Supreme Court

  • March 31, 2016
    Guest Post

    by Joshua A. Douglas, Robert G. Lawson & William H. Fortune Associate Professor of Law, University of Kentucky College of Law; faculty advisor to the University of Kentucky College of Law ACS student chapter

    *In my op-ed in the Louisville Courier-Journal, I examine the disaster situation that would occur if the 2016 presidential election goes into overtime and a case to resolve the dispute reaches the Supreme Court with only eight Justices―a Bush v. Gore round two for 2016. The Op-Ed highlights the catastrophe that would occur in this scenario, providing a further argument on why the Senate should consider President Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court, Judge Merrick Garland. Here is an excerpt:

    Imagine the worst case scenario.  It is Wednesday, Nov. 9, the day after the election, and we do not yet know the winner of the presidential race. Worse still, the outcome will turn on a ballot-counting dispute in one state.  A lawsuit is filed, and the courts are enmeshed in an election law contest. It’s Bush v. Gore round two: Trump v. Clinton.  The case reaches the Supreme Court.

    Do we want to take the chance of having an even number of justices deciding that dispute, hoping that the court will not deadlock 4-4?

  • March 11, 2016
    Guest Post

    by Jonathan C. Carlson, Professor of Law, The University of Iowa College of Law. The views expressed are his own.

    The Constitution directs the President to nominate persons to fill vacancies on federal courts. No one else is authorized to make judicial nominations. Only the President has that power. The Senate’s role is to consider the President’s nomination and decide whether to approve it. If the Senate gives its advice and consent, the President may appoint the nominee to the federal bench.

    This approach to judicial appointments was carefully crafted to create a balance of power between the President and the Senate. The goal, as Alexander Hamilton explained, was to avoid selections based on senators’ “party likings and dislikes, partialities and antipathies, attachments and animosities.”

    Senator Chuck Grassley, chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, evidently doesn’t care for Alexander Hamilton’s Constitution. When two federal judgeships recently opened in Iowa, Senator Grassley decided that he would himself do both the nominating and the approving of the candidates. To this end, Grassley created his own personal “Judicial Selection Commission.” The chair of the commission, to Grassley’s credit, was a well-respected attorney who, as head of the state bar association, had resisted politicization of state judicial retention elections. But, in contrast to nonpartisan judicial nominating commissions used by senators elsewhere, Senator Grassley’s judicial selection commission was otherwise built to serve “party likings.” Four of the five members were longtime Republican Party activists, and the commission’s candidate-screening process reportedly included “pointed questions” of a partisan-litmus-test variety.

    President Obama duly nominated the persons selected by Grassley. We can be sure, I think, that Grassley made it clear to Obama that no nominee other than Grassley’s nominees would get a fair hearing in the Senate. We can also be sure that moving on Grassley’s selections was the price Obama paid to secure Senate action on a few of Obama’s own judicial nominees.

    But Obama’s gain was minimal. Since February 11, when the second of Grassley’s personal nominees was confirmed, Grassley and the Senate leadership have refused to allow the Senate to vote on any further judicial nominations, even though many nominees have been waiting months for a decision.

  • March 9, 2016
    Guest Post

    by Geoffrey R. Stone, Edward H. Levi, Distinguished Service Professor of Law, The University of Chicago

    * This post was excerpted from Professor Stone’s statement to the Senate Democratic Steering and Outreach Committee.

    In a recent piece in The Washington Post, Miguel Estrada and Benjamin Wittes proclaimed that the only rule that now governs the confirmation process for Supreme Court justices “is the law of the jungle: There are no rules.”

    This is a profoundly misleading – and dangerous – statement. If taken seriously and acted upon, this misconception would undermine 225 years of well-settled tradition and throw the Supreme Court confirmation process into a state of partisan chaos that would damage both the rule of law and the Supreme Court as an institution.

    In fact, when we take a deep breath and actually examine the performance of the Senate over time, it is clear that the Senate defers to the president in these matters as long as the president puts forth nominees who are clearly qualified for the position and who are reasonably moderate in their views. Indeed, this has been the outcome in every single nomination in the last 60 years and, as far as I can discern, in every nomination in American history.

    Moreover, this is true even when the senators disagree with a nominee’s judicial philosophy, even when the Senate is controlled by the opposing party, even when the nominee’s confirmation is likely to have a significant impact on the balance on the Court, and even if the final year of a president’s term. When all is said and done, nominees who are both qualified and moderate are confirmed. Period.

