# data[].attributes.body
Established judicial review: “It is emphatically the province of the judicial department to say what the law is.”

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Marbury v. Madison Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained

# data[].attributes.headline
Kamari Rice (Brown v. Board of Education 1954) 

# data[].attributes.subject
Kamari Rice (Brown v. Board of Education 1954) 

# data[].attributes.body
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka was a major decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that state laws mandating racial segregation in public schools are unconstitutional, even if the segregated schools are of comparable quality.

The Supreme Court's decision partially overturned Plessy v. Ferguson, which declared the "separate but equal" principle unconstitutional in American public schools and educational facilities in 1896.

It was an important victory for the civil rights movement and a paradigm for many future impact litigation cases, and it paved the path for integration.

# data[].attributes.body
Roe v. Wade, legal case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on January 22, 1973, ruled (7–2) that unduly restrictive state regulation of abortion is unconstitutional. In a majority opinion written by Justice Harry A. Blackmun, the Court held that a set of Texas statutes criminalizing abortion in most instances violated a woman’s constitutional right of privacy, which it found to be implicit in the liberty guarantee of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (“…nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Roe v. Wade, legal case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on January 22, 1973, ruled (7-2) that unduly restrictive state regulation of abortion is unconstitutional. In a majority opinion written by Justice Harry A. Blackmun, the Court held that a set of Texas statutes criminalizing abortion in most instances violated a constitutional right to privacy, which it found to be implicit in the liberty guarantee of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment ("...nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"). Roe v. Wade was overturned by the Supreme Court in 2022.

The case began in 1970 when "Jane Roe"-a fictional name used to protect the identity of the plaintiff, Norma McCorvey (1947-2017)-instituted federal action against Henry Wade, the district attorney of Dallas county, Texas, where Roe resided. The Supreme Court disagreed with Roe's assertion of an absolute right to terminate pregnancy in any way and at any time. Instead, it attempted to balance what it regarded as a "fundamental" right to privacy with the state's "compelling" interests in protecting the health of pregnant persons and the "potentiality of human life." In doing so, the Court formulated a timetable based on the notions of trimester and fetal viability (i.e., the "capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb"). During the first trimester of pregnancy, the Court ruled, the state could not intervene in a person's decision to have an abortion under normal circumstances. During the second trimester the state could regulate abortion procedures to protect the health of pregnant persons, but it could not prohibit abortions altogether. From the end of the second trimester, which the Court identified as the starting point of viability, the state could regulate or prohibit abortions in order to protect the pregnant person's health or to preserve fetal viability. In no case, however, could the state criminalize abortions that were necessary to protect the life or health of the pregnant person.

Repeated challenges to Roe v. Wade after 1973 narrowed the decision's scope but did not overturn it. In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992), the Supreme Court established that restrictions on abortion are unconstitutional if they place an "undue burden" on a person seeking an abortion before the fetus is viable. In Gonzales v. Carhart (2007), the Court upheld the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (2003), which prohibited a rarely used abortion procedure known as intact dilation and evacuation. In Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt (2016), the Court invoked its decision in Casey to strike down two provisions of a Texas law requiring that abortion clinics meet the standards of ambulatory surgical centers and that doctors performing abortions have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. Four years later, in June Medical Services L.L.C. v. Russo (2020), the Court invoked Whole Woman's Health to declare unconstitutional a Louisiana statute that was, as the majority noted, nearly identical to Texas's admitting-privileges law.

In May 2021 the Supreme Court agreed to review in its October 2021 term a lower court's decision to strike down a Mississippi state law, adopted in 2018, that banned most abortions after the 15th week of pregnancy, well before the point of fetal viability. Although the law was plainly unconstitutional under Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Mississippi lawmakers passed the measure in the hope that an inevitable legal challenge would eventually make its way to the Supreme Court, where a conservative majority of justices would overturn or drastically reduce the scope of those decisions. The single question that the Court agreed to consider in the case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, was whether bans on all pre-viability abortions are unconstitutional. In May 2022 an apparent draft of a majority opinion in the case, written by Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., was leaked to a political news publication in an extraordinary breach of the traditional secrecy in which the Court conducts its deliberations. The opinion, dated February 2022, indicated that the Court had voted to uphold the Mississippi law and to overturn both Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. As expected, both Roe and Casey were overturned (5-4) in the Court's official decision in Dobbs, issued in June 2022, in which Alito held that there is no constitutional right to abortion. Soon after the decision was handed down, several states adopted laws that drastically limited the availability of abortion.

