October, 22 2021, 01:57pm EDT
Supreme Court Will Hear Texas Abortion Ban Cases
SCOTUS did not grant a request to immediately block the ban, but will hear two cases against the ban on November 1.
WASHINGTON
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court announced it will hear two cases challenging Texas' ban on abortion after six weeks of pregnancy (S.B. 8). The court declined to rule on a request to block the ban until it hears the cases on November 1. Since Sept. 1, when the ban took effect and the Supreme Court initially declined to block the law, nearly all Texans have been unable to access abortion in the state.
The two cases the court will weigh in on include:
* United States v. Texas: a lawsuit challenging S.B. 8 filed by the U.S. Department of Justice. Earlier this month, a federal district court granted the DOJ's request to temporarily block the law, but an appellate court let the law take effect again less than 48 hours later. The Supreme Court will decide whether to block the law again and whether the DOJ has the authority to bring this case
* Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson: a case filed against S.B. 8 by a broad coalition of plaintiffs, including Texas abortion providers, abortion funds, and doctors. In this case, the Supreme Court will decide whether federal courts have the power to block Texas' abortion ban. The ban was specifically designed to evade court review. In August, plaintiffs asked the Supreme Court to block the ban before it took effect on Sept. 1, but the court refused, citing "complex and novel" procedural questions about whether it has the authority to do so. Today's order means that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments on those procedural questions.
In a dissent to today's order, Justice Sonia Sotomayor commented on the Court's decision to not block the law immediately, writing: "I cannot capture the totality of this harm in these pages. But as these excerpts illustrate, the State (empowered by this Court's inaction) has so thoroughly chilled the exercise of the right recognized in Roe as to nearly suspend it within its borders and strain access to it in other States. The State's gambit has worked. The impact is catastrophic."
In another case being heard this term, the state of Mississippi is asking the court to overturn Roe v. Wade and uphold the state's ban on abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy. The court will also determine this term whether Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron will be able to attempt to revive an abortion ban that two courts have held is unconstitutional.
Clinics in neighboring states have reported huge upticks in patients traveling from Texas. For instance, an Oklahoma clinic reported that two-thirds of the phone calls they've received since S.B. 8 took effect are from Texas patients. U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland called the ban a "scheme to nullify the Constitution."
S.B. 8 bans abortion after six weeks into a pregnancy--before many people even know they're pregnant--and creates a bounty-hunting scheme that encourages the general public to bring costly and harassing lawsuits against anyone who they believe has violated the ban. Anyone who successfully sues a health center worker, an abortion provider, or any person who helps someone access an abortion after six weeks in Texas will be rewarded with at least $10,000, to be paid by the person sued. Lawsuits may be filed against a broad range of people, including: a physician who provides an abortion; a person who drives their friend to obtain an abortion; abortion funds providing financial assistance to patients; health center staff; and even a member of the clergy who assists an abortion patient.
The plaintiffs in Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson are represented by the Center for Reproductive Rights, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the Lawyering Project, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the ACLU of Texas, and Morrison & Foerster LLP. The defendants include a class of state court trial judges and county clerks in Texas, the Texas Medical Board, the Texas Board of Nursing, the Texas Board of Pharmacy, the Texas attorney general, and the Director of Right to Life East Texas, who has already openly called for people to sue their local abortion providers under S.B. 8.
PRESS CALL INFORMATION:
When: Today, October 22 at 3:30pm EST
Where: Call will be held via Zoom. RSVP here for a link.
Speakers will include representatives from Whole Woman's Health, the Center for Reproductive Rights, Planned Parenthood and the ACLU.
Timeline of Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson:
* May 19: Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed Senate Bill 8 into law.
* July 13: Plaintiffs filed the case in federal district court.
* August 4-5: The defendants filed four motions to dismiss, asking the district court to end the case.
* August 12: The federal district court judge scheduled a preliminary injunction hearing for August 30 to determine whether to block the law before it would take effect on September 1.
* August 25: The federal district court judge denied the defendants' motions to dismiss the case. Defendants immediately filed a notice of appeal with the Fifth Circuit, as well as a motion to stop all proceedings in the district court, including canceling the district court's preliminary injunction hearing.
* August 27: The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order stopping all proceedings in the district court, including canceling the district court's preliminary injunction hearing. The court also denied the plaintiffs' request to expedite the appeal of defendants' motions to dismiss.
* August 29: The plaintiffs filed for emergency relief with the Fifth Circuit, which was quickly denied.