    The “no rules/law of the jungle” assertion is premised primarily on the fact that since the Supreme Court’s 2000 decision in Bush v. Gore, members of the Senate have tended to vote in a more partisan manner than in the past. This is true. In the Roberts, Alito, Sotomayor, and Kagan confirmations, members of the opposing party cast only 26 percent of their votes to confirm, whereas in the five preceding Supreme Court nominations senators from the opposing party cast 73 percent of their votes to confirm.*

    This is, indeed, a troubling trend. It is due largely to the much greater involvement of interest groups in the confirmation process, a phenomenon that raises the political stakes for members of the Senate and gives them an incentive to vote in a more partisan manner. But it is important not to blow this out of proportion. In fact, in the years since 2000 every one of those four nominees was confirmed by the Senate, and they were confirmed with appreciable bipartisan support.

  • March 4, 2016
    Guest Post

    by Jill E. Adams, J.D., Chief Strategist, SIA Legal Team; Executive Director, Center on Reproductive Rights and Justice

    Anyone who’s read the transcript or colorful dispatches from Wednesday’s oral arguments in the Whole Woman’s Health case knows the four liberal-leaning Justices took some of the swagger out of Texas Solicitor General Scott Keller.

    What Knocked Keller Off His Lone Star High Horse?

    That would be many illuminating laser lines of questioning, among them Justice Breyer’s about how closing facilities, cutting off clinical access to safe medications and procedures, delaying abortions until later in pregnancy, and forcing women onto freeways and into overnight stays hundreds of miles away from home just might lead to an increase in the number of women who end their own pregnancies outside of the formal health care system. Justice Breyer and his sistren repeatedly call out the illogic of these cascading effects flowing directly from the state’s dementedly disingenuous claim of wanting to enhance women’s health by enacting the sweeping set of anti-abortion laws that is HB2.

    What Happens When There Is a 75 Percent Reduction in the Number of Clinics?

    Here’s a hint: It isn’t fewer abortions.

    Justice Breyer correctly points out that excessive restrictions on abortion provision limit clinic access and increase the necessity for self-administered abortion care. The Texas Policy Evaluation Project report concluded that as many as 100,000 women in Texas have already attempted to end their own pregnancies outside the formal medical system. Global data have consistently demonstrated that highly restrictive laws do not reduce the abortion rate, they simply relocate the site of abortion care from the hospital to the home.

    Before your mind goes conjuring up gruesome images, take note that this is not your grandmother’s self-induced abortion. Coat hangers and other dangerous methods, while still occasionally employed, have largely given way to safer methods. More often than not, the women in the TxPEP report, and other studies, used traditional herbs or safe and effective pharmaceutical pills purchased online―the same pills they would be prescribed by a healthcare professional for a fraction of the costs.

    What Abortion Access Looks Like Under HB2 for People Living in Poverty

    The abortion costs borne by people living in poverty are much higher than one might think. A pregnant woman in Texas who is struggling to make ends meet may be shocked to discover that her health insurance doesn’t cover abortion. Like the rest of the 13.5 million women of reproductive age in the United States who rely on Medicaid, she’ll have to pay out of pocket for the abortion medication or the procedure, both of which cost about $500 in the first trimester. Tack onto that the price of bus tickets or gas, which could be high if she’s one of the 10,000 women who live more than 150 miles from the nearest abortion provider under HB2. Plus, she has to come up with money for a place to stay overnight and child care for the kids she had to leave behind. That’s all assuming she can afford the lost wages for the days away from work. All told, securing an abortion can cost some families half a month’s pay.

    Mustering Bravery and Ingenuity to Secure an Abortion

  • March 4, 2016
    Guest Post

    by Jill E. Adams, J.D., Chief Strategist, SIA Legal Team; Executive Director, Center on Reproductive Rights and Justice

    Anyone who’s read the transcript or colorful dispatches from Wednesday’s oral arguments in the Whole Woman’s Health case knows the four liberal-leaning Justices took some of the swagger out of Texas Solicitor General Scott Keller.

    What Knocked Keller Off His Lone Star High Horse?

    That would be many illuminating laser lines of questioning, among them Justice Breyer’s about how closing facilities, cutting off clinical access to safe medications and procedures, delaying abortions until later in pregnancy, and forcing women onto freeways and into overnight stays hundreds of miles away from home just might lead to an increase in the number of women who end their own pregnancies outside of the formal health care system. Justice Breyer and his sistren repeatedly call out the illogic of these cascading effects flowing directly from the state’s dementedly disingenuous claim of wanting to enhance women’s health by enacting the sweeping set of anti-abortion laws that is HB2.

    What Happens When There Is a 75 Percent Reduction in the Number of Clinics?

    Here’s a hint: It isn’t fewer abortions.

    Justice Breyer correctly points out that excessive restrictions on abortion provision limit clinic access and increase the necessity for self-administered abortion care. The Texas Policy Evaluation Project report concluded that as many as 100,000 women in Texas have already attempted to end their own pregnancies outside the formal medical system. Global data have consistently demonstrated that highly restrictive laws do not reduce the abortion rate, they simply relocate the site of abortion care from the hospital to the home.

    Before your mind goes conjuring up gruesome images, take note that this is not your grandmother’s self-induced abortion. Coat hangers and other dangerous methods, while still occasionally employed, have largely given way to safer methods. More often than not, the women in the TxPEP report, and other studies, used traditional herbs or safe and effective pharmaceutical pills purchased online―the same pills they would be prescribed by a healthcare professional for a fraction of the costs.

    What Abortion Access Looks Like Under HB2 for People Living in Poverty

    The abortion costs borne by people living in poverty are much higher than one might think. A pregnant woman in Texas who is struggling to make ends meet may be shocked to discover that her health insurance doesn’t cover abortion. Like the rest of the 13.5 million women of reproductive age in the United States who rely on Medicaid, she’ll have to pay out of pocket for the abortion medication or the procedure, both of which cost about $500 in the first trimester. Tack onto that the price of bus tickets or gas, which could be high if she’s one of the 10,000 women who live more than 150 miles from the nearest abortion provider under HB2. Plus, she has to come up with money for a place to stay overnight and child care for the kids she had to leave behind. That’s all assuming she can afford the lost wages for the days away from work. All told, securing an abortion can cost some families half a month’s pay.

    Mustering Bravery and Ingenuity to Secure an Abortion

    As a matter of household economics, that is simply not feasible for many women in this position, who may turn to the internet to research less expensive alternatives to clinic-based care. Unfortunately, her Google search might turn up headlines about Purvi Patel, Jennie Linn McCormack, Kenlissia Jones, and other women who’d been in her shoes and ended up arrested and jailed for allegedly ending their own pregnancies outside the formal medical system. What is she to do? She doesn’t feel she has the resources to take care of another child, doesn’t have coverage for an abortion, doesn’t have money to pay the costs out of pocket, and doesn’t want to go to prison for taking matters into her own hands.

    The reality is that if 75 percent of the clinics in Texas close, we won’t see 75 percent fewer abortions. Resourceful women and their loved ones will find ways to end pregnancies outside the formal medical system. For some, the self-induced abortion experience will be a positive one, occurring in a safe place through effective means while accompanied by a loved one. For others, particularly people living in poverty, immigrants, and people of color who are disproportionately arrested for pregnancy-related crimes, the self-induced abortion experience may be shrouded by the fear of jail or deportation.

    A Better Way That Truly Enhances Women’s Health

    In addition to fighting laws like HB2 and others that threaten to cut off clinic-based abortion care, we must also work to halt the criminalization of self-induced abortion, which effectively curtails the abortion right altogether for many people. Instead of going after people for ending their own pregnancies, we should be working to end the stigma, restrictions, and other barriers to health care that overzealous lawmakers have imposed on abortion access. Should the Court deadlock 4-4 and allow the lower court opinion to stand, 5.4 million women of reproductive age in Texas will be forced to run the gauntlet of HB2 abortion restrictions against the ticking clock of the 20-week abortion ban. However, should the Court muster a majority and strike down these regulations as the wolves in sheep’s clothing they are, it will help to remove at least a few of the obstructions from the obstacle course that has become abortion access in this country.

    That’s still not enough, of course. Women deserve access to the full panoply of provider-directed and self-directed abortion care options, along with the freedom to choose the setting and method right for them―without fear of going broke or getting locked up. This is what it would look like to truly enhance women’s health through expanded, rather than contracted, abortion care options.