Roberts May Cast Deciding Vote in First Major Abortion Case of Trump Era

March 4, 2020 by Dan McCue
Abortion rights advocates demonstrate outside the Supreme Court building. March 4, 2020. (Photo by Dan McCue)

WASHINGTON — All eyes were on Chief Justice John Roberts Wednesday as the Supreme Court appeared to be sharply divided over issues raised during the first major abortion case of the Trump presidency.

The case out of Louisiana could test whether a high court that has grown more conservative with the additions of Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch, may be more willing than past courts to roll back abortion rights.

At issue is a Louisiana law that requires doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.

A federal judge found that just one of Louisiana’s three abortion clinics would remain open if the law is allowed to take effect.

But the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans upheld the law, paving the way for Wednesday’s hearing.

As the case unfolded, hundreds of abortion-rights protestors demonstrated on the sidewalk in front of the Supreme Court building, while a smaller group of anti-abortion demonstrators stood just feet away, trying to drown them out.

Taking the lead among her liberal colleagues on the court, Justice Elena Kagan suggested that the admitting privileges requirement might be wholly unnecessary.

She noted that in the 23 years the Shreveport, Louisiana clinic at the center of the case has provided abortion services, it had transferred only four patients out of 70,000 to a nearby hospital.

“I don’t know a medical procedure where it’s lower than that,” Kagan said.

Julie Rikelman, the Center for Reproductive Rights lawyer who argued the case on behalf of the clinic, said a trial judge found that abortions in Louisiana are safe and that the law provided no health benefits to women, just as the Supreme Court ruled in an earlier Texas case.

“This case is about respect for the court’s precedent,” Rikelman said.

One of the questions raised by the current case is whether the court will ultimately overrule the 2016 decision to which Rikelman referred. That case also involved a requirement that physicians performing abortions have admitting privileges at a local hospital.

Both Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh have joined the court since that decision was handed down.

When the justices temporarily blocked the Louisiana law from taking effect a year ago, Roberts joined the court’s four liberal justices to put it on hold. Kavanaugh and Gorsuch were among the four conservatives who would have allowed the law to take effect.

Though preliminary votes do not bind the justices when they undertake a thorough review of an issue, they often signal how a case will come out.

That means Roberts almost certainly will be the deciding vote in this case.

On Wednesday, Roberts did not say much, and didn’t indicate, one way or another, which way he’ll go.

In more than 14 years as chief justice, Roberts has generally voted to uphold abortion restrictions, including in the Texas case four years ago.

The court is expected to render its decision on the case in late June.

Supreme Court

Google, Oracle and Trump Cases Put on Hold as Supreme Court Responds to Virus
Supreme Court
Google, Oracle and Trump Cases Put on Hold as Supreme Court Responds to Virus

WASHINGTON — The coronavirus pandemic has put on indefinite hold a major portion of the U.S. Supreme Court’s docket, including a multibillion-dollar clash between software giants Google and Oracle Corp. and cases that could affect President Donald Trump’s reelection chances. What was supposed to have been... Read More

Supreme Court Declines to Strike Down Seattle Campaign Finance Voucher System
Campaign Finance
Supreme Court Declines to Strike Down Seattle Campaign Finance Voucher System
March 30, 2020
by Dan McCue

WASHINGTON - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear a challenge to Seattle's "Democracy Voucher Program," leaving in place the city's public financing program for local elections. Though the justices offered no explanation for their decision not to weigh in on the case, their... Read More

Supreme Court Justices’ Perks Revealed in New Report
Supreme Court
Supreme Court Justices’ Perks Revealed in New Report

WASHINGTON — When Supreme Court justices speak at public universities across the country, they often travel in style — and, at times, at taxpayer expense. The justices’ travel perks have included private plane trips, blocs of fancy hotel rooms and VIP dinners where they rub elbows... Read More

Supreme Court Holds States Immune From Copyright Suits
In The News
Supreme Court Holds States Immune From Copyright Suits
March 23, 2020
by Dan McCue

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Monday that state governments cannot be sued for copyright infringement, rejecting a case filed against North Carolina over footage of a pirate shipwreck. In a unanimous ruling, the justices held North Carolina is shielded by state sovereign immunity from a... Read More

Supreme Court Rules States Can Bar Insanity Defense
Criminal Justice
Supreme Court Rules States Can Bar Insanity Defense

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states can prevent criminal defendants from pleading insanity without violating their constitutional rights. The justices' 6-3 decision came in the case Kahler v. Kansas. As recounted in the decision, James Kraig Kahler was sentenced to death for killing... Read More

US Supreme Court Postpones Oral Arguments
Supreme Court
US Supreme Court Postpones Oral Arguments
March 16, 2020
by Dan McCue

WASHINGTON - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday postponed oral arguments scheduled for the rest of March, "in keeping with public health precautions recommended in response to COVID-19." In a written statement the court said it "will examine the options for rescheduling those cases in due... Read More

Straight From The Well
scroll top