* August 30: The plaintiffs filed an emergency request with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking it to block the law before it could take effect on September 1 or allow district court proceedings to resume.
* September 1: S.B. 8 took effect after the Supreme Court did not respond to plaintiffs' request before the law's effective date. Late that same day, the Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs' emergency request to block the law and allowed Texas's six-week abortion ban to remain in effect. The case returned to the Fifth Circuit for briefing on defendants' appeal of the district court's denial of their motions to dismiss.
* September 10: The Fifth Circuit issued an order explaining its refusal to block the law, and expedited the defendants' appeals to "the next available oral argument panel."
* September 22: The Fifth Circuit issued a briefing schedule that will not allow the case to be heard until at least December.
* September 23: Plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of certiorari before judgment with the U.S. Supreme Court asking it to hear defendants' appeal on an expedited basis and bypass further proceedings in the Fifth Circuit.
* October 6: In a separate case filed by the DOJ, a federal district court judge temporarily blocked the law. The state appealed this to the Fifth Circuit.
* October 8: The Fifth Circuit stayed the district court's injunction in the DOJ case, allowing the law to take effect once more. The DOJ asked the Supreme Court to lift the Fifth Circuit's stay on October 18 and to also hear defendants' appeal on an expedited basis, bypassing further proceedings in the Fifth Circuit.
* October 22 (Today): The Supreme Court agreed to hear the DOJ's case and Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson on November 1 but did not grant the DOJ's request to immediately block the law.
Quotes from plaintiffs and litigators:
Amy Hagstrom Miller, president and CEO of Whole Woman's Health and Whole Woman's Health Alliance:
"Texans deserved better than this. The legal limbo is excruciating for both patients and our clinic staff. Lack of access to safe abortion care is harming our families and communities and will have lasting effects on Texas for decades to come. We've had to turn hundreds of patients away since this ban took effect, and this ruling means we'll have to keep denying patients the abortion care that they need and deserve. The Supreme Court has said that abortion is protected by our Constitution, yet they are allowing Texans to be deprived of their rights. To all the Texans who are with us, who have been speaking up, and to those who may need abortion care, let us be clear: just as we have been in the past, Whole Woman's Health is here for you, and we are here for the long haul."
Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights:
"The Supreme Court's action today brings us one step closer to the restoration of Texans' constitutional rights and an end to the havoc and heartache of this ban. We are enormously disappointed that the Court has left the law in effect for now, forcing those with means to leave the state to access constitutionally protected abortion services and leaving others with no options at all. However, we are confident that when the Court ultimately rules in these cases, it will reject the state of Texas' cynical ploy to enact a brazenly unconstitutional abortion ban."
Brigitte Amiri, deputy director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project
"By refusing once again to block Texas' horrific abortion ban, the Supreme Court is sending an alarming signal that it will stand idly by while our reproductive rights are violated, a reality Texans are too familiar with after living under the nation's most extreme abortion ban nearly two months. We hope that after the Court hears the case on November 1, that it will act immediately to correct its earlier mistake, and will issue a decision that restores abortion access in Texas. This cruel law has had devastating consequences, with the impact hitting marginalized communities the hardest. This is a dire moment, and we'll do everything in our power to fight back against attacks on our reproductive rights before it's too late."
Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO, Planned Parenthood Federation of America:
"S.B. 8 is a heinous and blatantly unconstitutional abortion ban that never should have been allowed to take effect--and it's devastating that it remains in place. For nearly two months, we've seen the catastrophic impact of S.B. 8 in Texas and beyond. Patients who have the means have fled the state, traveling hundreds of miles to access basic care, and those without means have been forced to carry pregnancies against their will. Every day S.B. 8 is in place is one more day of cruelty, and it cannot stand. We look forward to our patients and providers finally having their day in court on November 1, when the Supreme Court will hear the cases. And we are hopeful the Court will step in and block S.B. 8 from continuing to wreak havoc."
The Center for Reproductive Rights is a global human rights organization of lawyers and advocates who ensure reproductive rights are protected in law as fundamental human rights for the dignity, equality, health, and well-being of every person.
(917) 637-3600LATEST NEWS
'Ruinous Venture' Alligator Alcatraz Closes, But Systemic Abuse of Immigrants Continues
"The fact that this site ever existed is a travesty, given the cruelty behind it, horrific conditions, and blatant violations of due process," said the deputy director of the ACLU's National Prison Project.
Jun 25, 2026
While welcoming Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis' confirmation on Thursday that the immigrant detention center dubbed "Alligator Alcatraz" has closed, rights advocates also renewed criticism of how immigrants are being treated across the country as President Donald Trump continues his deadly push for mass detention and deportations.
The facility in the Everglades opened last summer despite concerns about both human rights and the environmental impact. DeSantis said Thursday that "Florida led the way in increasing much-needed detention capacity and working with our federal partners to streamline deportations, removing thousands of the most dangerous criminal aliens from our country."
Despite claims from the president and his allies, federal data have shown that most immigrants detained during his second term lack criminal convictions. In addition to flooding US streets with agents from Customs and Border Protection as well as Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Trump has repeatedly demanded that Congress give CBP and ICE more funding.
"Our detention operations support has led to nearly 30,000 additional deportations, and Florida accounts for more than 40% of all state/local immigration arrests nationwide," DeSantis added Thursday. "Alligator Alcatraz has fulfilled this mission. Detainees who are still awaiting deportation have been transferred to other federal facilities, and demobilization efforts are underway."
Responding to the governor on social media, Thomas Kennedy of the Florida Immigrant Coalition said: "You wasted more than $1 billion of Florida's emergency response fund on a failed PR stunt that hurt people and destroyed families. You should never be anywhere near public office again."
As The Associated Press noted Thursday:
Immigration advocates said the center’s tents were never safe or humane for holding people. Detainees at the facility have talked about their difficulty accessing lawyers and described poor physical conditions, including worms in the food, toilets that didn't flush, floors flooded with fecal waste, and mosquitoes and other insects everywhere.
They described large white tents with rows of and rows of bunk beds surrounded by chain-link cages. The air conditioning could shut off abruptly in the sweltering Florida heat. Detainees could go days without showering or getting prescription medicine.
The state and national ACLU as well as Americans for Immigrant Justice (AIJ) had sued over the facility last year.
"The fact that this site ever existed is a travesty, given the cruelty behind it, horrific conditions, and blatant violations of due process. We challenged the Trump administration and the state of Florida over the facility, and now celebrate its closure," Carmen Iguina González, deputy director for immigration detention with the ACLU's National Prison Project, said Thursday.
Keisha Mulfort, deputy executive director and strategy officer of the ACLU of Florida, declared that "with its official closure, 'Alligator Alcatraz' seals its reputation as a ruinous venture. This detention center stands as a monument to what happens when a state government abandons its conscience in service of a federal cruelty agenda."
"The DeSantis administration deliberately built a detention facility in the middle of the Everglades—not despite the harsh conditions, but because of them—and spent over $1 billion of Florida taxpayers' money to do it," she pointed out. "That is not governance; that is cruelty dressed up as policy, and complicity dressed up as leadership. In spite of this, hundreds of thousands of Floridians protested, organized, called their legislators, and refused to look away. They made this moment possible, and we should name that clearly: This is what accountability looks like when the government won't hold itself accountable."
Mulfort also stressed that "as people are transferred to other facilities, the abuses do not disappear—they relocate." She and Iguina González pledged that the state and national ACLU will not stop tracking abuses of immigrants across the country.
"The nightmarish scene found at 'Alligator Alcatraz' is not wholly unique and reflects systemic patterns of abuse at other ICE detention facilities nationwide," Iguina González said. "We remain very concerned that people may be transferred to other sites with sordid and dangerous conditions, and we will continue to monitor this situation."
Paul Chavez, director of litigation and advocacy at AIJ, also emphasized that "closing this facility is an important step, but the government's obligation to respect due process does not end at the facility gates. Constitutional rights must follow every person wherever they are detained."
"We remain deeply concerned that people transferred out of this facility will continue to face mistreatment and civil rights violations in other detention centers," he said. "Americans for Immigrant Justice will continue to defend due process, offer free legal representation to low-income immigrants, and stand strong with our immigrant neighbors, friends, and their families."
After using $1 billion to brutalize immigrants, the concentration camp known as "Alligator Alcatraz" has been emptied. Its victims still need justice.truthout.org/articles/flo...
[image or embed]
— UAINE (@mahtowin1.bsky.social) June 22, 2026 at 10:36 PM
As for the environmental impact, The New York Times reported that after the Trump administration announced that detainees had been relocated, Paul J. Schwiep, an attorney for groups suing over Alligator Alcatraz, promised last week to continue the lawsuit against what he called the "secret gulag in the Everglades."
"They hope that they can slink away in the middle of the night without explaining to anyone what they did, why they did it, or how they proposed to clean up the mess that they've made," said Schwiep. "And we don't intend to let them get away with it."
Ripping the facility as an "internment camp," Congressman Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.) similarly asserted on Thursday that "the fight isn't over. We need accountability for the billions of taxpayer dollars wasted, the abuse and harm inflicted on detainees, and the damage done to one of Florida's most sacred ecosystems."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Advocates Renew Call for End to US Sanctions After Devastating Venezuela Earthquakes
"This is the time for cooperation, compassion, and respect for Venezuela’s sovereignty," said CodePink.
Jun 25, 2026
Human rights groups on Thursday implored the United States and allied countries to lift all sanctions against Venezuela—which experts say have already killed tens of thousands of people—as the beleaguered South American country reels from Wednesday's devastating earthquakes.
At least 188 people are dead and over 1,500 others injured, with those figures almost certain to rise, following a 7.2-magnitude temblor centered in San Felipe, Yaracuy—about 100 miles west of Caracas—and a 7.5-magnitude quake that struck less than a minute later, also in centered in Yaracuy.
US President Donald Trump, who authorized the illegal invasion of Venezuela and adbuction of President Nicolás Maduro earlier this year, wrote on social media after the earthquakes that his administration “stands ready, willing, and able to help."
“We will be there for our new and great friends," Trump claimed.
Delcy Rodríguez, Maduro's vice president and acting president since his ouster, thanked the Trump administration for "offering support and solidarity to the people of Venezuela in the face of this tragedy that has plunged us into mourning."
However, US sanctions—first imposed during then-President George W. Bush's second term while Hugo Chávez was leading Venezuela and ramped up under the Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations—remain in place, complicating relief efforts after one of the country's worst-ever natural disasters.
While the Trump administration has issued narrow exemptions from sanctions to companies looking to profit from Venezuela's crisis and copious natural resources, primarily oil, these waivers have not delivered broad relief to the people who need it most.
"Today’s catastrophe makes clear what we have long argued: When a country is deliberately weakened through economic warfare, its ability to prepare for, respond to, and recover from disasters is also weakened," the US-based peace group CodePink said in a statement. "The United States has a responsibility to help address the humanitarian consequences of the policies it has imposed."
🇻🇪 CODEPINK extends our deepest condolences to the people of Venezuela following the devastating earthquakes that have taken hundreds of lives, injured thousands, and left entire communities in urgent need of assistance.Our full statement: buff.ly/QzYcQ3p
[image or embed]
— CODEPINK (@codepink.bsky.social) June 25, 2026 at 2:22 PM
CodePink continued:
Too often, we’ve seen the US and other Western countries exploit natural disasters like this in order to deepen foreign control. In Haiti, the US and its allies have repeatedly pushed militarization and politically conditioned aid instead of genuine recovery led by the country itself. In this moment, the world must refuse to allow Venezuela to be forced down the same path.
We also call on the administration to immediately lift all US sanctions on Venezuela and release Venezuelan funds under US jurisdiction so they can be used for emergency relief, reconstruction, and recovery.
"This is the time for cooperation, compassion, and respect for Venezuela’s sovereignty," CodePink added. "We urge the international community to support relief efforts and stand with the Venezuelan people as they rebuild their homes, their communities, and their future."
The Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), a Washington, DC-based think tank, said Thursday that "while the Trump administration has issued a series of general licenses to allow foreign businesses and banks to operate in Venezuela in spite of US sanctions, the continued existence of these sanctions significantly discourages international economic and financial actors from expanding operations there."
CEPR co-director Mark Weisbrot said that “we must remember that Venezuela suffered the worst depression in the history of the world, without a war, due to illegal US economic sanctions."
"This deadly destruction was not a mistake, but an expected result that would happen to any country that was cut off by sanctions from the international financial system, and also from the vast majority of its foreign exchange earnings from exports," he continued.
According to a 2019 CEPR report, as many as 40,000 Venezuelans died due to sanctions during the previous two years. The sanctions ostensibly targeted Maduro's government, but made it much more difficult for millions of people to obtain food, medicine, and other necessities.
“Tens of thousands, and more likely hundreds of thousands, of Venezuelans died as a result of those sanctions," Weisbrot said Thursday. "The United States is therefore obligated to help prevent further loss of life in Venezuela."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Rights Groups Argue Trump Orders Have 'Murdered Over 210 Civilians With No Sound Legal or Moral Basis'
“By claiming that these attacks are legal while refusing to provide any evidence or rationale, President Trump shows once again his disdain for basic transparency, human rights, and the rule of law."
Jun 25, 2026
Civil rights groups squared off against the Trump administration in a New York federal court on Wednesday, with the former seeking to compel the release of a secret Department of Justice memo being used to justify illegal bombings of alleged narco-trafficking boats and the latter claiming executive privilege in a bid to avert the document's disclosure.
President Donald Trump signed an executive order on the first day of his second term designating drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations and then reportedly signed a secret order directing the Pentagon to use military force against them. Last July, the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) issued a classified opinion providing the legal rationale for the strikes, which international law experts around the world contend are illegal acts of murder and possibly war crimes or even crimes against humanity.
The ACLU, New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU), and the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) argued in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York that the Trump administration cannot conceal its legal justification for boat strikes from the American people while repeatedly referring to it.
“People across the country, politicians across the aisle, and the families of victims have been demanding answers as to how our government is justifying the cold-blooded murder of civilians,” ACLU National Security Project staff attorney Jeffrey Stein said in a statement. “The Trump administration has murdered over 210 civilians with no sound legal or moral basis. At a minimum, the administration must disclose to the American people why it thinks this killing spree is lawful.”
The DOJ, which is seeking a summary judgment, claimed that the memo contains classified and highly sensitive information that, if disclosed, would compromise intelligence operations and sources. DOJ attorneys argued that executive privilege shields the memo from disclosure.
“Wouldn’t that be true of any OLC memo?f” US District Judge Paul Engelmayer countered, according to Courthouse News Service. “Is it the government’s position that any presidential communications privilege cannot be waived?"
Stein asserted that the boat strikes are being carried out "on the basis of secret law" that "has no place in a democratic society" and dismissed the government's claim as “contrary to the foundational presidential communications privileges" in Freedom of Information Act cases.
CCR legal director Baher Azmy accused the Trump administration of "displacing the fundamental mandates of international law with the phony wartime rhetoric of a basic autocrat."
“If the OLC opinion seeks to dress up the obvious illegality of these serial homicides in legalese in order to provide cover, the public needs to see this analysis and ultimately hold accountable all those who facilitate murder in the United States’ name," he added.
CCR said that the OLC memo "supposedly validates the ongoing strikes as lawful acts in an alleged 'armed conflict' with unspecified 'drug cartels.'"
"Reportedly, the memo also purports to immunize personnel who authorized or took part in these unlawful strikes from future criminal prosecution for what would otherwise simply be homicides," the group added.
As CCR said Wednesday:
Contrary to the government’s public assertions, the US is not, and could not be, in an armed conflict with Latin American drug cartels. Under international law, an armed conflict between a state and a nonstate actor exists only if the nonstate actor is an “organized armed group” that is structured and disciplined like regular armed forces and is engaged in “protracted armed violence” against the state. There is no plausible argument that any drug cartel satisfies this test vis-à-vis the United States.
Even if the OLC does release the memo, it doesn't mean that its arguments are actually legal under international law. OLC lawyers have notoriously written opinions that affirm the purported legality of their administration's policies, from John Yoo positing during former President George W. Bush's War on Terror that detainee abuse only crossed the threshold of torture when the pain inflicted upon the victim was equal to “organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death," to the Obama-era OLC determining that the president could order the extrajudicial assassination of US citizens under certain circumstances.
Since last September, US Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) has publicly disclosed 66 strikes on boats in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean that it has claimed—without providing evidence—were involved in "narco-trafficking operations." The bombings have killed 215 people and left around a dozen survivors, according to a strike tracker published by The Intercept. In the first of the attacks, a special operations commander ordered a second strike that killed two survivors, reportedly on orders from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to "kill everybody."
Relatives of people killed in previous US boat bombings, as well as officials in Venezuela and Colombia, have said that numerous victims were fishers who were not involved in the illicit drug trade. In January, relatives of two Trinidadian fishers killed in the strikes filed a federal wrongful death lawsuit in Massachusetts.
NYCLU staff attorney Ify Chikezie said Wednesday that "the public deserves to know how the Trump administration is rubber-stamping the killing of civilians."
“By claiming that these attacks are legal while refusing to provide any evidence or rationale, President Trump shows once again his disdain for basic transparency, human rights, and the rule of law," Chikezie added. "The court must step in and order the administration to release these documents immediately.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular