Kentucky
Appeals court reinstates near-total abortion ban
LOUISVILLE, Ky. (AP) — A Kentucky appeals court has reinstated a near-total abortion ban that took effect when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.
The ruling means most abortions are illegal in the state, for now.
Attorney General Daniel Cameron asked the court for an emergency stay, which blocked a lower court's ruling. That ruling by a Louisville judge last month put two abortion bans on hold so the courts could determine if they violate Kentucky's constitution.
The state's two clinics issued a media release Monday night declaring “abortion is now banned in Kentucky,” and said they began canceling scheduled procedures.
The ruling will be appealed to the Kentucky Supreme Court.
“Tonight, in one fateful moment, Kentuckians saw their reproductive freedom stolen by their elected officials,” said Alexis McGill Johnson, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. “It is devastating and cruel. But the fight is not over.”
The appeals court said the ban should take effect, even if the laws are in dispute, because in Kentucky, “a statute carries with it the presumption of constitutionality.”
Kentucky's legislature passed a “trigger law” banning nearly all abortions, except when the health of the mother is threatened, if Roe was overturned. Lawmakers also passed a separate 6-week ban that the clinics also challenged.
The lower court judge, Mitch Perry, ruled on July 22 that there is “a substantial likelihood” that Kentucky's new abortion laws violate “the rights to privacy and self-determination” protected by Kentucky's constitution.
Minnesota
Case weighs right to emergency contraception
AITKIN, Minn. (AP) — A trial in Minnesota is expected to decide whether a woman's human rights were violated when a pharmacist denied her request in 2019 to fill a prescription for emergency contraception.
Andrea Anderson, a mother of five from McGregor, sued under the Minnesota Human Rights Act after the pharmacist, based on his religious beliefs, refused to accommodate her request. State law prohibits discrimination based on sex, including issues related to pregnancy and childbirth.
The trial in the civil case comes amid national political debate about contraception under federal law with the U.S. House last week passing a bill that would guarantee the right to contraception. Democrats pushed through the measure in response to concerns a conservative U.S. Supreme Court that already erased federal abortion rights could go further and limit the use of contraception.
Jury selection in Aitkin County was scheduled to start Monday, with the case expected to conclude before the end of the week.
Anderson brought her prescription for a morning-after pill to the Thrifty White pharmacy in McGregor in January 2019, the Star Tribune reported. Longtime pharmacist George Badeaux told her he could not fill the prescription based on his beliefs, but that a pharmacist working the following day could fill it if a snowstorm didn't prevent the pharmacist from getting to work.
Anderson eventually got her prescription filled at a pharmacy in Brainerd, making the round-trip of more than 100 miles (161 kilometers) in wintry driving conditions.
Because the case is filed under the state's Human Rights Act, Aitkin County District Judge David Hermerding said Badeaux cannot raise federal constitutional issues such as freedom of religion at the trial.
“The issue for the jury is not defendant's constitutional rights,” the judge wrote. “It is whether he deliberately misled, obfuscated and blocked Ms. Anderson's path to obtaining” emergency contraception.
Badeaux will be allowed to explain his religious beliefs to the jury, the judge ruled, “but not in such a manner as to confuse the jury into thinking this is a religious freedom contest.”
California
Supreme Court certifies ruling ending Trump border policy
SAN DIEGO (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday certified its month-old ruling allowing the Biden administration to end a cornerstone Trump-era border policy to make asylum-seekers wait in Mexico for hearings in U.S. immigration court, a pro forma act that has drawn attention amid near-total silence from the White House about when, how and even whether it will dismantle the policy.
The two-word docket entry read “judgment issued” to record that justices voted 5-4 in a ruling issued June 30 that the administration could scrap the “Remain in Mexico” policy, overruling a lower court that forced the policy to be reinstated in December.
Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said shortly after the Supreme Court victory that justices would need to communicate the decision to a lower court, which, in turn, should lift the order to keep the policy in place in a lawsuit filed by the state of Texas. Beyond that, administration officials have said little, including whether any of the thousands subject to the policy since December will be allowed to enter and remain in the United States while their cases are being considered in immigration court.
The White House and Homeland Security Department had no immediate comment on the Supreme Court certification; the Justice Department declined comment. Officials in Mexico had no immediate comment.
About 70,000 migrants were subject to the policy, known officially as “Migrant Protection Protocols,” or MPP, from when former President Donald Trump introduced it in January 2019 until President Joe Biden suspended it on his first day in office in January 2021, fulfilling a campaign promise. Many were allowed to return to the United States to pursue their cases during the early months of Biden's presidency.
Nearly 5,800 people have been subject to the policy from December through June, according to figures released Friday, a modest number that would make any reluctance to end it seem less plausible. Nicaraguans account for the largest number, with others from Cuba, Colombia and Venezuela.
A sign posted last week at the entrance to the Salvation Army migrant shelter in Tijuana, Mexico, by the United Nations' International Organization for Migration appeared to best capture the public understanding of the policy's status: “Wait for official information! The Remain in Mexico (MPP) program remains in effect. The United States government will inform you of any changes.”
Critics of the policy have been increasingly outspoken about the Biden administration's reticence on “Remain in Mexico,” and Monday's certification renewed their calls for an immediate end to the policy.
“It's a zombie policy,” said Karen Tumlin, founder of Justice Action Center, an immigration litigation organization.
The final move may rest with U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk in Amarillo, Texas, a Trump appointee whose ruling last year brought “Remain in Mexico” back.