In 1998, having undergone two religious conversions, McCorvey publicly declared her opposition to abortion. However, in the documentary AKA Jane Roe (2020), a dying McCorvey claimed that she had been paid by antiabortion groups to support their cause.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Roe v. Wade | Summary, Origins, Right to Privacy, & Overturning

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Roe v. Wade, legal case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on January 22, 1973, ruled (7-2) that unduly restrictive state regulation of abortion is unconstitutional. The Court held that a set of Texas statutes criminalizing abortion in most instances violated a constitutional right to privacy.

# data[].attributes.body
A physical therapist practice in Erie County was found on charges of conspiracy to commit wire and health care fraud. Over 18 people employees were indicted on these charges. This could be difficult on future physical therapist because it would be hard to gain trust of people who want and need therapy. This case was significant and went through the whole United States Department of Justice.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
FBI issues search warrant for multiple Hertel and Brown Physical Therapy locations around Erie

# data[].attributes.body
-The national urban league led a challenge to the Trump administration’s decision to abandon the U.S. Census Bureau’s Covid-19 plans and rush the data-collection and data-processing timelines for the 2020 Census. The plaintiffs argued that the truncated timelines would lead to undercounts of communities of color and result in inaccurate census results in violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act.
-This is significant to democracy because an inaccurate census is a violation of the U.S constitution.
-This is significant to U.S politics because an incomplete census affects the state population totals which apportions the U.S house of representatives.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The National Urban League led a coalition of counties, cities, advocacy organizations, and individuals in a challenge to the Trump administration's decision to abandon the U.S. Census Bureau's Covid-19 plans and rush the data-collection and data-processing timelines for the 2020 Census. The plaintiffs argued that the truncated timelines would lead to undercounts of communities of color and result in inaccurate census results in violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act.
Case Background
The Covid-19 pandemic substantially disrupted the 2020 Census, resulting in months of suspended operations and significant delays in crucial counting processes. Due to the pandemic, in April 2020, the Census Bureau implemented a Covid-19 plan that delayed the timeline for completing its operations in order to provide the Bureau with adequate time to ensure the quality and accuracy of 2020 Census data.

But on August 3, 2020, Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross and Census Bureau Director Steven Dillingham reversed course and announced that the Census Bureau would be abandoning its Covid-19 plan, cutting its counting operations short, and rushing completion of the 2020 Census. That decision forced the Census Bureau to complete at least 7.5 months of data-collection and data-processing work in 4.5 months when Bureau experts concluded that such rushed processing would significantly undermine the quality of the 2020 Census.

The Brennan Center, along with the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Public Counsel, and the law firm Latham & Watkins filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Secretary Ross, the Department of Commerce, the Census Bureau, and Director Dillingham. We represented the National Urban League; the League of Women Voters; the Black Alliance for Just Immigration; the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People; the Navajo Nation; the Gila River Indian Community; Harris County, Texas; King County, Washington; the city of San Jose, California; and two commissioners on the Harris County Commissioners Court. The City of Los Angeles, the City of Salinas, the City of Chicago, the County of Los Angeles, and the Gila River Indian Community joined the challenge and were represented by separate counsel.

The plaintiffs contended that the Administration's decision to abandon the Census Bureau's Covid-19 plans violated the Bureau's constitutional duty to make census-related decisions that "bear a reasonable relationship to the accomplishment of an actual enumeration of the population." The plaintiffs also alleged that the decision was arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act because the Bureau did not provide an explanation for why it decided to cute the 2020 Census operations short, and further alleged that the real reason for the decision was so that President Trump can try to implement his plan announced July 21, 2020, to exclude undocumented people from the state population totals used to apportion the U.S. House of Representatives.

The plaintiffs asked the court to declare that the rush plan violated the Constitution and federal law. The plaintiffs were also seeking a court order preventing the Census Bureau from implementing the rush plan, thereby requiring the Bureau to continue implementing its Covid-19 plan. The Covid-19 plan included delaying the deadlines for reporting the state-population totals to the President from December 31, 2020, to April 30, 2021, and for reporting redistricting numbers to the states from March 31, 2021, to July 31, 2021.

On September 5, 2020, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order, enjoining the Administration from implementing the rush plan until the court could conduct a hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.

On September 24, 2020, the court granted the plaintiffs' preliminary injunction motion, finding that "Defendants failed to consider how Defendants would fulfill their statutory and constitutional duties to accomplish an accurate count on such an abbreviated timeline, " in violation of the federal Administrative Procedure Act. The court's order prevented the Census Bureau from operating on the timeline it laid out in its rush plan, including its plan to end field operations on September 30 and report state-population totals to the president by December 31, 2020.

The federal government appealed the district court's decision to the Ninth Circuit. Its appeal included requests for an emergency administrative stay of the district court's order and a stay pending the Ninth Circuit resolving the appeal. On September 30, 2020, the Ninth Circuit rejected the Administration's request for an administrative stay. On October 7, 2020, the Ninth Circuit partially denied and partially granted the request for a stay.

Under the Ninth Circuit's order, the count had to continue until October 31, 2020. The federal government appealed the lower court decisions to the Supreme Court. On October 13, 2020, the Supreme Court stayed the preliminary injunction in its entirety, thereby allowing the Census Bureau to cease its counting operations at that time, two additional weeks after the Bureau had intended to stop the count under its rushed plan.

On January 15, 2021, in a victory for the plaintiffs, the district court issued an order prohibiting the federal government from releasing census numbers prior to January 20, 2021 and staying the case for 21 days. The Census Bureau immediately ordered its employees to comply with the order and announced that no apportionment data or data regarding citizenship or immigration status would be published until after the Biden Administration took office on January 20, 2021.

On February 3, 2021, the plaintiffs obtained an order prohibiting the Census Bureau from releasing apportionment data before April 16, 2021.

On April 22, 2021, the court approved a stipulated agreement to dismiss the case. Under the terms of the dismissal, the Census Bureau agreed not to release apportionment data before April 26, 2021. The Bureau also agreed not to factor any citizenship data that it may have collected under the Trump administration into its apportionment or redistricting numbers as well as to declare that any citizenship-data products that it was creating to help exclude undocumented people are statistically unfit for use for apportionment or redistricting purposes. The Bureau is also obligated to produce certain metrics about the quality of upcoming 2020 Census data releases and hold public briefings about those metrics.
Key Documents

Complaint (August 18, 2020)

Motion for Stay and Preliminary Injunction (August 25, 2020)

Declaration of John Thompson in Support of Plaintiffs (August 25, 2020)

Declaration of Thomas Louis in Support of Plaintiffs (August 25, 2020)

Declaration of Sunshine Hillygus in Support of Plaintiffs (August 25, 2020)

Case Management Order (August 26, 2020)

Amicus Brief of States and Local Governments in Support of Plaintiffs (August 31, 2020)

Amicus Brief of the County of Santa Clara and 19 Additional Local Governments and Officials in Support of Plaintiffs (August 31, 2020)

Amicus Brief of Businesses and Business Organizations in Support of Plaintiffs (August 31, 2020)

First Amended Complaint (September 1, 2020)

Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (September 4, 2020)

Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (September 4, 2020)

Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Stay or Preliminary Injunction (September 4, 2020)

Declaration of Albert E. Fontenot (September 4, 2020)

Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (September 5, 2020)

Order Granting Motion For Temporary Restraining Order (September 5, 2020)

Defendants' Notice Re: Compliance With Temporary Restraining Order (September 8, 2020)

Order to Produce the Administrative Record (September 10, 2020)

Order re: Briefing and Deadline for Production (September 12, 2020)

Plaintiffs' Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Stay and Preliminary Injunction (September 15, 2020)

Order Extending Temporary Restraining Order (September 17, 2020)

Plaintiffs' Supplemental Brief in Support of Motion for Stay and Preliminary Injunction (September 22, 2020)

Defendants' Second Supplemental Brief in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction (September 22, 2020)

Declaration of Albert E. Fontenot (September 22, 2020)

Plaintiffs' Response to Court Request re: Historical Censuses (September 22, 2020)

Opinion on Preliminary Injunction (September 24, 2020)

Order re: Response to Allegation of Noncompliance With Preliminary Injunction (September 27, 2020)

Plaintiffs' Response to Allegation of Noncompliance with Preliminary Injunction (September 28, 2020)

Defendants' Response (September 28, 2020)
Declaration of James Christy (September 28, 2020)

Plaintiffs Opposition to Motion to Shorten Time (September 28, 2020)

Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (September 30, 2020)

Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel and for Sanctions (September 30, 2020)

Defendants' Response to Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (October 1, 2020)

Order re: Clarification of Stay and Preliminary Injunction (October 1, 2020)

Defendants' Statement Re: the Supreme Court's Stay Order (October 23, 2020)

Plaintiffs' Statement Re: the Supreme Court's Stay Order (October 23, 2020)

Second Amended Complaint (October 27, 2020)

Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint (November 10, 2020)

Defendants' Motion for Stay of Proceedings (November 10, 2020)

Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (November 24, 2020)

Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion to Stay Proceedings (November 24, 2020)

Order Granting Motion to Compel (December 10, 2020)

Defendant's Answer to Second Amended Complaint (December 30, 2020)

Joint Case Management Statement (January 15, 2021)

Stipulation and Order (January 15, 2021)

Stipulation and Order (February 3, 2021)

Stipulated Order Regarding Dismissal (April 22, 2021)

Order Granting Stipulated Dismissal (April 22, 2021)

Census Bureau 2020 Census Quality Presentation (March 29, 2022)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Case No. 20-16868, re: Administrative Stay)
U.S. Supreme Court

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The National Urban League led a coalition of counties, cities, advocacy organizations, and individuals in a challenge to the Trump administration's decision to abandon the U.S. Census Bureau's Covid-19 plans and rush the data-collection and data-processing timelines for the 2020 Census.

# data[].attributes.body
In the Roe Vs. Wade case the Supreme Court ruled that the constitution of the United States protects a pregnant womans liberty to choose to have an abortion without excessive government restriction. This is important regarding American politics and democracy because it gives America women the freedom to choose what they want to do with their bodies without the government getting involved

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Abortion Before Roe v. Wade

Until the late 19th century, abortion was legal in the United States before "quickening," the point at which a woman could first feel movements of the fetus, typically around the fourth month of pregnancy.

Some of the early regulations related to abortion were enacted in the 1820s and 1830s and dealt with the sale of dangerous drugs that women used to induce abortions. Despite these regulations and the fact that the drugs sometimes proved fatal to women, they continued to be advertised and sold.

In the late 1850s, the newly established American Medical Association began calling for the criminalization of abortion, partly in an effort to eliminate doctors' competitors such as midwives and homeopaths.

Additionally, some nativists, alarmed by the country's growing population of immigrants, were anti-abortion because they feared declining birth rates among white, American-born, Protestant women.

In 1869, the Catholic Church banned abortion at any stage of pregnancy, while in 1873, Congress passed the Comstock law, which made it illegal to distribute contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs through the U.S. mail. By the 1880s, abortion was outlawed across most of the country.

During the 1960s, during the women's rights movement, court cases involving contraceptives laid the groundwork for Roe v. Wade.

In 1965, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a law banning the distribution of birth control to married couples, ruling that the law violated their implied right to privacy under the U.S. Constitution. And in 1972, the Supreme Court struck down a law prohibiting the distribution of contraceptives to unmarried adults.

Meanwhile, in 1970, Hawaii became the first state to legalize abortion, although the law only applied to the state's residents. That same year, New York legalized abortion, with no residency requirement. By the time of Roe v. Wade in 1973, abortion was also legally available in Alaska and Washington.

Jane Roe

In 1969, Norma McCorvey, a Texas woman in her early 20s, sought to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. McCorvey, who had grown up in difficult, impoverished circumstances, previously had given birth twice and given up both children for adoption. At the time of McCorvey's pregnancy in 1969 abortion was legal in Texas-but only for the purpose of saving a woman's life.

While American women with the financial means could obtain abortions by traveling to other countries where the procedure was safe and legal, or pay a large fee to a U.S. doctor willing to secretly perform an abortion, those options were out of reach to McCorvey and many other women.

As a result, some women resorted to illegal, dangerous, "back-alley" abortions or self-induced abortions. In the 1950s and 1960s, the estimated number of illegal abortions in the United States ranged from 200,000 to 1.2 million per year, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

After trying unsuccessfully to get an illegal abortion, McCorvey was referred to Texas attorneys Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington, who were interested in challenging anti-abortion laws.

In court documents, McCorvey became known as "Jane Roe."

Henry Wade

In 1970, the attorneys filed a lawsuit on behalf of McCorvey and all the other women "who were or might become pregnant and want to consider all options," against Henry Wade, the district attorney of Dallas County, where McCorvey lived.

Earlier, in 1964, Wade was in the national spotlight when he prosecuted Jack Ruby, who killed Lee Harvey Oswald, the alleged assassin of President John F. Kennedy.

Supreme Court Ruling

In June 1970, a Texas district court ruled that the state's abortion ban was illegal because it violated a constitutional right to privacy. Afterward, Wade declared he'd continue to prosecute doctors who performed abortions.

The case eventually was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Meanwhile, McCovey gave birth and put the child up for adoption.

On Jan 22, 1973, the Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision, struck down the Texas law banning abortion, effectively legalizing the procedure nationwide. In a majority opinion written by Justice Harry Blackmun, the court declared that a woman's right to an abortion was implicit in the right to privacy protected by the 14th Amendment.

The court divided pregnancy into three trimesters, and declared that the choice to end a pregnancy in the first trimester was solely up to the woman. In the second trimester, the government could regulate abortion, although not ban it, in order to protect the mother's health.

In the third trimester, the state could prohibit abortion to protect a fetus that could survive on its own outside the womb, except when a woman's health was in danger.

Legacy of Roe v. Wade

Norma McCorvey maintained a low profile following the court's decision, but in the 1980s she was active in the abortion rights movement.

However, in the mid-1990s, after becoming friends with the head of an anti-abortion group and converting to Catholicism, she turned into a vocal opponent of the procedure.

Since Roe v. Wade, many states imposed restrictions that weaken abortion rights, and Americans remain divided over support for a woman's right to choose an abortion.

In 1992, litigation against Pennsylvania's Abortion Control Act reached the Supreme Court in a case called Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey. The court upheld the central ruling in Roe v. Wade but allowed states to pass more abortion restrictions as long as they did not pose an "undue burden."

Roe v. Wade Overturned

In 2022, the nation's highest court deliberated on Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which regarded the constitutionality of a Mississippi law banning most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. Lower courts had ruled the law was unconstitutional under Roe v. Wade. Under Roe, states had been prohibited from banning abortions before around 23 weeks-when a fetus is considered able to survive outside a woman's womb.

In its decision, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of Mississippi's law-and overturned Roe after its nearly 50 years as precedent.

Sources

Abortion in American History. The Atlantic.
High Court Rules Abortion Legal in First 3 Months. The New York Times.
Norma McCorvey. The Washington Post.
Sarah Weddington. .
When Abortion Was a Crime, Leslie J. Reagan. University of California Press.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Roe v. Wade: Decision, Summary & Background

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Roe v. Wade was a landmark legal decision issued on January 22, 1973, in which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Texas statute banning abortion, effectively legalizing the procedure across the United States.

# data[].attributes.body
In Brown v. Board of Education, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that racial segregation in public schools violated the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. The 1954 decision declared that separate educational facilities for white and African American students were inherently unequal. This is similar to my interest group because it has something to do with black lives.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Brown v. Board of Education | Case, 1954, Definition, Decision, Facts, & Impact

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Brown v. Board of Education, case in which, on May 17, 1954, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously (9–0) that racial segregation in public schools was unconstitutional. It was one of the most important cases in the Court’s history, and it helped inspire the American civil rights movement of the late 1950s and ’60s.

# data[].attributes.body
Sweatt v. Painter was a supreme court case that challenged the "separate but equal" doctrine. It involved the right of Herman Sweatt, an African American, to attend Law School at the University of. Texas. University of Texas even created a separate law school for African Americans just to keep Sweatt out. The supreme court ruled that the Equal Protection Clause required that Sweatt be admitted to the university. This is because the court found "law school for negroes" grossly unequal to the University of Texas Law School. This case and decision is important because this case was influential in the landmark case of Brown v. Board of Education.

# data[].attributes.body
The Miranda vs Arizona was when the supreme court said that the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prevents prosecutors from using a person's statements made in response to interrogation in police custody as evidence at their trial unless they can show that the person was informed of the right to consult with an attorney before and during questioning, and of the right against self-incrimination before police questioning. After these police had to say to their victims there Miranda rights.

# data[].attributes.body
Richard and Mildred Loving got arrested and pleaded for being in a interracial marriage. They took their case to the Supreme Court. The supreme court overturned their conviction and made interracial marriage legal.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
0:00 / 4:02•Watch full video

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Loving v. Virginia Led to Legalized Interracial Marriage | History

# data[].attributes.body
During the fall of Enron, Arthur Andersen, Enron's accounting firm, instructed its employees to destroy documents relating to Enron after Andersen officials learned they would soon be investigated by the Securities and Exchange Commission. The U.S government alleged Arthur Andersen violated a Federal Statute. The Court found that the jury instructions did not properly portray the law Arthur Andersen was charged with breaking.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained

# data[].attributes.headline
O'Connor V. Donaldson - Gabrielle A. Hawkins 

# data[].attributes.subject
O'Connor V. Donaldson - Gabrielle A. Hawkins 

# data[].attributes.body
A supreme court decision that is important to my interest group was O'Connor V. Donaldson case. O'Connor V. Donaldson , 422 U.S. 563, was a landmark decision of the U.S Supreme Court in mental health law ruling that a state cannot constitutionally confine a non- dangerous individual who is capable of surviving in freedom by themselves or with the help of willing and responsible family members or friends.
This case decision is significant to American politics and democracy because although Donaldson's had a mental illness O'connor violated one of Donaldson's constitutional rights which was his right to freedom.it will not allow individual who has any kind of mental illness or mental health issues to be taken into a states custody when they are no harm to other individuals and fully capable of taking care of themselves or have someone who can take care of .themselves.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
O'Connor v  Donaldson (Landmark Court Decisions in America)💬🏛️✅

# data[].attributes.headline
Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt- Jerica Jackson

# data[].attributes.subject
Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt- Jerica Jackson

# data[].attributes.body
Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt ruled that Texas cannot place ridiculous restrictions on how abortion clinics deliver their services. The previous law that brought this case about was that abortion clinics/ providers were required to meet the same standards as ambulatory surgical centers and hospitals. For most clinics these requirements were too expensive and time consuming which caused the number of clinics in Texas to go from 42 to 19. This made Whole Woman's Health start a case against them to prevent even more restrictions from receiving the care that they are looking for.

# data[].attributes.headline
 Brown v. Best Home Health & Hospice, LLC

# data[].attributes.subject
 Brown v. Best Home Health & Hospice, LLC

# data[].attributes.body
The Supreme Court reversed the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction sought by Best Home Health & Hospice, LLC (Best Home) to prohibit three registered nurses from working from Best Home's competitors, holding that the district court abused its discretion by granting the preliminary injunction.

# data[].attributes.headline
Reese (Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson 2022) 

# data[].attributes.subject
Reese (Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson 2022) 

# data[].attributes.body
A major step in history when Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson has a 53-47 Senate confirmation vote. Judge Jackson becomes only the sixth woman and third black justice to ascend to the high. But most importantly, becoming the FIRST BLACK WOMEN to serve on the Supreme Court.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Senate confirms Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to Supreme Court

# data[].attributes.body
As far as the Supreme Court decision, which is important to my interest group from lesson four and why the case is significant to American politics. A Casey developed between Madison vs Alabama in the death penalty was issued based on if someone with dementia should be executed if he does not remember his crime. I believe this is significant to American politics and democracy because not only is this a situation that cannot be explained as far as if the defendant is lying or not. In the case Madison was convicted three times of killing a police officer and was sentenced to death. While he was on death row he suffered from 2 strokes and it caused impairment. To a certain extent I believe someone should have documentation of showing signs of dementia before he or she can be convicted. In this case this patient has had history as far as previous medical issues.

# data[].attributes.body
Gamble v. United States
Whether the Court should overrule the separate sovereigns exception to the Double Jeopardy. Gamble asked the U.S. District Court to dismiss his federal indictment on the ground that it violated his Fifth Amendment protection from Double Jeopardy. The District Court ruled that the dual-sovereignty exception to the Double Jeopardy Clause, which permits a second prosecution for the same offense by a different “sovereign” permitted the federal case to proceed.

# data[].attributes.headline
Donya Evans -Young (Roe vs bolton)(abortion women rights )

# data[].attributes.subject
Donya Evans -Young (Roe vs bolton)(abortion women rights )

# data[].attributes.body
The Supreme Court in the Roe vs Bolton case, the court ruled that "an abortion could not be limited by the state if abortion was sought for reasons of maternal health". my interest group from lesson four was about women rights and abortion.This case is significant to American politics because of all the history saying the government has been controlling women for years.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Doe v. Bolton (1973)

In the 1973 court case Doe v. Bolton, the US Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., ruled that a Georgia law regulating abortion was unconstitutional. The Georgia abortion law required women seeking abortions to get approval for the procedure from their personal physician, two consulting physicians, and from a committee at the admitting hospital. Furthermore, under the statutes, only women who had been raped, whose lives were in danger from the pregnancy, or who were carrying fetuses likely to be seriously, permanently malformed were permitted to receive abortions. The US Supreme Court ruled that the Georgia requirements violated the right to privacy implicit in the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution. Decided on the same day as the abortion case , Doe v. Bolton expanded women's access to abortion by striking down laws that restricted the reasons for which women could receive abortions.

In 1968, the state of Georgia added new three new subsections to Chapter 26, Section 12, of their criminal code, hereafter called the Georgia abortion law. The Georgia abortion law illegalized abortion except in specific circumstances. In cases where pregnant women's lives were in danger or where their health could be seriously, permanently damaged. The law permitted physicians to administer abortions. The law also permitted physicians to perform abortions if fetuses were likely to be born with a serious, permanent, and untreatable mental or physical defects. Lastly, the law permitted a physician to perform abortions if the women were pregnant as the result of being raped.

However, the Georgia abortion law required that further conditions be met for abortions to be legal. In each case, a woman seeking an abortion had to have Georgia residence. Next, the woman's physician had to consult with two other physicians and have them agree that the woman fit the special conditions described by the Georgia abortion law. Additionally, the physician had to perform the abortion in a hospital licensed by the Georgia State Board of Health and accredited by a medical organization called the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals. Then, the physician had to receive approval for the woman's case from a committee within that hospital responsible for approving or denying applications for abortions. The Georgia abortion law stipulated that hospitals were not required to create a committee, nor were they or their staff required to participate in abortions.

Even when those conditions were met, the Georgia abortion law included additional provisions restricting abortions. The law required women who claimed to have been raped to produce documentation of the rape as proof. Another provision allowed court attorneys or close relatives of fetuses to request that a court evaluate women's applications for abortions. Even if a pregnant woman's request for an abortion was approved by a physician and a hospital, a court attorney or close relative of the fetus could go to court to prevent or delay the procedure. A judge would have to review and approve the pregnant woman's application for abortion before she could receive it, to ensure she fit one of the three exceptions provided for by the law.

On 25 March 1970, Sandra Bensing applied for an abortion at a public hospital in Atlanta, Georgia. She was pregnant with her fourth child, though none of her children lived with her. Her first two children were in foster care because state authorities had determined that she was unable to care for them, and her third child had been adopted by another family. Bensing was separated from her husband and had spent time in a state psychiatric hospital. On 16 April 1970, the public hospital denied Bensing's application for an abortion because she did not fit into one of the three exceptions described by the Georgia abortion law. Her life was not in danger, she had not been raped, and the fetus did not seem to have any serious, permanent, and untreatable malformations. Bensing, after being denied at the public hospital, received an abortion at a private hospital, which was not subject to the same rules as the public hospital.

Although Bensing received an abortion at a private hospital, and was therefore no longer pregnant, she filed a case challenging the constitutionality of Georgia's abortion law. She filed the case against Arthur K. Bolton, the attorney general of Georgia, as well as Lewis R. Slaton, the district attorney of Fulton County, Georgia, and Herbert T. Jenkins, the chief of police in Atlanta. For the case, Bensing assumed the pseudonym of Mary Doe. Several others joined Doe's suit, including physicians, nurses, and social workers. The physicians claimed that the law restricted their rights to practice medicine by requiring them to seek the approval of other physicians and a hospital committee for abortion procedures. The nurses made a similar argument, as they assisted with abortions, while the social workers claimed the law restricted their rights to counsel women freely. Doe and those that joined her claimed that the law was unconstitutional and requested enforcement of it to stop.

The case Doe v. Bolton was first heard in the US District Court of the Northern District of Georgia in Atlanta by a three-judge panel. Judges Lewis Render Morgan, Sidney Oslin Smith, and Albert John Henderson heard and decided the case. Attorney Margie Pitts Hames argued for Doe and the physicians, nurses, and social workers who had joined her case. Hames made four major claims against the Georgia abortion law. First, she argued that the law was too vague in its requirements for physicians to determine whether giving an abortion in any particular case was legal or not. The law required physicians to use their best judgment to determine what was medically required without giving specifics beyond endangerment of the woman's health or serious malformations of the fetus. Hames claimed that the law's vagueness violated the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution, which requires the government to go through due process of law before infringing on people's rights. Hames claimed that because the law was so vague, physicians could be arrested for performing abortions that they judged to be legal under the law. It was unconstitutional to arrest someone for an act that the state had not clearly stated was illegal.

Second, Hames argued that the Georgia abortion law violated women's constitutional rights to decide to terminate pregnancies. Based again on the Fourteenth Amendment and on an earlier US Supreme Court case,Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), Hames claimed that women had rights to privacy concerning decisions of procreation and contraception and that the Georgia abortion law violated those rights. Hames's third claim against law was that it restricted the rights of physicians, nurses, and social workers to practice their professions. Finally, Hames argued that the law discriminated against poor and non-white women because it required that they go to specifically approved hospitals that were not available in every county in Georgia. That, she stated, violated the equal protections clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which prevents states from denying legal rights to specific subpopulations. In Doe v. Bolton, those legal rights were the rights to abortion.

