September, 12 2024,  03:06pm EDT

North Dakota Court Rules State Abortion Ban Unconstitutional
Abortion will now be legal in North Dakota following a ruling that the state’s ban violates the state constitution due to its narrow and vague exceptions.
Today, a North Dakota state court struck down the state’s total abortion ban as unconstitutional. The ban will be enjoined in the coming days. The Center for Reproductive Rights, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, and Gender Justice filed this lawsuit in 2023. Abortion care will now be legal in the state, increasing access for people across the Midwest, especially for those who need lifesaving or health-preserving abortion care. Abortion is also currently illegal in South Dakota, but remains legal in nearby Minnesota and Montana.
“The North Dakota Constitution guarantees each individual, including women, the fundamental right to make medical judgments affecting his or her bodily integrity, health, and autonomy, in consultation with a chosen health care provider free from government interference,” Judge Bruce Romanick’s opinion reads. “This section necessarily and more specifically protects a woman’s right to procreative autonomy – including to seek and obtain a pre-viability abortion.”
“This is a win for reproductive freedom, and means it is now much safer to be pregnant in North Dakota,” says Meetra Mehdizadeh, staff attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights. “Hospitals and doctors no longer have their hands tied and can provide abortions to patients with complications. However, the damage that North Dakota’s extreme abortion bans have done cannot be repaired overnight. There are no abortion clinics left in North Dakota. That means most people seeking an abortion still won’t be able to get one, even though it is legal. Clinics are medical facilities that need to acquire doctors, staff, equipment—they can take years to open, like most healthcare centers. The destructive impacts of abortion bans are felt long after they are struck down. This is now the second abortion ban that lawmakers have passed that has been struck down in court. We urge North Dakota lawmakers to respect this ruling and the reproductive autonomy of its people.”
In the lawsuit, Plaintiffs asked the court to strike down the ban in its entirety, which the court has decided to do. Plaintiffs argued that the ban was unconstitutionally vague and made it impossible to interpret the confusing language about when medical exceptions were allowed. The ban’s limited and confusing exceptions for health or life gave physicians no clear guidance on how to determine whether a patient was “sick enough” to qualify for abortion care. This left physicians who provided abortions with the threat of having to defend their decision in court if someone were to question the provider’s judgment. Violating the ban was considered a class C felony, punishable by a maximum of five years of imprisonment, a fine of $10,000, or both.
“Today’s decision gives me hope. I feel like the court heard us when we raised our voices against a law that not only ran counter to our state constitution, but was too vague for physicians to interpret and which prevented them from providing the high quality care that our communities are entitled to,” says Tammi Kromenaker, Director of Red River Women’s Clinic, a plaintiff in the case. “Abortion is lifesaving health care; it should not be a crime. I look forward to a new future in North Dakota and hope our lawmakers will finally give up on their crusade to force pregnancy on people against their will. As we see at our clinic every day, pregnancy is complex, and each pregnant person knows what is best for their specific situation.”
Eighteen states currently ban abortion completely or after six weeks of pregnancy—before many know they are pregnant. While most of those bans have very narrow exceptions to save the life of the pregnant patient, those exceptions have not been working in practice. Doctors are unclear who qualifies for the exceptions, and they are terrified to perform any abortions as they face years in prison for violating the bans. In addition to North Dakota, the Center has active lawsuits in Idaho and Tennessee to clarify the “medical emergency” exceptions written into the bans in those states and broaden the circumstances in which physicians can provide abortions.
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court of Texas ruled in another Center lawsuit, Zurawski v. Texas. The state’s high court mostly provided clarity around when pregnant Texans cannot access abortion care, such as for lethal fetal conditions, rather than when they can. The courtrefused to allow abortion care unless a patient has a life-threatening condition.
The lawsuit was filed by the Center for Reproductive Rights, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, and Gender Justice, on behalf of Red River Women’s Clinic, its medical director Dr. Kathryn Eggleston, Dr. Ana Tobiasz, Dr. Erica Hofland, and Dr. Collette Lessard.
The Center for Reproductive Rights is a global human rights organization of lawyers and advocates who ensure reproductive rights are protected in law as fundamental human rights for the dignity, equality, health, and well-being of every person.
(917) 637-3600LATEST NEWS
New Lawsuit Details 'Horrific and Inhumane Conditions' in ICE Broadview Facility
"Community members are being kidnapped off the streets, packed in hold cells, denied food, medical care, and basic necessities, and forced to sign away their legal rights," said the lead attorney for the case.
Oct 31, 2025
A few weeks after a federal judge sided with journalists and protesters attacked by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement outside of an ICE building in the Chicago suburb Broadview, detainees on Friday sued over "deplorable and inhumane conditions" inside the "de facto immigration detention facility right outside the city limits."
