SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
supreme court
For Our Rights and Our Future, the Senate Must Get To Work on Judicial Confirmations
Focusing on confirming judges will make a tremendous difference in our lives and for our fundamental rights and freedoms.
Sep 13, 2024
President Biden has already accomplished an incredible amount to help create a federal judiciary that works for everyone. From the confirmation of more than 200 qualified and diverse lifetime judges (and counting) to advancing a long-overdue conversation about modernizing and reforming our Supreme Court so that we can one day trust that it provides equal justice for all, we are making important progress. At a time when the extremist majority on our nation’s highest court has rolled back the progress we have made—taking away the fundamental right to abortion, removing a vital tool for eliminating unfair barriers to educational opportunity, weakening voting rights for communities of color, and more—the task of improving a damaged judiciary is daunting.
It’s no surprise that the public’s trust in the judiciary is declining, as reports persist about some Supreme Court justices’ deeply concerning unethical behavior. Our justices should be serving all of us, but some of them are showing that they are only concerned about the interests of the wealthy and powerful. As we live in this reality, we must also do the work to foster a federal judiciary that respects, recognizes, and advances our civil and human rights.
Our justices should be serving all of us, but some of them are showing that they are only concerned about the interests of the wealthy and powerful.
It is incumbent on every generation to protect the progress made and work toward a more inclusive and thriving democracy and society in which everyone is treated with respect and dignity. Unfortunately, in the past few years alone, a manufactured and coordinated campaign has taken us back—but we are not backing down. We are fighting for a better future where our rights, our lives, and our future are respected. For this to happen, our Supreme Court justices must be held to the highest ethical standards, and Congress must explore all options to improve how the Court functions and thus examine its structure, including limiting the amount of time justices can actively serve. In the next few months, there’s also important work that must be done that will make a real difference in our lives. Federal judges decide important cases from who can access health care to whose votes are counted. And for our democracy to endure, we need highly qualified, fair-minded individuals in courtrooms across our nation who will advance equal justice for all.
President Biden, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, and Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Dick Durbin have helped to make a significant impact, stewarding more than 200 confirmations of lifetime judges and justices to our federal courts. This includes ushering in the most diverse slate—both demographically and professionally—of federal judges in history. Nearly two-thirds of these confirmed judges are women, nearly two-thirds are people of color, and more than 40 percent have significant experience protecting people’s civil and human rights. Of course, President Biden appointed Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the first Black woman and first former public defender to serve on our nation’s highest court, and her service to date has been remarkable. A few weeks ago, President Biden also announced his support for long-needed changes to the Supreme Court, including a binding code of conduct for Supreme Court justices.
Transforming our federal judiciary so it not only looks like America but also recognizes and respects the rule of law—and how laws impact people's lives—has been a cornerstone of President Biden’s administration. Together we have changed the default of who is considered fair and qualified for the federal bench because we know that a judiciary staffed with brilliant people committed to equal justice—people whose experiences have been historically excluded—yields better decisions and is more reflective and representative of America. We celebrate this remarkable progress. But we cannot relent.
Time is of the essence. We need laser-like focus to fill every vacancy possible by the end of the year.
The jurists who President Biden has appointed will be serving for decades to come—far outlasting his impressive four years in office. To honor his legacy and to ensure justice is served in more corners of our country, progress must accelerate. Over the next few months, senators must urgently prioritize the confirmation of diverse judges who possess a deep commitment to our civil and human rights.
Now that the Senate has returned, we urge senators to seize every opportunity to make an immediate and lasting difference. The Democratic-led Senate, under the leadership of Majority Leader Schumer, has already confirmed several nominees this week and has now confirmed 209 lifetime nominees during the Biden administration. Dozens more are awaiting action in committee or on the Senate floor. This includes numerous nominees with critical civil and human rights experience, including experience defending religious freedom and protecting the rights of working people and those involved in the criminal-legal system. Time is of the essence. We need laser-like focus to fill every vacancy possible by the end of the year.
For some comparison, President Trump during his one term in office was able to confirm 234 nominees to lifetime judgeships with the avid assistance of then-Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. In the final months of his one term, the Republican-led Senate confirmed 30 judicial nominees, including a Supreme Court justice. We can exceed the previous administration both in numbers and quality—and we must. While we have a long way to go until we have equal justice, it’s imperative that Schumer accelerate this progress and continue to use every moment over the next few weeks and months to fill as many judicial seats as possible. With focus and determination, the Senate can leave President Biden the legacy of appointing a stunning number—more than the last administration—of superbly qualified judicial nominees.
Focusing on confirming judges will make a tremendous difference in our lives and for our fundamental rights and freedoms. We need to take all necessary steps to strengthen our judiciary so that our multiracial democracy can thrive and equal justice prevails.
President Biden’s legacy deserves no less. And our future depends on it.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Could It Soon Be a Crime to Cross State Lines for an Abortion?
As law professors who teach about reproductive justice, we view attempts to restrict abortion travel as one of the frontiers in the anti-abortion rights movement, raising new legal questions for courts to unravel.
Sep 08, 2024
Almost half of the states in the country have made it harder to get an abortion since the Supreme Court in 2022 overturned the federal right to get an abortion. Fourteen states ban abortions in almost all circumstances, and another eight in almost all cases after 6 to 18 weeks of pregnancy.
Nonetheless, the number of abortions provided in the U.S. has actually grown since the court’s Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision, rising 11% since 2020, to over 1 million abortions a year.
This increase can partially be explained by the fact that the number of people who crossed state lines to get abortions more than doubled from 81,000 in 2020 to 171,000 in 2023.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in the 2022 Dobbs decision that states cannot legally prevent their residents from going to another state to get an abortion, because he believes there is a “constitutional right to interstate travel.”
The U.S. Constitution does not, however, explicitly recognize a “right to interstate travel.” But the Supreme Court has issued decisions as far back as 1867 that can be interpreted to protect this right – and some scholars are confident that such a right exists.
But that hasn’t stopped states such as Idaho and Tennessee from enacting laws that make it harder to travel for an abortion – and some people have even attempted to legally punish their own partners for traveling to end a pregnancy.
As law professors who teach about reproductive justice, we view attempts to restrict abortion travel as one of the frontiers in the anti-abortion rights movement, raising new legal questions for courts to unravel.
States push to stop abortion travel
Idaho bans abortion at all stages of pregnancy. In April 2023, it also became the first state to impose travel restrictions with what it called an “abortion trafficking” law.
This law prevents people from helping minors who are not their children get abortions – without parental consent – including in another state.
Idaho’s attorney general has interpreted the law to mean that health care providers cannot refer patients to abortion clinics in other states. And based on this interpretation, the new law also means that a grandparent or teacher, for example, could not provide advice to a pregnant teenager.
An abortion access fund and a few others have challenged this law, saying that it violates the First Amendment and infringes on pregnant patients’ constitutional right to travel.
A federal district court temporarily blocked the law from going into effect in November 2023, but the case is currently being appealed at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
More recently, in July 2024, Tennessee enacted copycat legislation, which is also being challenged.
Other states – Alabama, Mississippi and Oklahoma – have considered similar abortion trafficking laws but so far have not enacted any.
A spiraling effect
Idaho’s and Tennessee’s laws don’t directly prevent interstate travel, because they focus on people helping minors get an abortion. But some abortion rights activists still say these laws could lead to more explicit bans on interstate travel for abortion.
In the meantime, four Texas counties and a handful of Texas cities are imposing what they call “abortion trafficking laws.”
Under these laws, people can sue anyone who travels through their cities or counties to get an abortion in another state. Supporters of these laws describe “abortion trafficking” in broad terms, because as one anti-abortion activist has said, “the unborn child is always taken against their will” by a pregnant person.
This understanding of “abortion trafficking” effectively treats the fetus as a person, in line with other fetal personhood efforts by anti-abortion rights groups. They are also carefully crafted to avoid constitutional challenges.
In some cases, it is individual people, not states, who are trying to block people from traveling to get an abortion.
In February 2024, for example, a man named Collin Davis tried to prevent his ex-partner from traveling from Texas to Colorado to get an abortion.
While Davis failed to prevent the abortion, he later filed a lawsuit to investigate his ex-partner and people who assisted her in having the procedure. His goal is to “pursue wrongful-death claims against anyone involved in the killing of his unborn child.”
An uncertain future
As the courts consider whether it is legal to ban interstate travel for abortion, it is useful to consider the 1975 Supreme Court case, Bigelow v. Virginia.
This case materialized after a Virginia newspaper published an advertisement for an abortion clinic in New York. The state of Virginia convicted the managing editor for violating a Virginia law that made it a misdemeanor for any person “by publication, lecture, advertisement, or by the sale or circulation of any publication” to encourage getting an abortion.
The Supreme Court struck down the Virginia law as violating the First Amendment, and it also noted that Virginia could not “prevent its residents from traveling to New York to obtain” an abortion or “prosecute them for going there.” This language about the right to travel was not, however, essential to the court’s final decision, so it can’t necessarily be relied upon.
The Bigelow case was also decided just a few years after Roe v. Wade established a constitutional right to abortion. Such a right no longer exists after Dobbs.
This legal situation raises uncertainty about whether and how the Supreme Court would protect the right to travel for abortion.
States trying to protect abortion rights
There are approximately 22 states that have responded to other states’ abortion bans and other restrictive measures on interstate travel by adopting statutes called “shield” laws. These laws seek to prevent states with abortion bans from investigating their residents’ efforts to get an abortion in the shield state.
Along these same lines, the Biden administration issued a rule in 2024 that protects the privacy of people’s personal health information with respect to abortion when such care is legal.
The Dobbs decision returned the question of abortion to the states. But it has not settled many other legal issues related to abortion, such as whether there is a right to travel to get an abortion.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Air Force Dodges PFAS Water Cleanup in Arizona, Citing Supreme Court Chevron Ruling
"The floodgate begins to open," said one observer. "The U.S. Air Force refuses to clean up their toxic chemical contamination citing the termination of the Chevron doctrine by the corrupt Supreme Court."
Aug 12, 2024
The United States Air Force has so far refused to comply with an Environmental Protection Agency order to develop a cleanup plan for drinking water in Tucson, Arizona, citing the U.S. Supreme Court's June ruling that overturned the Chevron doctrine, The Guardianreported Monday.
Air Force bases contributed to the contamination of the drinking water with toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), often known as "forever chemicals" because they accumulate in the body, breaking down only very slowly. The compounds, which were introduced by chemical companies in the mid-20th century, are associated with a wide range of serious health conditions, including cancer.
In late May, the EPA ordered the Air Force and the Arizona Air National Guard to clean up the PFAS contamination of groundwater at a 10-square-mile site in Tucson, giving them 60 days to develop a plan.
In late June, the Supreme Court eliminated the Chevron doctrine, also called Chevron deference, which gave federal agencies latitude to interpret laws and establish regulations, and required judges to generally defer to their expert judgment. The landmark ruling, brought by the court's right-wing majority, cut away at the executive branch's ability to regulate pollution.
Progressive advocates warned that it would lead to corporate-backed legal challenges to environmental and health rules. As it turned out, corporations were not the only organizations ready to take advantage of the ruling. On July 18, the Air Force's lawyers wrote to the EPA arguing that the May order should be withdrawn due to the elimination of the Chevron doctrine; Arizona Public Media service AZPMreported that the Air Force formally requested that the order be dropped.
The Air Force's challenge is a unique one in that it pits one arm of the U.S. executive branch against another, and won't go to the courts, but both scientists and legal experts warned that it could be a sign of the hard-nosed approach that polluters could take following the Chevron ruling that favors them.
"The floodgate begins to open," Chris Nagano, a former scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, wrote on social media in response to The Guardian's article. "The U.S. Air Force refuses to clean up their toxic chemical contamination citing the termination of the Chevron doctrine by the corrupt Supreme Court. I thought the Air Force was supposed to protect the American People?"
Deborah Ann Sivas, an environmental law expert at Stanford Law School, told The Guardian that the new ruling shouldn't affect the EPA's order and the Air Force seemed to be seeking to expand its scope to block regulatory action.
"It's very odd," she said. "It feels almost like an intimidation tactic, but it will be interesting to see if others take this approach and it bleeds over."
Legal experts say that, despite the Air Force's claim, the Supreme Court's recent ruling pertaining to Chevron shouldn't affect the EPA's enforcement actions, such as the May order—it should only affect the agency's rule-making process, The Guardian reported.
The order called for the Air Force and the Arizona Air National Guard to establish a filtration system designed specifically to remove PFAS, the estimated cost of which would be $25 million, or 0.1% of the Air Force's annual budget, the newspaper reported.
The affected 10-square-mile site is beneath Tucson International Airport, Air Force Plant #44, and the Morris Air National Guard base. It's been known to be extraordinarily polluted since long before the presence of PFAS was found—in fact, it was designated a Superfund site in the 1980s due to the presence of contaminants from solvents and degreasers.
Since 2016, samples from the site's groundwater have shown extraordinarily high levels of PFAS—as much as 53,000 parts per trillion, when the allowable legal limit for drinking water is between just 4 and 10 ppt, depending on the type of PFAS. However, a series of measures, including filtration, water diversion, and the closing of wells, have been taken so that such contaminated water is not in the local drinking supply.
There was a close call in 2021 in which contaminated water nearly breached the Tucson water supply, the EPA's order says, and though the city's water is currently safe, the issue remains concerning for locals, USA Todayreported in June. It's also creates added costs.
"When we have an area where the water quality is impacted and we're not able to serve that to customers, that is an added cost. It really diminishes the resource that we have available," Natalie DeRoock, a spokesperson for Tucson Water, the local utility, told USA Today. DeRoock said that while Tucson pumps in some water from the Colorado River, it depends largely on groundwater, a finite resource.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular