BREAKING: U.S. Supreme Court allows abortion providers to pursue challenge to Texas 6-week abortion ban
Supreme Court dismisses separate Biden administration case
In abortion providers case, court allows challenge to go ahead against state licensing officials but not anyone else
Court votes 8-1 on allowing state licensing officials to be sued, with only Clarence Thomas dissenting
Justice Sotomayor, dissenting in part, blasts colleagues for failing to "put an end to this madness" and says other states could still copy Texas b/c court isn't allowing AG or state court judges to be sued
Chief Justice Roberts and the three liberals all thought that other state officials could be sued and Roberts urges lower court judge to act "without delay"
Roberts: "The nature of the federal right infringed does not matter; it is the role of the Supreme Court in our constitutional system that is at stake."
Today, the conservative-majority Supreme Court will consider gutting abortion rights: reuters.com/world/us/us-su…
Here’s background on the case before the justices, on Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban, which clearly falls foul of Roe v Wade’s core finding that women have a right to abortion before viability (generally starting around 24 weeks)
49-year-old Amy Coney Barrett, the youngest member of the Supreme Court, was six days short of her first birthday when Roe v. Wade was decided on January 22, 1973
(and Barrett wasn't born when Roe was first argued in December 1971. The court then reargued the case in October 1972 before issuing the ruling)
Barrett in 2006 signed on to an advertisement in an Indiana newspaper calling for Roe v. Wade to be overturned reuters.com/article/us-usa…
“It makes me want to cry. It makes me feel defeated and horrified that people in this country hate women so much they don't want them to be able to access a full range of pregnancy care,” said a doctor who flies down from Massachusetts to work at the clinic
Outside the clinic, anti-abortion protester Beverly Anderson said she would "praise God" if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v Wade
Today, Supreme Court weighs whether it's unlawful to exclude Puerto Rico from a benefits program that all Americans on the mainland are eligible for: reuters.com/world/us/us-su…
This is a case that the Biden administration continued despite criticism while also asking Congress to extend the SSI benefit to Puerto Rico, which it might do if the Build Back Better plan ever passes
One question is whether any of the justices will delve into the toxic legacy of the so-called "Insular Cases" from over a century ago that helped establish second-class status for Puerto Ricans. More here:
In both these cases the Supreme Court is hearing cases involving federal regulations issued by the previous administration that were thrown out by lower courts and that the current administration has no intention of pursuing. The court in the past would generally avoid such cases