Supreme Court

NEW ORLEANS (AP) - Abortion bans are temporarily blocked in Louisiana and Utah, while a federal court in South...

Much of Monday’s court activity focused on “trigger laws,” adopted in 13 states that were designed to take effect swiftly after the ruling. NEW ORLEANS (AP) — Abortion bans are temporarily blocked in Louisiana and Utah, while a federal court in South Carolina says a law sharply restricting the procedure can take effect there immediately. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision Friday (June 24, 2022) to end constitutional protection for abortion opened the gates for a wave of litigation.

Hours after the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark case that made abortion a constitutional right nearly 50 years ago, ...

On June 27, California lawmakers introduced a state constitutional amendment to the ballot that would protect the right to abortion and contraceptives. “And once that clump of cells becomes a baby popped out, then they don’t care.” What about your daughter?” Park said.

One bright spot for judicial liberals in an otherwise bleak week. Fog blankets the exterior of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Ruling in favor of Nance and giving a victory to death penalty opponents was also required, Kagan explained, to respect a line of three cases in which, in 2005, 2009 and 2015, the court had turned back challenges to lethal injection. If the inmate obtains his requested relief,” she said “it is because he has persuaded a court that the State could readily use his proposal to execute him.” The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, which heard Nance’s case in December 2020 and again in April 2021, said that he could not proceed with his suit. The court ruled that because Georgia did not authorize execution by firing squad, his challenge, in effect, was designed to prevent him from being executed at all. Kagan, writing for the unusual majority alignment, said that a habeas petition would only be appropriate if Nance was suing to “invalidate his death sentence” and prevent the state from executing him at all. Nonetheless, Nance brought suit under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, a federal law that authorizes citizens to sue in federal court for the deprivation of rights. Such appeals to precedent did not work in last week’s gun or abortion decisions, of course, which suggests that the conservative activist justices will ignore or trash precedent when it suits their political purposes. An inmate in Georgia who feared the pain of lethal injection wanted to be executed by firing squad instead, and the court agreed to let his request proceed — reasoning on the very narrow grounds of how inmates can file appeals, rather than anything about the substance of his execution. Instead of lethal injection, he wants to be executed by a firing squad. It highlights the dilemmas facing the court’s liberals on a conservative dominated bench, and offers a clear example of how they are playing defense. Federal law imposes a one-year deadline for filing federal habeas corpus petitions and requires that people seeking such relief must bring all claims in a single action. Last week, when the court did what was widely expected on gun rights and abortion, it handed down a surprising death penalty decision — but we need to look carefully to understand why they defied expectations.

The Supreme Court is empowering Christianity as the United States becomes less religious. It's blurring the line between church and state as Republican ...

That’s in part because the United States is becoming more diverse in a variety of ways. White Christians are still a majority, as are Christians in general. This tracks with the increase in the number of Americans who have stepped away from organized religion or religion altogether. As The Washington Post’s Robert Barnes noted in his coverage of Kennedy, these decisions joined others from the court this session in which religious interests were bolstered. That’s down from 98 percent in 1968 (which, if you’re curious, was several years after prayer was banned in schools). The Supreme Court is empowering Christianity as the United States becomes less religious.

A federal judge had ordered lawmakers to redraw the state's six congressional districts to include two in which Black voters were in the majority.

After the census, the State Legislature, controlled by Republicans, enacted a voting map with a single district in which Black voters made up a majority. The court is set to hear arguments in the case, Merrill v. Milligan, when the justices return to the bench in October. Republican state officials say the Constitution allows only a limited role for the consideration of race in drawing voting districts. The dispute in Louisiana is part of a pitched battle over redistricting playing out across the country. The Supreme Court’s brief order, which included no reasoning, blocked the judge’s order and granted a petition seeking review in the case.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed a congressional map in Louisiana to remain in place for the next election, freezing a lower court ruling that said the ...

The court will hear arguments in that case on October 4. In court papers they echoed Dick's holding that "a remedial congressional plan can be implemented in advance of the 2022 election without excessive difficult or risk of voter confusion." A federal appeals court declined to put that ruling on hold and scheduled expedited hearings that are set to begin on July 8.

A federal judge had previously struck down the state's GOP-drawn map for "packing" Black voters into a single district.

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court also blocked a lower court order that threw out Alabama’s maps. The Supreme Court ruled that the lower court’s order would be put on ice pending a decision in Merrill v. Dick had ordered the Louisiana legislature to redraw the map with a second heavily Black district.

After a lower court found Louisiana's new congressional maps diluted the votes of Black voters, the Supreme Court put on hold an order for a second majority ...

You may click on “Your Choices” below to learn about and use cookie management tools to limit use of cookies when you visit NPR’s sites. If you click “Agree and Continue” below, you acknowledge that your cookie choices in those tools will be respected and that you otherwise agree to the use of cookies on NPR’s sites. NPR’s sites use cookies, similar tracking and storage technologies, and information about the device you use to access our sites (together, “cookies”) to enhance your viewing, listening and user experience, personalize content, personalize messages from NPR’s sponsors, provide social media features, and analyze NPR’s traffic.

The justices agreed with a request by the state's Republican secretary of state to put on hold U.S. District Judge Shelly Dick's order that the state create a ...

“But the Court’s case law in this area is notoriously unclear and confusing.” It involves what Republicans say is a conflict between the demands of the Voting Rights Act and the Equal Protection Clause’s guarantee that race not play too prominent a role in government decisions. The Supreme Court majority on Tuesday did not supply a reason for granting the state’s request, as is common in emergency orders.

The decision in Ardoin v. Robinson could foreshadow a new age of widespread racial gerrymandering.

In March, moreover, the Court voted to strike down Wisconsin’s state legislative maps, warning that those maps may have given too much influence to Black voters. So the future of American election law is likely to be much more hostile to Black (and other minority) interests than current law. Robinson means that Black people will have half as much congressional representation as they would enjoy under maps where Black voters have as much opportunity to elect their own preferred candidate as white people in Louisiana. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court voted 6-3 along party lines to stay the trial court’s injunction, effectively reinstating the gerrymandered maps. None of these three orders was particularly well explained, but the pattern is that, in each case, the Court ruled against efforts to draw maps that expand Black political power. A federal trial court, applying longstanding Supreme Court precedents holding that the Voting Rights Act does not permit such racial gerrymanders, issued a preliminary injunction temporarily striking down the Louisiana maps and ordering the state legislature to draw new ones that include two Black-majority districts.

A divided US Supreme Court reinstated a Republican-drawn congressional map in Louisiana for this year's election, blocking a trial judge's order that ...

The majority gave no explanation. The Supreme Court case is Ardoin v. The Supreme Court

Tuesday's ruling states former state officials should have received preliminary exams before being charged for their roles in the Flint water crisis.

As the city struggled with water quality, it also saw an outbreak of Legionnaires' disease and deaths. "The prosecution cannot simply cut corners in order to prosecute defendants more efficiently. In May, attorneys for Lyon, Peeler and Baird argued in front of the Michigan Supreme Court that they were entitled to preliminary exams. The defense's opportunity to cross-examine witnesses typically is delayed. But they do not authorize the judge to issue indictments. Appeals to Newblatt's decision were rejected, bringing arguments to the Michigan Supreme Court.

The cases against former Gov. Rick Snyder and other top officials were thrown into doubt by the ruling.

“The one-man grand jury has been an important way to protect witnesses who would have never come forward for fear of deadly consequences for themselves, family members and friends,” Ms. Worthy said. “The Flint water crisis stands as one of this country’s greatest betrayals of citizens by their government,” Justice Richard H. Bernstein wrote in a concurring opinion. The buck stops with the governor,” said Marvin Davenport, who still drinks only bottled water. Who dropped the ball?” State law allows a Michigan judge acting as a one-person grand jury to investigate, subpoena witnesses and issue arrest warrants, the court ruled, but not to hand down unilateral indictments. “State employees should not be prosecuted or demonized for just doing their job,” said Mr. Lyon, who has maintained his innocence. The water crisis, which resulted in elevated lead levels among thousands of people in Flint, has left numerous families distrustful of the water supply, even as city officials insist that it is now safe to drink. Some among Flint’s 81,000 residents had called for years for charges against Mr. Snyder and others, and had criticized an emergency oversight policy that allowed state officials to take control of the financially challenged city government and change the water source. Still, Flint’s mayor, Sheldon Neeley, who said his residents continued to distrust government, said the decision was a disappointment. For defendants who had said from the start that criminal charges were wrong and politically motivated, the ruling on Tuesday marked vindication. But Ms. Nessel’s team had those cases dismissed in 2019 before filing new charges against several of the same officials. The Supreme Court, in a 6-0 ruling, said on Tuesday that single-person grand juries, which have long been used in Michigan, could not be deployed in that way.

BATON ROUGE (AP) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday put on hold a lower court ruling that Louisiana must draw new congressional districts before the 2022 ...

This year’s redistricting process in Louisiana has been a tense political tug-of-war, with the Republican-dominated legislature and Edwards fighting over the boundaries since February, when lawmakers approved a congressional map with white majorities in five of six districts. However the legislature overrode the veto — marking the first time in nearly three decades that lawmakers refused to accept a governor’s refusal of a bill they had passed. Alabama has seven seats in the House of Representatives. As a result, Louisiana’s November congressional elections will be held using a Republican-drawn map with white majorities in five of six districts. State Rep. Vincent Pierre, chairman of the Louisiana Legislative Black Caucus, said he was “disheartened” by the Supreme Court’s decision and added that “hopes for change in the short term have been dashed.” The Democrat described the map approved by the legislature as an “obvious violation” of the Voting Rights Act. With the three liberal justices dissenting, the high court short-circuited the earlier order from U.S. District Judge Shelly Dick to create a second majority Black congressional district in Louisiana. As the map stands, five of Louisiana’s six seats appear likely to remain in Republican hands.

Prosecutors' missteps in the case against former governor Rick Snyder and others led the Michigan Supreme Court to strike the charges, the justices said.

The city is still dealing with the effects of deadly tainted river water that was sent to homes in a cost-saving measure. “The prosecution cannot cut corners — here, by not allowing defendants a preliminary examination as statutorily guaranteed — in order to prosecute defendants more efficiently,” the court said. Nick Lyon, a former Department of Health and Human Services director, was among the defendants in Tuesday’s ruling. Not doing so undermines basic notions of fairness, the court wrote. “We will be moving immediately to dismiss all criminal charges against Governor Snyder based on today’s unequivocal and scathing Supreme Court ruling.” “State employees should not be prosecuted or demonized for just doing their job,” Lyon said.

People in Flint, Mich., are awaiting justice after water there was poisoned years ago. The former governor is facing charges, but the state Supreme Court ...

You may click on “Your Choices” below to learn about and use cookie management tools to limit use of cookies when you visit NPR’s sites. If you click “Agree and Continue” below, you acknowledge that your cookie choices in those tools will be respected and that you otherwise agree to the use of cookies on NPR’s sites. NPR’s sites use cookies, similar tracking and storage technologies, and information about the device you use to access our sites (together, “cookies”) to enhance your viewing, listening and user experience, personalize content, personalize messages from NPR’s sponsors, provide social media features, and analyze NPR’s traffic.

NEW ORLEANS — Judges temporarily blocked abortion bans Monday in Louisiana and Utah, while a federal court in South Carolina said a law sharply restricting ...

For instance, Wisconsin passed a law in 1849 banning abortions except to save the life of the mother. They also argue that state law is unclear on whether it bans an abortion prior to a fertilized egg implanting in the uterus. In May, a judge said the ban could not be enforced because it violates the state’s constitution. In Michigan, Planned Parenthood challenged a 1931 abortion ban ahead of last week’s Supreme Court ruling. Now that the high court has ruled that the U.S. Constitution does not guarantee the right to an abortion, abortion rights groups are seeking protection under state constitutions. In liberal Massachusetts, Gov. Charlie Baker, a Republican, signed an executive order Friday that prohibits state agencies from assisting other states’ investigations into anyone who receives a legal abortion in Massachusetts. Rhode Island’s Democratic governor said he would sign a similar order. James Bopp Jr., general counsel for the National Right to Life Committee, said the wave of suits from abortion rights advocates is not surprising. Also Monday, abortion rights advocates asked a Florida judge to block a new law there that bans the procedure after 15 weeks with some exceptions to save a mother’s life or if the fetus has a fatal abnormality, but no exceptions for rape, incest or human trafficking. In South Carolina, a federal court lifted its prior hold on an abortion restriction there, allowing the state to ban abortions after an ultrasound detects a heartbeat, usually around six weeks into a pregnancy, before many women know they are pregnant. The ruling is in effect pending a July 8 hearing. Planned Parenthood had challenged the law, which contains narrow exceptions for rape, incest or the mother’s health, saying the law violates the equal protection and privacy provisions in the state constitution. Much of Monday’s court activity focused on “trigger laws,” adopted in 13 states that were designed to take effect swiftly upon last week’s ruling.

Sorenson, who teaches classes on judicial politics and constitutional law, says the decision, although not unexpected, is nonetheless a monumental one that ...

What’s next for the nation is a long-term battle over abortion access waged in states and in our federal elected branches. To this end, a recent CBS News/YouGov survey shows that Americans disapprove of the Dobbs decision by an eighteen-point margin, with an additional Marist poll finding that 56 percent believe the decision was politically motivated, rather than based in law, with 21 percent of polled Republicans agreeing. Despite the majority’s assertion that Dobbs should not be construed as such, nothing in the opinion’s doctrine effectively limits that interpretation. Women residing in these thirteen states will be forced to seek abortion services elsewhere, creating an even starker divide between those who can afford such a trip and those who cannot. The court’s decision to leave abortion laws up to individual states creates a national divide where some women will have relatively simple access to abortion services while others simply will not. So, what did the court do in this seventeenth overturning of landmark precedents?