Tag: U.S. Supreme Court

Categories
News News Blog News Feature

Roe Reactions: Locals Respond to Historic Supreme Court Decision

Ripples from the U.S. Supreme Court’s Fridy decision to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision protecting a woman’s right to choose an abortion will spread for years, no doubt touching many lives. Here are some of the immediate reactions from Memphis and Tennessee groups following the announcement of the decision. 

Tennessee Governor Bill Lee:

“Today’s landmark Supreme Court decision marks the beginning of a hopeful, new chapter for our country. After years of heartfelt prayer and thoughtful policy, America has an historic opportunity to support women, children and strong families while reconciling the pain and loss caused by Roe v. Wade.

“We have spent years preparing for the possibility that authority would return to the states, and Tennessee’s laws will provide the maximum possible protection for both mother and child. In the coming days, we will address the full impacts of this decision for Tennessee.”

Tennessee Attorney General Herbert Slatery:

“Today, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. It overruled the Roe and Casey decisions establishing a federal constitutional right to have an abortion. Today’s decision restores to the states their authority to regulate and prohibit abortion.

“Tennesseans, through the affirmative vote of their elected representatives, amended the constitution a few years ago to confirm that the Tennessee Constitution does not provide a right to an abortion and leaves the issue up to the General Assembly. 

“As a result of today’s ruling:

• I will notify the Tennessee Code Commission in writing that Roe and Casey have been overruled, as required by statute. 

• We have asked the full Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to stay the district court’s injunction of the timing provisions in our heartbeat abortion law, so that the law will go into effect as soon as possible. 

• In 30 days, after the issuance of the judgment, the 2019 Human Life Protection Act should go into effect in Tennessee.

“To state the obvious: Dobbs is a momentous decision.  Our republic is founded on the rule of law.  Accordingly, we give respect and deference to the court on occasions when its decisions align and support our state laws, and in cases when a decision might be contrary to Tennessee state law and what the majority of Tennesseans want, as was the case with the 2015 Obergefell decision. 

“Most importantly, after nearly 50 years, today’s decision gives the people of Tennessee a say on what the court called ‘a profound moral issue.’”

U.S. Rep. Steve Cohen:

“What has been a right for women for nearly 50 years has been struck down by this radical Supreme Court. Roe. v. Wade empowered women to make decisions about their health care and the most fundamental trajectory of their lives. That has been taken from them by an activist Supreme Court that has chosen to ignore the court’s precedents for a political agenda.

“Lucius Burch, a great Memphis lawyer, spoke to me many years ago about the possibility of Roe v. Wade being overturned.  He said it would never happen because women in this country would march in the streets in protest. Mr. Burch was wrong about Roe never being overturned. But he was right about how women will react. Women in this country will march and march and march – and they will vote and vote and vote.”

Tennessee GOP: 

”For half a century, Roe vs. Wade has been the law of our land and we applaud the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision to reverse course and allow the states to determine questions of life. 

“We are proud that our work in Tennessee by electing good, pro-life Republicans has produced a long legacy of leadership that values the culture of life. 

“However we know the fight for life does not end today, it merely shifts the debate from Washington to all the state houses across the country and serves as a reminder that our struggle is not complete. The prayers of millions and the actions of many were answered today as we all rejoice in the gift of life on this day.”

Tennessee Democratic gubernatorial candidate Dr. Jason Martin:

“For nearly 50 years, Roe v. Wade has been the law of the land — protecting the right to choose and reproductive health. Today, on this horrific day, that has come to end. In Tennessee, all abortions will be effectively illegal in 30 days and it will have the greatest impact on our most vulnerable communities. 

”Make no mistake, abortions will still occur, but they will no longer be safe. Some will say that people can travel to other states, but not only does that further burden women without resources in an already difficult time, but it also fails to acknowledge that our rights are limited by an extremist Supreme Court and state legislature. As a physician, I also worry about how this impacts how we treat women in the hospital — how can I give someone the best medical care possible when medical decisions are no longer just between a woman and her doctor? Tennessee’s trigger law will be detrimental to the health and safety of all Tennesseans, and we cannot let that stand.

