Supreme Court Declines to Protect Pregnant People’s Right to Emergency Care
The Supreme Court issued a ruling today in Idaho and Moyle v. United States, dismissing the case from the Supreme Court docket without a ruling on the merits, and sending it back down to continue in the lower courts. While the opinion temporarily restores the ability of doctors in Idaho to provide emergency abortions required under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), by dismissing Idaho’s appeal without resolving the core issues in the case, SCOTUS will only continue to put pregnant patients at unnecessary risk.
Moreover, the dissenting opinion by Justice Alito, joined by Justices Gorsuch and Thomas, will embolden those who are pursuing a strategy to give legal rights to embryos and fetuses that will override the rights of the pregnant person and ban not only abortion, but other forms of reproductive health care like fertility treatment and birth control as well.
Statement from Alexa Kolbi-Molinas, deputy director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project:
“It is now clear that the Supreme Court had the opportunity to hold once and for all that every pregnant person in this country is entitled to the emergency care they need to protect their health and lives, and it failed to do so. The Court’s refusal to clearly affirm the rights of all pregnant people to emergency abortion care, and put an unequivocal end to extremist attacks by anti-abortion politicians on this essential health care, is a dangerous preview for what could come. In fact, several justices provided a roadmap for just how they would strip pregnant people of this basic right when this case comes back to the Court.
“This fight is far from over–anti-abortion politicians are trying to ban abortion in all 50 states, including in emergencies. These extremist politicians went all the way to the Supreme Court for the right to put doctors in jail for providing life-and health-saving emergency abortion care, and they will do it again, if we let them.”
The American Civil Liberties Union filed an amicus brief in this case explaining how Idaho’s arguments cannot be justified under the Supreme Court’s own precedents and that all three branches of government have long recognized that hospitals are required under EMTALA to provide emergency abortion care to any patient who needs it.
The ACLU’s brief in Idaho and Moyle, et al. v. United States is a part of the ACLU’s Joan and Irwin Jacobs Supreme Court Docket.
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) 549-2666
Progressive Dems Call for Codifying Chevron After 'Dangerous' Supreme Court Ruling
"I plan to introduce legislation to protect the government's policymaking ability that existed under Chevron that has worked for the last 40 years," Sen. Ed Markey said.
Following the Supreme Court's ruling on Friday overturning the so-called Chevron doctrine—which instructed courts to defer to federal agencies' reasonable interpretations of laws passed by Congress as they regulate everything from food safety to labor rights to climate pollution—progressive lawmakers vowed to take action to protect the power of these agencies to shield the public from toxic chemicals and unscrupulous employers.
Legislators expressed concerns about the impacts of the court's 6-3 ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce, which ended a 40-year precedent established by Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council in 1984.
"Now, with this ill-advised decision, judges must no longer defer to the decisions about Americans' health, safety, and welfare made by agencies with technical and scientific expertise in their fields," Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said in a statement. "MAGA extremist Republicans and their big business cronies are rejoicing as they look forward to creating a regulatory black hole that destroys fundamental protections for every American in this country."
"This unhinged Supreme Court needs to stop legislating from the bench, and we must pass sweeping reform to hold them accountable."
"I plan to introduce legislation to protect the government's policymaking ability that existed under Chevron that has worked for the last 40 years," Markey said.
Progressive Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) called the ruling "dangerous" and urged Congress to "immediately pass" the Stop Corporate Capture Act, which she introduced in March 2023.
In a statement Friday, Jayapal said the act was "the only bill that codifies Chevron deference, strengthens the federal-agency rulemaking process, and ensures that rulemaking is guided by the public interest—not what's good for wealthy corporations."
The act would codify Chevron by providing "statutory authority for the judicial principle that requires courts to defer to an agency's reasonable or permissible interpretation of a federal law when the law is silent or ambiguous."
In addition, it would:
- Require anyone submitting a study as part of a comment period on a regulation to disclose who funded it;
- Only allow federal agencies to take part in the negotiated rulemaking process;
- Create an Office of the Public Advocate to increase public participation in the process of crafting regulations;
- Make public companies that knowingly lie in the comment period on a proposed regulation liable for a fine of at least $250,000 for a first offense and at least $1 million for a second; and
- Empower agencies to reissue rules that were rescinded under the Congressional Review Act.
The Coalition for Sensible Safeguards, a group of more than 160 organizations mobilizing for stronger public protections, also called on Congress to pass the Stop Corporate Capture Act.
"The bill is a comprehensive blueprint for modernizing, improving, and strengthening the regulatory system to better protect the public," the coalition wrote in response to Friday's ruling. "It would ensure greater public input into regulatory decisions, promote scientific integrity, and restore our government's ability to deliver results for workers, consumers, public health, and our environment."
Jayapal also called on Congress to "enact sweeping oversight measures to rein in corruption and billionaire influence at the Supreme Court, whose far-right extremist majority routinely flouts basic ethics, throws out precedent, and legislates from the bench to benefit the wealthiest and most powerful."
Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) similarly recommended congressional action to address court corruption. In a statement, she called the decision "a power grab for the corrupt Supreme Court who continues to do the bidding of greedy corporations."
"The MAGA Court just overruled 40 years of precedent that empowered federal agencies to hold powerful corporations accountable, protect our workplaces and public health, and ensure that we have clean water and air," Tlaib continued. "This unhinged Supreme Court needs to stop legislating from the bench, and we must pass sweeping reform to hold them accountable."
In the meantime, the Coalition for Sensible Safeguards said that the ruling did not strip regulatory bodies of their authority to pass new rules to protect the public and the environment.
"This decision is a gift to big corporations, making it easier for them to challenge rules to ensure clean air and water, safe workplace and products, and fair commercial and financial practices," said Public Citizen president and coalition co-chair Robert Weissman. "But the decision is no excuse for regulators to stop doing their jobs. They must continue to follow the law and uphold their missions to protect consumers, workers, and our environment."
Iranian Snap Elections Head to Runoff After Reformist Pezeshkian Takes Narrow Lead
A total of 24,735,185 people voted, representing a turnout of around 40%—the lowest turnout in an Iranian election since the 1979 revolution.
Reformist legislator Masoud Pezeshkian and conservative former nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili will face off in a second round of voting after neither candidate secured a majority of the votes in Iran's election Friday.
Surprise elections in Iran were called after conservative President Ebrahim Raisi died in a helicopter crash on May 19, opening what one expert called a "void in the Islamic Republic's leadership."
"None of the candidates could garner the absolute majority of the votes, therefore, the first and second contenders who got the most votes will be referred to the Guardian Council," Interior Ministry spokesperson Mohsen Eslami announced on Saturday.
"Pezeshkian appears to have done well enough to turn out a core base of support that gives him a plausible path to victory, but he will likely need to secure support from Iranians who opted to stay home yesterday in order to triumph."
Pezeshkian and Jalili will now advance to the runoff election on July 5.
After Friday's voting, Pezeshkian took a slight lead with 10.45 million votes over Jalili's 9.47 million, according to an initial tally reported by The Guardian. Both of them edged out conservative parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf with 3.38 million votes and former Justice Minister Mostafa Pourmohammadi with 206,000.
A total of 24,735,185 people voted, representing a turnout of around 40%. That is the lowest turnout in an Iranian election since the 1979 revolution, according to Middle East Eye.
"This demonstrates that a majority of the Iranian public remains disaffected from participation in the Islamic Republic's restricted elections, which are neither free nor fair," the National Iranian American Council (NIAC) wrote in a statement on Saturday. "The Iranian people have suffered manifold outrages from their government and circumstances, including the brutal crackdown on popular protests in 2022 and earlier and the failure of past moderate and reformist figures to deliver lasting change."
"As a result," NIAC continued, "a majority appear to have concluded for now that they would rather stay home than risk legitimizing a government they do not believe in. The inclusion of a reformist on the ticket in Masoud Pezeshkian may have boosted turnout in some quarters, but did little overall to arrest the slide in turnout in the first round."
Reform leader Abbas Akhoundi said: "About 60% of voters did not participate in the elections. Their message was clear. They object to the institutionalized discrimination in the existing governance and do not accept that they are second-class citizens and that a minority impose their will on the majority of Iranian society as first-class citizens."
The outcome on July 5 could depend on whether or not turnout increases.
NIAC observed that Pezeshkian's lead was surprising, given that low-turnout elections usually favor more conservative candidates.
"Typically, reformists have only triumphed when turnout reaches near record highs with a vast majority of public participation," the group wrote. "Pezeshkian appears to have done well enough to turn out a core base of support that gives him a plausible path to victory, but he will likely need to secure support from Iranians who opted to stay home yesterday in order to triumph."
Because power in Iran is ultimately held by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the winner of the presidential election is unlikely to substantially shift policies such as Iran's nuclear program or its support for militant groups in the Middle East, according to Reuters.
However, NIAC said the difference between the two candidates was "about as wide a difference as the Islamic Republic's restricted elections would allow."
Pezeshkian, a former health minister who represents Tabriz in Parliament, advocates for economic and social reform. He expressed regret over the death of Mahsa Amini after she was arrested for allegedly wearing her hijab incorrectly—an event that sparked nationwide protests in 2022—and also criticized the Raisi government for lack of transparency during the protests.
"We will respect the hijab law, but there should never be any intrusive or inhumane behavior toward women," Pezeshkian said after voting on Friday.
In foreign policy, he supports direct diplomacy with the U.S. and has expressed interest in renegotiating the 2015 Iran nuclear deal or Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).
Jalili, who represents Khamenei on the Supreme National Security Council, supports even stricter hijab laws, advocates for internet restrictions, and opposes the JCPOA or any negotiations with Western countries.
Because Pezeshkian was the only reformist in the first round of elections, he may struggle in a second round unless turnout increases, as supporters of the other conservative candidates would vote for Jalili, according to The Guardian.
However, a reformist newspaper editor told the Middle East Eye that many people who had sat out the first round of elections may vote in the second round to prevent a win by Jalili. The editor also predicted that many people who voted for Ghalibaf in the first round would back Pezeshkian in the second.
"At least 40% of his supporters, who are moderate and pragmatic conservatives, would vote for Pezeshkian as they fear Jalili's domestic policies and dead-end foreign policy," the editor said.
Ahead of the election, Trita Parsi of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft predicted that voters would ultimately decide based on a desire to improve "their increasingly dire economic situation in the medium term."
"They are looking for the candidate who will most likely be able to reduce the price of meat," Parsi wrote.
He did predict the winner could make a difference in Iran-U.S. relations, but only up to a point.
"Expectations for an opening between the U.S. and Iran should be kept low, even if Pezeshkian wins," Parsi concluded. "The problems between the U.S. and Iran are deeper today than they were in 2013, the trust gap is wider, reversing Iran's nuclear advances is going to be more difficult and politically more costly. On top of all that, Iran has more options in today's increasingly multipolar world."
68 'Summer of Heat' Activists Arrested in NYC Protesting Citgroup's Fossil Fuel Financing
"Citi's business model is frying our planet," said one campaigner.
Scores of activists were arrested Friday during a protest outside Citigroup's New York City headquarters, where demonstrators condemned what organizers called the megabank's "racist investments devastating Black and brown communities" and fueling the worsening climate emergency.
Around 1,000 people including environmental leaders from the Gulf Coast of Texas and Louisiana gathered at Zuccotti Park in Lower Manhattan's Financial District, where they rallied before marching to "demand that Wall Street stop funding the fossil fuel projects causing environmental devastation in mostly Black and brown communities in the Gulf South and across the globe."
The march ended at Citigroup's headquarters on the west side of Lower Manhattan, where organizers from New York Communities for Change said 68 people were arrested. The group said a total of 259 activists have been arrested during ongoing Summer of Heat on Wall Street protests, which it organized along with Stop the Money Pipeline, Climate Defenders, and Planet Over Profit.
"On Monday, climate activists from the Gulf South and allies held a roving speak out in front of financial institutions backing the fossil fuel industry, including KKR, BlackRock, and Bank of America," New York Communities for Change said. "On Wednesday, protesters held a civil disobedience action in front of the insurance conglomerate Chubb, which insures petrochemical projects destroying the climate in the Gulf South and around the globe."
One of the protest's organizers, Roishetta Ozane—who founded the Vessel Project of Louisiana—said that "projects that kill our communities like Freeport LNG (liquefied natural gas), Cameron LNG, Corpus Christi LNG, and others would not exist without the backing of financial institutions like Citigroup."
"Money made from them is blood money," Ozane added. "Since they destroy our homes, we're coming to pay them a visit. We will break this cycle of violence and exploitation now because later is too late. We want Citigroup to stop funding fossil fuels and to stop hurting our communities and our families."
As Stop the Money Pipeline coordinator Alec Connon explained in an opinion piece published earlier this month by Common Dreams:
Since the adoption of the Paris agreement in 2015, Citi has provided $204.46 billion in financing to the company's most rapidly developing new coal, oil, and gas fields. Remarkably, Citi has provided more money to those oil and gas companies than even JPMorgan Chase―the bank that climate activists like to call the 'Doomsday Bank.'
To be clear, I'm talking here only about the financing Citi has provided for companies developing new oil and gas reserves, not merely investing in infrastructure to keep the oil pumping from existing reserves. When we take into account financing to all fossil fuel companies, Citi has provided a little shy of $400 billion to coal, oil, and gas companies since 2015.
Citigroup contends that it is "supporting the transition to a low-carbon economy through our net zero commitments and our $1 trillion sustainable finance goal," and that its "approach reflects the need to transition while also continuing to meet global energy needs."
However, Climate Defenders organizing director Marlena Fontes countered that "Citi's business model is frying our planet."
"Every credible climate scientist says that we can't afford to put one more penny into fossil fuels, but Citi is the number one funder of fossil fuel expansion in the world," Fontes added. "Until Citi stops funding fossil fuels, they can expect resistance from everyday people like us who want our children to be able to play outside without coughing on wildfire smoke or getting sick from deadly heatwaves."