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

Federal Workers Can Sue Over Any Age Bias In Employment Action
Supreme Court
Federal Workers Can Sue Over Any Age Bias In Employment Action
April 6, 2020
by Dan McCue

WASHINGTON - The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that the Age Discrimination and Employment Act allows federal employees to sue over any age bias inferred by an adverse employment action -- even when that bias isn't the driving factor behind a decision. The petitioner, Noris Babb,... Read More

Justices Decline to Revisit Case Involving 60s Black Militant
Supreme Court
Justices Decline to Revisit Case Involving 60s Black Militant
April 6, 2020
by Dan McCue

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court did not add any new cases to its docket Monday morning, declining, among other things, to revisit the murder conviction of the 1960s black militant formerly known as H. Rap Brown. A native of Baton Rouge, Louisiana, he rose to fame... Read More

High Court Upholds Police Right to Stop Vehicles Without Suspicion of Crime
Supreme Court
High Court Upholds Police Right to Stop Vehicles Without Suspicion of Crime
April 6, 2020
by Dan McCue

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a Kansas deputy sheriff did not violate a motorist's constitutional rights when he pulled over a truck owned by a driver with a revoked license. The case stems from events that occurred April 28, 2016. It was on... Read More

Supreme Court Postpones April Argument Session Due to Pandemic
Supreme Court
Supreme Court Postpones April Argument Session Due to Pandemic
April 3, 2020
by Dan McCue

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Friday said it would postpone oral arguments scheduled for its April session due to the coronavirus pandemic, making it increasingly unlikely they will be able to hear every case they planned to before their summer recess begins in July. In... Read More

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

Straight From The Well
scroll top