It has been clear for some time now that winning Tennessee’s gubernatorial race is a fight to protect women’s rights, freedoms, and safety. What happened this morning just shows us how urgently we need to act, and how much we need to come together to defeat this trigger law, Bill Lee, and the radical super majority in November.”

Tennessee U.S. Senator Marsha Blackburn: 

”Having worked alongside Tennesseans to protect the innocent lives of unborn children for years, I applaud today’s Supreme Court ruling. 

“Despite false claims from the left, this decision will not ban abortion. Instead, it returns the decision to the states and empowers state legislatures with more flexibility to craft policy through the democratic process. 

“It is unacceptable that a draft opinion was leaked in advance and that the person responsible has not been caught. The leaker has jeopardized the safety of our justices, and threats of violence by the radical militant mob are unacceptable. We appreciate the brave law enforcement officers working overtime to protect our justices and their families.”

Healthy and Free Tennessee, a reproductive rights advocacy group:

”At Healthy and Free Tennessee, we have been preparing for this reality and will continue to center abolition in the fight for reproductive justice for all Tennesseans. We are not giving up on our communities and will not stop fighting for the decriminalization of abortion, pregnancy, and parenting. 

“Now more than ever, we are backing our clinics, we are fighting against criminalization, and are here for our communities. Tennesseeans deserve freedom from state violence and criminalization. We will always oppose laws that punish people for pregnancy outcomes and will always work to provide accurate resources and information, fight for increased resources for pregnant people and families, and advocate for the rights of pregnant people. We deserve the dignity to make decisions about our own pregnancies, families, and futures.”

Tennessee House Minority Leader Rep. Karen Camper:

“I have often said that abortion is a complicated and very personal decision. And I personally believe that we don’t spend enough time on finding solutions to the reasons why some people have to have abortions.

“However, this ruling means that in Tennessee, all abortions will be criminalized, including for victims of rape and incest. Women should have the right to make their own, personal healthcare decisions.  This is an unfortunate decision based on politics instead of established law and, according to the vast majority of polls, the will of people.”   

Hendrell Remus, chairman of the Tennessee Democratic Party:

“This decision is a direct assault on the rights of Tennesseeans. The court’s interpretation of the constitution on this issue is flawed and a direct insertion of political activism on the highest court in the land.

“This decision made by a conservative majority on the court, will empower a radical majority serving in state legislatures across the country. Politicians will be even more emboldened by this decision to impose their most restrictive views on us. Today, an essential and lifesaving freedom was discarded by a court installed to protect it.”

Brit Bender, executive director Tennessee Democratic Party:

“Clearly, this is a blow to Americans everywhere, but in Tennessee, abortion is most at risk due to a trigger law that will outlaw abortion without the federal right. This trigger law now criminalizes any abortion unless necessary to prevent death or ‘serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function.’ The abortion ban puts millions of Tennesseeans in danger and takes away their bodily autonomy.

“We are going to keep pushing back against anti-choice representatives and legislation any chance we get. The Tennessee Democratic Party will work to support pro-choice candidates and legislators as well as abortion rights groups in state. We’re prepared to fight for the safety and autonomy of Tennesseeans.”

Tennessee state Senator Raumesh Akbari:

“The Supreme Court just reset the clock on women’s constitutional rights to 1972. This decision puts the lives of women in imminent danger by handing politicians control over our most personal healthcare decisions. This is a stunning reversal of a decades-long expansion of our personal privacy rights and it’s disgraceful because it will not affect every American equally. Men’s reproductive liberties are completely untouched and protected.

“In Tennessee, abortion is already a right in name only for many people but even here the consequences for women will be swift and severe. Soon, a law from 2019 will make it a felony to provide an abortion in our state. As a direct result, the few abortion providers we have left will be criminalized and women and girls will be forced to carry pregnancies to term, even when they are a victim of rape or incest.

“Those with economic means, access to transportation, and friends who can help them get around legal roadblocks will still be able to exercise some control over their own bodies. But poor women and many Black women, women who already feel the sting of inequity in our laws and economy, will feel the repercussions of this decision right away.

