesday embraced the Republican's argument against a 1974 campaign finance rule that Congress passed in response to the seismic scandal.
Specifically, the court struck down restrictions on political parties coordinating campaign spending with candidates. The ruling is the result of a 2022 lawsuit filed by Vance, then a Republican Senate candidate in Ohio; Steve Chabot, then a GOP congressman from the same state; and the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) and its House counterpart.
The high court had previously upheld the rule in 2021, but as with the 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which opened the floodgates to unlimited campaign spending by corporations and ultrarich individuals via super political action committees (PACs), the majority cited the First Amendment to the US Constitution in its 6-3 decision in NRSC v. FEC. The three liberals dissented.
Michael Beckel, director of money in politics reform at the group Issue One, stressed that Tuesday's decision opening up "a new avenue for wealthy donors and special interests to buy favor with political candidates" is part of "a string of disastrous campaign finance rulings from the Roberts Court that began with Citizens United and have left our political system awash in large contributions that most Americans could never dream of giving."
Brett Edkins, managing director of policy and political affairs for the progressive advocacy group Stand Up America, similarly declared that "the right-wing supermajority on the Supreme Court thinks Citizens United didn't go far enough. Today they gave their blessing for billionaires to buy even more influence over the politicians who represent us."
"Americans deserve a Supreme Court that upholds our fundamental freedoms—not one that consistently sides with billionaire donors and diminishes the power of everyday citizens in our democracy," Edkins asserted, calling on Congress to add more members to the court once President Donald Trump finishes his second term in 2029.
"Congress should rein in this rogue court once Trump leaves office by enacting major reforms, including term limits, an enforceable code of ethics, and expanding the court with justices who will defend our democracy and our fundamental freedoms," he said.
In the meantime, Americans will have to contend with the new ruling in the November midterms as well as the next presidential cycle in 2028.
Along with calling out a high court that yet again "twisted the First Amendment to help billionaires and corporations buy our elections and bend our government to their will," Public Citizen democracy advocate Jon Golinger argued Tuesday that "we have to combat this outcome by increasing transparency so voters know who’s paying for election ads, empowering small donors and public matching funds, and passing the Democracy For All Amendment to empower Congress, the states, and the voters to put in place reasonable protections to guard against campaign finance corruption."
The ruling came as Public Citizen released a report documenting the historic $517 million in corporate spending on the 2026 cycle so far—money that has largely gone to "industry-prioritizing super PACs" and the Trump-aligned MAGA Inc.
Democratic Party leaders, who hope to reclaim majorities in both chambers of Congress this November, also ripped the new ruling.
In a joint statement, Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin, as well as Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.), who lead the party's campaign arms for each chamber, called it "a win for billionaire donors and special interests who want more influence over the GOP agenda and an invitation for corruption."
"Republicans have failed the American people with a record that has ripped away healthcare and raised costs on families, and they know voters will hold them accountable in November—which is exactly why they are rewriting the rules in an effort to drown out the will of the voters by flooding elections with more money from their billionaire backers," they said.
"Democrats are fighting back for the American people," the trio added, "and in November, voters will reject Republicans' toxic agenda and efforts to rig the system and weaken our democracy by electing a Democratic House and Senate majority."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular