Thread by @Hegemommy

The Garza hearing starts now. I'll be live tweeting whether Trump administration can force an undocumented minor to give birth.

Government starts by saying it is not preventing Garza from getting an abortion just that they are not facilitating it. Sound familiar?

Government claims there is no undue burden and the only reason she can't get an abortion is because she happens to be detained.

This is a huge deal case because if the Trump administration [i.e. the state] can block one woman's abortion they can block them all.

Trump administration doesn't know anything about Garza's background despite the fact she is in detention. Welcome to immigration law w/Trump

Gov't tries to dodge the fact that there are options here for Garza under federal law that would resolve issue by getting Garza a sponsor

Justice Willett immediately tells the Gov't this is a matter of days and DoJ needs to stop speculating about resolving this issue in months

Justice Willett is an Obama nominee and the reason diversity on the bench matters y'all.

Millett wants to know why HHS rejected two potential sponsors for Garza but DoJ attorney doesn't know why.

What actually does DoJ know

I previously named Millett Willett and SO SORRY FOR THE FAST MORNING TWEETING

DoJ won't even concede that Garza has a constitutional right to abortion here. Goes back to facilitation argument. Says not facilitating.

DoJ concedes that incarcerated women can get an abortion which would be gov't facilitating.

DoJ says if Garza wants an abortion without government facilitation she can self-deport

Court notes that if Garza had been arrested for a federal crime regardless of her immigration status she could get an abortion

DoJ says gov't can take affirmative measures to "help" Garza by blocking her constitutional right to an abortion. They can deport her.

Apparently deporting an undocumented minor who has a constitutional right to an abortion is not an undue burden via DoJ arguments

DoJ says it is looking out for the interest of Garza. Millett notes Garza has a judicial bypass.

DoJ is using this as a test case.

Millett asks if she needs a judicial bypass for the federal gov't?

DoJ says nope she just needs HHS to release her.

UMMMMMM

MIllett also asks "which child" is DoJ looking out for in this case. The 15 week old non-viable pregnancy is more or less the answer

DoJ says the judicial bypass would only work if she decides to self-deport which would get her out of federal custody

Now the court floats the idea of whether a state can ban abortion for undocumented minors on theory that minor can self-deport

DoJ stammers on this point. The position Kavanaugh wants is that undocumented persons have no constitutional rights.

Millett pushes DoJ to say it is affirmatively waiving the right that undocumented persons have constitutional rights.

DoJ is in a corner

Millett and Kavanaugh are now debating through DoJ whether they are actually going to argue no constitutional rights. DoJ still dodges

Millett again reminds DoJ that time is of the essence and they are just stalling out the pregnancy.

DoJ says there is no reason to think this is a medically necessary abortion and if it were then ORR would have to directly approve

DoJ doesn't know how many pregnant minors are in custody nor what the exception under federal law actually says.

Thank you goddess that Millett is on the bench. DoJ now says exemption is not medically necessary but an emergency situation.

Millett now pushes the issue of sex abuse in detention. What if she was pregnant by rape in custody.

DoJ says this is different.

DoJ sincerely does not know the federal law around immigration and the constitution. Here is my SHOCKED FACE

DoJ doesn't even know the difference between consensual and non-consensual sex.

DoJ won't answer directly if undocumented person is a "person" for due process rights.

Millett quickly notes the precedent that says yup

DoJ returns to the idea that self-depoktion is Garza's best bet here and still no undue burden on her right to a pregnancy.

DoJ says Garza has raised no legitimate claim to stay in the US. Gets pressed on if this applies to asylum seekers as well.

DoJ says yup.

Asked if government is trying to deport her now. DoJ says dunno. So yes, they are holding her indefinitely till she births.

Millett is unrelenting on DoJ. Asks if the position is that DoJ can remove undocumented minor without any due process.

I'm just asking how the system works, says Millett.

She knows DoJ won't know the answer to this. This is great questioning.

Millett asks why can't the government can't deport her? You've just chosen not to right?

Dunno say's DoJ. I guess so.

DoJ says she wants her to self-deport to a country the attorney "thinks" bans abortion.

So self-deport to a country that would jail her.

Millett asks if federal government can put in place policies that block state judicial bypass. That would be overturning SCOTUS btw

Now DoJ is arguing it is too much of a pain in the ass to get her to an appointment anyways.

Millett notes that a system in place to transport patients in custody so this argument that HHS would be burdened is garbage.

Millett notes that there is a court order entitling her to an abortion. HHS is just refusing to transfer her.

Just a remind everyone that Garza would still be required to follow allllll the restrictions already in place in Texas.

Millett notes that the only health care procedure DoJ claims is an administrative burden is abortion.

DoJ says sure that's right.

DoJ says even if she were released ORR would still need to approve to get the abortion. This would be subjective.

Millett will not let DoJ go on this point. Garza has an order allowing her an abortion. She has a guardian. Why does ORR have a say.

DoJ says it is ORR policy to approve each procedure. DoJ won't say the scope of the emergency exception. Doesn't even know when she turns 18

Garza's attorneys now up.

Starts immediately with the fact that gov't can't ban abortion. Refusing transportation here is doing just that

Notes Garza is not asking for sweeping constitutional ruling, just a respect for precedent here.

Court asks about the sponsor option again and wants fact-finding from the lower court to whether she has a sponsor or no

Garza's attorney notes this kind of situation could take months. Which of course is point. To drag out this pregnancy as long as possible

Garza has extended family members in the United States. She's not in school because she's under close supervision. Because abortion.

Does it matter she's in the country unlawfully?

Nope. 5th Amendment due process SCOTUS precedent is clear.

Garza's attorney says this is an easy answer. Just follow SCOTUS.

Kavanaugh who is on this panel respects precedent as much as Gorsuch btw which is why he's a perennial SCOTUS short-lister by GOP

Garza's attorney is shredding the self-deportation argument. Says this is unconstitutional. Can't punish someone for exercising rights.

coffee break hold on brb

Back enough to hear Garza's attorney remind the court that SCOTUS can't block the bypass here.

The legal precedent that guarantees Garza a right to an abortion here is very clear. That DoJ is still opposing shows what they think of law

If DoJ is willing to ignore federal constitutional precedent on abortion rights for minors, why think they'll respect Roe, Casey, et al?

The answer is clearly they won't respect abortion precedent. DoJ is making that very clear this morning.

Court asks if SCOTUS has ever ruled that the federal government has an independent interest in making sure the decision is "informed"

So the conservatives on the bench want the federal government to pass legislation overriding state abortion laws.

Like fetal personhood

Millett notes that if Garza had decided to continue her pregnancy to term then gov't would require less "informed consent"

This is true despite the fact that carrying a pregnancy to term is 4x more risky than terminating it.

Garza's attorney notes that ORR has shown up to "talk" to other pregnant minors in custody to pressure them to continue pregnancies

Court goes back to idea that sponsors are like foster parents. In NE that means teens likely can't get an abortion

rewire.news/article/2013/1…

Garza's reminds court that delays in getting a procedure is an undue burden. Cites WWH

Kavanaugh pushes that judicial bypass is a delay and okay. Garza's attorney says yes but also she has the bypass so hush

Again court is concerned with lack of facts on sponsor process. Looking for a way to kick back to lower court which would be a de facto ban

Is the ORR decision subject to challenge, asks the court?

Unclear says Garza's attorney.

Garza's attorney notes there is no real administrative burden here if they can transport/facilitate childbirth.

They just need to get out of the way, says Garza's attorney.

DoJ's complicity argument is the same argument made in Hobby Lobby and Little Sisters. This is an attempt to extend precedent.

Garza's attorney notes her client has been forced to carry her pregnancy for three weeks now. Sept. 16 was the bypass.

This is a real harm to Garza. She's now into her second trimester making an abortion riskier to her. How is this in her best interest

Texas bans abortion at 20 weeks. Garza is approximately 15 weeks at this point.

Garza went through the mandated 24 hour waiting period yesterday. But now it has to be the same doc who performs an abortion.

Garza's attorney notes that given scarcity of providers Garza may have to go through the 24 hr wait and even longer.

Court wants to know if Garza is accompanied by HHS for these appointments. Yeah let's have the state sit in the doctors office with you.

Garza's attorney also notes that Garza will have to travel hundreds of miles to get a procedure.

Gov't on rebuttal now.

Gov't says Garza doesn't go to school because they get it in detention. MMMKAY

Basically DoJ's rebuttal is word salad so live-tweeting is weird atm

Quoting Sleater-Kinney might be a better use of my time then trying to make sense of DoJ right now.

DoJ says part of the delay is that because Garza sued after she was denied access to an abortion.

DoJ says again Garza can just self-deport and it is totes cool.

Again would she be self-deporting to a country that bans abortion?

DoJ again says there is no obstacle here for Garza, just a refusal to facilitate

DoJ says all she has to do is voluntarily leave and Garza's problem is solved.

Still think DoJ sees this case as limited to one person?

Conservatives historically work out their most evil of social policies on the most powerless and vulnerable. Here we listen real-time

Seriously DoJ doesn't know law here, is just hoping for a ruling the federal govt can override states on abortion here & push deportation

Does DoJ even know how the immigration agencies work? I am not confident this is a 'yes'

Court says decision on the merits will be "known soon enough"

Helpful, thanks.

Case is submitted. Hearing over. Not sure when an order is coming but you know @TheTinaVasquez @Rewire_News and #TeamLegal will be on it

Thanks to those who followed along. Storify to come quickly up on @Rewire_News for those who wanted and couldn't.