“In this country, our sisters and daughters should have the same rights that our brothers and sons have, which is exactly why women should be trusted to start a family when they’re ready — without interference from politicians. Instead, we are going backward and the extreme politicians who brought us to this point are ready to shred our rights even further.”

Tennessee House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rep. Vincent Dixie (D-Nashville):

“This a sad day for this country. The Supreme Court was once the place that Americans could turn to for justice. The women’s movement, the civil rights movement, the disabled community and the LGBTQ community all turned to the high court to have their basic human rights affirmed. However today, politics overruled justice.

“Today, the black robes of the Supreme Court turned red and politics ruled the day. Now, we have to fight back and the best place to do that is at the ballot box. We have fewer than a dozen days now to register to vote in Tennessee and I urge everyone to let their voices be heard in this year’s upcoming election.”

Steve Mulroy, Democratic nominee for Shelby County District Attorney:

“This is a sad day. The politicized right-wing court goes out of its way to overturn half a century of precedent, with women as the victims.

“As District Attorney, I’ll be very different from Amy Weirich. Weirich’s party and Donald Trump want her to turn her attention away from prosecuting violent crime and prosecute women and their doctors. We need to be focusing on carjackings, murders, domestic violence – not jailing doctors helping women make reproductive choices.”

Categories
Opinion The Last Word

What’s Next? Immigrant Children, of Course!

Could Plyler v. Doe be overturned? (Photo: Rmarmion | Dreamstime.com)

A nation that places immigrant children in cages can certainly (attempt to) prevent those same children from attending public schools. Since 1982, in its decision Plyler v. Doe, the U.S. Supreme Court has prohibited the state from discriminating against and denying children a public education based on their immigration status. That may be challenged soon.

The recently leaked memorandum from the Supreme Court removes any pretense of an impartial, apolitical judiciary. The Supreme Court, we now know, is part of the torn fabric of American political society. And it’s never a good look to see our justices openly mislead the public in sworn testimony before a Senate Judiciary Committee. Justice Kavanaugh called Roe v. Wade (1973) “settled law,” and Justice Gorsuch acknowledged that Roe was the “law of the land.” Now, as appointed justices for life, they’ve determined that 50 years of precedent has no actual value.

The majority bemoans the schism it claims was created by Roe nearly 50 years ago but ignores the damage that the Supreme Court is about to do to our country by rejecting “settled law” and releasing a cornucopia of challenges to every decision that the right finds disagreeable from the past.

For example, Texas Governor Greg Abbott — who joins the other two amigos, Florida’s Ron DeSantis and our own Bill Lee, in a race to see who can undo more rights for ordinary people — is looking closely at Plyler. This is Abbott’s next step on his quixotic anti-immigrant agenda. Last month, he bussed immigrants from Mexico and Central America out of his sparsely populated state to densely populated Washington, D.C., in a pathetic (and cruel) political act that showed his determination to score points with the anti-immigrant base.

Such attempts at cruelty are popular with Abbott’s base, and he’s playing a political card, during a difficult re-election campaign against a viable opponent, a former representative from El Paso, Beto O’Rourke. Abbott needs to convince the “base” that he’s fighting to seal off Texas from migrant waves, caravans, illegals, masses, invaders — you pick the hyperbole that suits you — to prevail in November. He clearly believes that using this retro-activist Supreme Court to revisit free public education to undocumented school children is a way to do it.

Border states like Texas share a disproportionate responsibility in educating children of the undocumented residing in that state as many migrants pass through on their way to “El Norte.” But Texas school districts receive federal education funds on a per pupil basis (not a “per American pupil” basis), and they receive extra funding based on the needs of that particular demographic. Moreover, Texas receives more than $1.6 billion in state and local tax dollars from undocumented immigrants.

The motivation for this anti-immigrant wave is the same as it’s always been. It’s the sense that the nation is changing as we become more diverse. Every time in our history, when we face such change, we strike out at immigrants. Every time.

Texas should forget the Alamo, and “Remember the 187.”

In 1994, the good people of then-Red State California passed a noxious ballot initiative, “Proposition 187” the so-called “Save our State” initiative. The law attempted to remove undocumented children from California public schools. By 1999, the law was declared unconstitutional, and the good teachers of California refused to enforce it. Denying education to children is always bad policy. Offering free public education to all kids is one of the settled provisions of U.S. society, and our society has grown strong because we purposefully (not always perfectly) educate the youngest generations.

We’ve entered strange times — where settled law sits on seismic faults. Demagogues, now aided by the Supreme Court, declare war on American historical traditions — immigration and education — concepts that ought to unify and energize a nation. Maybe the one thing the majority draft opinion in Roe gets right is that the power to change the direction in which we are heading rests in the hands of voters beginning this fall.

Bryce Ashby is a Memphis-based attorney and the board chair of Latino Memphis. Michael LaRosa teaches history at Rhodes College.

Categories
News News Blog News Feature

TN CEO: Planned Parenthood Prepared for Possible Roe Overturn Since 2019

Photo by Gayatri Malhotra on Unsplash

The end of safe and legal abortion is likely here said the leader of Planned Parenthood of Tennessee and North Mississippi (PPTNM) on Monday, but the agency is already working on its next steps. 

The declaration came after news of the U.S. Supreme Court draft opinion on Roe vs. Wade surfaced late Sunday. The draft opinion from Justice Samuel Alito began circulating in the court in February but was leaked to Politico only recently. The draft opinion would end federal protections for abortions nationwide and give the decision to states. 

“We know the harm that will come from this decision,” said PPTNM CEO Ashley Cofield in a Monday news conference. 

Should the court overturn the decision, it would trigger a Tennessee law that would ban abortions in the state within 30 days, Cofield said. The decision would likely also lift a temporary injunction on a law passed here (but now blocked by a judge) outlawing abortions after six weeks. 

While Cofield painted a grim reality of a future most pro-choice citizens have dreaded, she vowed PPTNM would continue its work. 

“First and foremost, abortion is legal today in Tennessee and our doors remain open,” Cofield said during a Monday press conference. “We will continue to provide abortion care up to the very minute when we no longer can do so.”

But Cofield said her agency has been preparing for this outcome since 2019, when the Tennessee General Assembly passed the 30-day trigger ban. PPTNM is hiring and training patient navigators, to help those they serve get access to legal abortions outside of Tennessee and Mississippi. These navigators will help patients remove financial and transportation barriers to finding legal abortions.

Should the decision be overturned, Cofield said Tennessee residents in Memphis and Nashville could find access to an abortion in Illinois. Those in East Tennessee, while some political unknowns now exist, could find abortion access in North Carolina, Virginia, and, perhaps, Florida. 

PPTNM is also now considering offering emergency contraceptives, like Plan B, to its patients for free. 

Cofield said the impact would be felt hard in Shelby County. Many abortions are provided here, she said, because the county is served by her agency as well as Choices – Memphis Center for Reproductive Health. Also, many patients travel to Shelby County from other parts of the state and the region for care. 

“We know, also, that it will mostly impact Black, Latino, and other people of color who already disproportionately feel the effects of abortion bans and restrictions, a product of this country’s legacy of racism and discrimination,” Cofield said.

In Tennessee, 51 percent of women getting an abortion in 2019 were Black, according to data from the Kaiser Family Foundation. Of the remaining women 39 percent were white, 6 percent were Hispanic, and 4 percent were of another race. 

The Planned Parenthood Action Fund says Blacks have a higher rate of unintended pregnancy and a higher rate of abortion than non-Hispanic whites. The underlying issues for this are linked to poverty and lack of access to pregnancy prevention services. 

A Facebook post by Advocates of Planned Parenthood reads, “Let’s be clear: This is a draft opinion. It is outrageous and unprecedented, but not final. Abortion is your right and it is still legal.”

Categories
News News Blog News Feature

Tennessee Wins Water Case in Unanimous Supreme Court Decision

Credit: U.S. Supreme Court

Tennessee won a 16-year legal battle over water rights in the U.S. Supreme Court Monday. 

Lawyers for the state of Mississippi have argued for more than a decade that Tennessee is stealing its water from the Middle Claiborne Aquifer, an expansion of underground water that flows beneath eight states. Oral arguments in the case went before the Supreme Court in early October. Mississippi sought $615 million in damages.

Justices were unanimous in their verdict issued Monday morning. “Mississippi’s complaint is dismissed without leave to amend,” reads the opinion, which means officials there cannot change their argument and bring the issue back to court. Should lawyers bring the case back to the court, they’ll have to file a new case.

In its latest argument, Mississippi lawyers told justices that water pumping in Tennessee sucks up water from Mississippi under the state line. Mississippi claimed an absolute ownership right to all groundwater beneath its surface — even after that water has crossed its borders. Lawyers claimed Tennessee’s wells violated Mississippi’s sovereign ownership rights to the water. 

Justices agreed that pumping in Tennessee “clearly” has effects on water levels in Mississippi. Memphis Light, Gas & Water pumps about 120 million gallons from the aquifer each day from more than 160 wells in and around Memphis, according to the court. 

“Tennessee’s pumping has contributed to a cone of depression that extends miles into northern Mississippi, and Mississippi itself contends that this cone of depression has reduced groundwater storage and pressure in northern Mississippi,” reads the opinion. 

However, instances like these are a “hallmark,” justices said, of similar cases remedied by equitable apportionment, meaning the states have to share the water equally. Though, the Mississippi case is the first time equitable apportionment laws would be applied to aquifers. 

But Justice John Roberts, writing for the court, said the rule should not be different for aquifers and when water is shared between two states, “each one has an interest which should be respected by the other.”

“Mississippi suggests the Middle Claiborne Aquifer is distinguishable from interstate rivers and streams because its natural flow is ‘extremely slow,’” reads the opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the court. “But we have long applied equitable apportionment even to streams that run dry from time to time. 

“And although the transboundary flow here may be a mere ‘one or two inches per day,’ that amounts to over 35 million gallons of water per day, and over 10,000,000,000 gallons per year. So, the speed of the flow, at least in the context of this case, does not place the aquifer beyond equitable apportionment.”

If Mississippi returned the case to the court, it would be to ask for terms of equitable apportionment and “must prove by clear and convincing evidence some real and substantial injury for damage.”

Categories
News News Blog

Fog and Wild Horses: U.S. Supremes Hear Mississippi’s Water Battle with Tennessee

Credit: U.S> Supreme Court

Mississippi took its 16-year battle against Tennessee for water rights to the U.S. Supreme Court Monday and Justices compared the issue to wild horses in Mexico and fog over San Francisco.

John Coghlan, attorney for the state of Mississippi in the case, said the court should reject the Special Master’s conclusions to the case. Last year, the judge said, basically, that Tennessee has not been stealing water from Mississippi. 

However, Coghlan said the case is not about whether or not Tennessee is asking more than its fair share of the water. He said the Supremes should focus on another question: Can Tennessee control groundwater while it’s located in Mississippi’s sovereign territory? 

“Even if the aquifer is an interstate resource, Mississippi still possesses sole and exclusive control over groundwater within its sovereign territory, as recognized in [Tarrant Regional Water District versus Herrmann] and ensured by the Constitution,” Coghlan said. “And [Tennessee] cannot force groundwater across the border without violating this sovereignty.”

In questioning by Justice Clarence Thomas, Coghlan admitted that the Tarrant decision was a “cross-border situation.” But this case is, also, he said, as Tennessee’s “wells are physically located in Tennessee, but the pumping is physically crossing the border, unnaturally changing the pressure levels in this aquifer.”

Justice Thomas replied, “But couldn’t Tennessee make the exact same argument about you? Couldn’t Tennessee, Arkansas, Missouri all make the same argument that whenever you pump you’re causing similar problems for them?”

David Frederick, attorney for Memphis Light, Gas and Water in the case, told the court that Tennessee has lawfully pumped water from the Middle Claiborne Aquifer for more than 130 years. Traditional water-sharing rules don’t apply in the case and, therefore, Mississippi’s claim for $600 million in damages should be dismissed. 

“The undisputed facts are the aquifer’’s water volume in the greater Memphis and northern Mississippi area has changed very little in the past 100 years,” Frederic said. “The aquifer is fully saturated and in a state of equilibrium, and Mississippi has increased its own pumping dramatically and can extract all the water it needs.”

Chief Justice John Roberts clarified that Mississippi’s argument goes past equitable apportionment, the equal sharing of natural resources that flow between states. Coghlan agreed that it did, as Tennessee was reaching across its border and exercising control in waters located in Mississippi. 

Coghlan conceded that water in the aquifer flowed from Mississippi into Tennessee. But he argued it was irrelevant whether or not it was classified as interstate water to be shared. 

Justice Sonia Sotomayor reminded Coghlan of the case’s long legal history and asked, “When is enough enough?”

“You’ve been litigating this case for over 16 years,” Sotomayor began. “You started in the Fifth Circuit. You went to the district court, you went to the circuit court; both courts told you you’ve got to seek equitable apportionment. 

“You came here in 2010. We tell you the same thing. Now this is the third time you’ve done this. This time you explicitly disclaim any claim for equitable apportionment. When is enough enough? When should you be stopped from amending and seeking equitable apportionment, assuming you lose?”

Coghlan explained the case is relevant still as it is for future damages, not rectifying not seeking damages for the past. This is, in part, he argued, why simply sharing the water is the wrong legal remedy. It doesn’t address the sovereign control of the water. 

If the court ruled against Mississippi in the case this time around, Coghlan explained to Justice Sotomayor that, yes, the state would want the option to change its argument and pursue the matter in courts in the future. He said, we would want to obtain “whatever relief is possible for Mississippi.”

The Justices then began comparing the water that flows beneath Mississippi and Tennessee to natural resources that flow freely in other states. 

Chief Justice Roberts: “In the western states, they have these, I don’t know, wild horses or wild burrows, whatever they are, and they don’t obey the state lines and they’re wandering around and they — let’s just say they go from, you know, New Mexico to wherever.

“Let’s suppose that they’re — I know they’re pests, I guess, in some places, but let’s suppose they’re a valuable resource. If they were in Mississippi and crossed into Tennessee and Tennessee seized them at that point, would that be damaging Mississippi, or could Tennessee say, ‘Look, they’re on our territory, they’re under our physical control. We can exercise dominion over them, period’?”

Justice Stephen Breyer: “My understanding — and you have to — it’s very elementary. I mean, I think water falls from the sky. Some of it’s evaporated back. Others of it goes into oceans or lakes or streams. A huge amount goes underwater — underground. It’s groundwater, and it runs all over the place. That’s why I like the wild horses. My idea of that groundwater is it’s going all over the place.

“San Francisco has beautiful fog. Suppose somebody came by in an airplane and took some of that beautiful fog and flew it to Colorado, which has its own beautiful water — air. And somebody took it and flew it to Massachusetts or some other place. I mean, do you understand how I’m suddenly seeing this and I’m totally at sea? It’s that the water runs around. And whose water is it? I don’t know. So you have a lot to explain to me, unfortunately, and I will forgive you if you don’t.”

At this point, Coghlan explained that he’s not arguing that Mississippi owns the water. He said he’s arguing the state has the right to control the water while it’s within the borders of the state. Tennessee, he said, should not have the right to control it, by pumping it while it’s under Mississippi ground. 

Chief Justice Roberts looked to the future of the case, noting that, if Mississippi won the suit, then Tennessee could bring a counterclaim with the exact same argument: that Mississippi was controlling water under its sovereign border. Coghlan agreed. 

Roberts said if Tennessee did sue, “The normal thing would be [that] I’d take whatever … Tennessee owes you, whatever you owe Tennessee, and set it off against the other.” Coghlan agreed and Roberts said, “That starts to sound a lot like equitable apportionment.” Coghlan said that remedy would “be similar to equitable apportionment.” 

In the end, the court was skeptical of Mississippi’s argument that it owned the water “simply by virtue of having passed through Mississippi’s territory,” said Frederick Liu, who filed a brief supporting Tennessee on behalf of the federal government. 

The court also worried the case could set a precedent. If Mississippi prevailed and Tennessee had to pay for water in the future, that other states would begin suing one another for water rights.

The case was submitted for an opinion Monday.