"Huge numbers of people are being arrested and detained" as part of President Donald Trump's "massive and inhumane immigration enforcement operation in the Chicago area—Operation Midway Blitz," notes the class action complaint, filed in the Northern District of Illinois by the ACLU of Illinois, MacArthur Justice Center, and Chicago office of the law firm Eimer Stahl.
Like plaintiffs Pablo Moreno Gonzalez and Felipe Agustin Zamacona, most immigrants targeted in the operation have been brought to the Broadview facility. There, the complaint states, federal defendants "have created a black box in which to disappear people from the US justice and immigration systems," and they "are perpetrating mass constitutional violations."
The suit names not only ICE and key agency leaders—Acting Director Todd Lyons, Enforcement and Removal Operations Executive Associate Director Marcos Charles, and Interim Chicago Field Office Director Samuel Olson—but also the US Department of Homeland Security, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, Customs and Border Protection, and CBP Commander-at-Large Greg Bovino.
"DHS personnel have denied access to counsel, legislators, and journalists so that the harsh and deteriorating conditions at the facility can be shielded from public view," said ACLU of Illinois legal director Kevin Fee in a statement. "These conditions are unconstitutional and threaten to coerce people into sacrificing their rights without the benefit of legal advice and a full airing of their legal defenses."
Echoing recent reporting by Chicago journalists, the filing features several anecdotes from attorneys and people who have been detained in Broadview, where "there is blood, other bodily fluids, and hair in the sinks and on the walls," and holding rooms are "infested with cockroaches, centipedes, and spiders."
"This is a vicious abuse of power and gross violation of basic human rights by ICE and the Department of Homeland Security."
One person quoted in the complaint said that immigrants at Broadview were confined in cells "like a pile of fish," while another said that "they treated us like animals, or worse than animals, because no one treats their pets like that."
In September, Fredy Cazarez Gonzalez was "held in a small room with hundreds of people" and "forced to lay down near the toilet, where there was urine on the ground," the filing says. He "was unable to shower for the five days he was at Broadview. Officers did not give him any soap, toothpaste, a toothbrush, or anything else to clean himself with."
Juan Gabriel Aguirre Alvarez "saw a man get sick and vomit in and around the toilet in his holding room. The officers did not provide medical care, nor did they clean up the vomit," the document details. "On the final night that Aguirre Alvarez was detained at Broadview, another man in the room defecated in his pants. The man's soiled pants were placed in the garbage. No staff members came to clean it up, so it was left there the entire night and smelled terrible."
"Jose Guerrero Pozos was detained with some individuals who were diabetic, but they received the same food—a small amount of bread—as all the other detainees, which can lead to dangerous and uncontrolled surges in blood sugar," according to the complaint.
The details alleged in the suit get pretty lurid. Per multiple declarations, detainees are forced to sleep on the floor, amid "urine and dirty water" caused by clogged toilets. The suit also claims there are cameras pointed at the toilets, causing detainees anxiety and concern over sexual abuse.
[image or embed]
— Dave Byrnes (@djbyrnes1.bsky.social) October 31, 2025 at 10:02 AM
Alexa Van Brunt, director of the MacArthur Justice Center's Illinois office and lead counsel on the suit, stressed in a statement that "everyone, no matter their legal status, has the right to access counsel and to not be subject to horrific and inhumane conditions."
"Community members are being kidnapped off the streets, packed in hold cells, denied food, medical care, and basic necessities, and forced to sign away their legal rights," she said. "This is a vicious abuse of power and gross violation of basic human rights by ICE and the Department of Homeland Security. It must end now."
Chicago, the third-largest US city, has been a primary target of Trump's immigration crackdown and his attempt to deploy National Guard troops—the latter of which is before the US Supreme Court after being blocked by a federal judge in response to a suit filed by the Democrat-led city and state.
However, "the conditions at Broadview are not an anomaly," the complaint highlights. "Similar overcrowding, unsanitary conditions, lack of basic hygiene, insufficient food and water, inadequate sleeping conditions, substandard medical care, and extreme restrictions on attorney-client communications are pervasive at immigration facilities in New York, Baltimore, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Alexandria, and other cities throughout the country."
"Incommunicado detention is not tolerated in our democracy. Defendants have an obligation under the US Constitution and federal law to provide the people they detain with due process and to treat them with basic decency," the filing declares, imploring the district court to "order defendants to stop flouting the law inside Broadview."
Keep ReadingShow Less
UN Human Rights Chief Says Trump Must Halt 'Extrajudicial Killing' in International Waters
"None of the individuals on the targeted boats appeared to pose an imminent threat to the lives of others or otherwise justified the use of lethal armed force against them under international law," said Volker Türk.
Oct 31, 2025
The United Nations' top human rights official said Friday that US President Donald Trump's deadly strikes on boats in international waters in recent weeks amount to "extrajudicial killing" that must stop immediately, remarks that came as the White House appeared poised to expand the unlawful military campaign to targets inside Venezuela.
Volker Türk, the UN high commissioner for human rights, said of the administration's boat strikes that "these attacks—and their mounting human cost—are unacceptable."
"The US must halt such attacks and take all measures necessary to prevent the extrajudicial killing of people aboard these boats, whatever the criminal conduct alleged against them," said Türk, noting that the administration has not substantiated its claim that those killed by the strikes in waters off Central and South America were smuggling drugs.
The Trump administration has also kept secret a US Justice Department memo purportedly outlining an internal legal justification for the deadly strikes.
Türk noted that "countering the serious issue of illicit trafficking of drugs across international borders is—as has long been agreed among states—a law-enforcement matter, governed by the careful limits on lethal force set out in international human rights law."
"Under international human rights law, the intentional use of lethal force is only permissible as a last resort against individuals who pose an imminent threat to life," said the UN human rights chief. "Based on the very sparse information provided publicly by the US authorities, none of the individuals on the targeted boats appeared to pose an imminent threat to the lives of others or otherwise justified the use of lethal armed force against them under international law."
The Trump administration's strikes have killed more than 60 people thus far. At least one of the targeted vessels appeared to have turned around before the US military bombed it, killing 11 people.
Türk's statement came as the Miami Herald reported that the Trump administration "has made the decision to attack military installations inside Venezuela and the strikes could come at any moment."
Trump has said publicly that land strikes inside Venezuela would be the next phase of the military assault, which he has described as a "war" on drug cartels. The president has not yet received—or even sought—congressional authorization for any of the military actions taken in the Caribbean and Pacific.
In a statement last week, a group of UN experts denounced the Trump administration's strikes and belligerent posturing toward Venezuela as "an extremely dangerous escalation with grave implications for peace and security in the Caribbean region."
"The long history of external interventions in Latin America must not be repeated,” the experts said.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Administration Has ‘Made the Decision to Attack Military Installations Inside Venezuela’: Report
"Trump’s military buildup in the Caribbean isn’t about 'drugs,' it’s about oil, power, and regime change," said on critic of potential strikes in Venezuela.
Oct 31, 2025
Two reports claim that the Trump administration is poised to launch strikes against military targets inside Venezuela.
The Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday night that the administration is preparing to attack a variety of targets inside Venezuela, including "ports and airports controlled by the military that are allegedly used to traffic drugs, including naval facilities and airstrips."
Reports from the US government and the United Nations have not identified Venezuela as a significant source of drugs that enter the United States, and the country plays virtually no role in the trafficking of fentanyl, the primary cause of drug overdoses in the US.
While the WSJ report said that the administration had not yet decided to carry out the operations against Venezuela, the Miami Herald reported on Friday morning that the administration "has made the decision to attack military installations inside Venezuela and the strikes could come at any moment."
A source who spoke with the Miami Herald didn't explicitly say that Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro would be the target of these actions, but they nonetheless hinted that the goal was to weaken his grip on power.
"Maduro is about to find himself trapped and might soon discover that he cannot flee the country even if he decided to,” the source said. “What’s worse for him, there is now more than one general willing to capture and hand him over, fully aware that one thing is to talk about death, and another to see it coming."
While the Trump administration has accused Maduro of leading an international drug trafficking organization called the Cartel de los Soles, some experts have expressed extreme skepticism of this claim.
Phil Gunson, analyst at the International Crisis Group think tank, said in an interview with Agence Presse-France earlier this year that he doubts that so-called "Cartel de los Soles" even exists, and noted that "direct, incontrovertible evidence has never been presented" to show otherwise.
Earlier this year, the administration attempted to tie Maduro to another gang, Tren de Aragua, despite US intelligence agencies rejecting the notion that the street gang had government connections.
Launching strikes on Venezuelan soil would mark a major escalation in the administration's military campaign targeting purported drug traffickers, which so far has consisted of drone strikes against boats in international waters that many legal experts have described as a campaign of extrajudicial murder.
Dozens of political leaders throughout Latin America earlier this month condemned the administration's attacks on the purported drug boats, and they warned that they could just be the start of a regime change war reminiscent of the coups carried out by the US government in the last century that installed military dictatorships throughout the region.
"We have lived this nightmare before,” they emphasized in a joint letter. “US military interventions of the 20th century brought dictatorships, disappearances, and decades of trauma to our nations. We know the terrible cost of allowing foreign powers to wage war on our continent. We cannot—we will not—allow history to repeat itself.”
Medea Benjamin, cofounder of anti-war group CodePink, accused the Trump administration of using a fight against alleged drug trafficking as a false pretext to seize Venezuela's vast oil reserves.
"Trump’s military buildup in the Caribbean isn’t about 'drugs,' it’s about oil, power, and regime change," she wrote in a post on X. "Venezuela has the largest proven oil reserves in the world, that’s why they’re escalating toward war."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