After hearing Hames's arguments, the district court judges made their decision on 31 July 1970. In the decision of the court, the judges stated that all four groups, Doe and other pregnant women in her situation, physicians, nurses, and social workers, had standing in the case. That meant all four groups had a reason to protest the law in court. They also stated that Doe's case was justiciable, or appropriate to be decided in court, because the hospital that had denied her abortion application had been given power by the state to do so and therefore fell under the court's jurisdiction.

With the merits of the court case established, the judges gave their decision. They agreed that Griswold v. Connecticut established that constitutional rights to privacy encompassed rights of women to receive early stage abortions, or abortions before the end of the first trimester. However, the judges said, rights to abortions had to have limits. They referred to the potential for life that develops after a woman's egg is fertilized by a man's sperm. The state, they claimed, had an interest in protecting that potential for life and therefore limiting access to abortion procedures that would end that life.

With the assumption that women had rights to abortions and that states had an interest in regulating abortions, the judges evaluated the requirements of the Georgia abortion law. The judges noted that the Georgia law treated abortion as a medical issue. Therefore, the law charged physicians, as medical experts, to determine if an abortion was required or not. That meant, the judges continued, that physicians could consider any factor, emotional, economic, psychological, familial, or physical, when determining whether or not to provide a woman with an abortion. The judges then stated that because abortions were medical procedures, the state had rights to regulate the quality of abortions, as it did for other medical procedures. However, the judges said that if the state viewed abortions as a medical issue, then the state had no rights to limit the reasons for which women could receive abortions, as that was not a medical consideration. Thus, the judges ruled that the Georgia law's three provisions for legal abortions were unconstitutional. Women had a constitutional right to seek abortions even if their lives were not in danger, they had not been raped, and their fetus did not have any malformations. However, the judges continued, because the state had a duty to regulate the quality of abortions, the state could require licenses for abortion facilities, specific sanitation measures, and proper medical standards.

The district court judges decided that women could request abortions for any reason, so long as they had physician approval, but left in place the requirements that each physician intending to perform an abortion get the opinions of two consulting physicians and the approval of a hospital abortion committee. As a result of the district court's decision, the Georgia abortion law continued to be enforced in Georgia, but the reasons for which women could request abortions were expanded.

After the decision of the district court, Doe, Hames, and the other case participants appealed the case to the US Supreme Court to request further dismantling of the Georgia abortion law. The US Supreme Court justices agreed to take the case. At that time, the Supreme Court justices had agreed to hear another case regarding abortion, called . Because the two cases dealt with similar topics, the justices joined the cases together and made them companion cases. Companion cases are cases that deal with such similar legal issues that a court decides them at the same time and with similar reasoning. Though the Supreme Court ordinarily has nine justices, two justices retired before hearing the cases, so seven justices heard both Doe v. Bolton and Roe v. Wade. Those seven justices were Warren Burger, William Douglas, William Brennan, Potter Stewart, Bryon White, Thurgood Marshall, and Harry Blackmun. Burger served as Chief Justice.

On 13 December 1971, the justices heard oral arguments for Doe v. Bolton. Hames again argued for Doe and the others on her side. Hames focused her arguments on three of the Georgia abortion law's requirements. First, she argued against the requirement that a hospital abortion committee approve abortion requests. Then, she argued against accreditation of the hospitals by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals. Finally, she disputed the requirement that the woman requesting an abortion in Georgia be a resident of Georgia. She and Doe aimed to have the entirety of the law declared unconstitutional and unenforceable.

Hames started her oral argument by noting several inconsistencies with the state of Georgia's defense of the Georgia abortion law. Hames noted that the intent the Georgia law, as recognized by the district court, was to protect women's health by addressing potential issues with the medical procedure of abortion. But, according to Hames, the state of Georgia did not defend the law on the basis of protecting women's health but instead on the basis of protecting the life and alleged rights of the fetus. If the purpose of the law was to protect fetal life, Hames continued, then the law was inconsistent because it abandoned fetal life in three scenarios: if the fetus was a result of rape, if the fetus was malformed, or if the fetus threatened the life of the pregnant woman. Hames then noted several other positions of the state of Georgia that also showed their inconsistent stance on protecting fetal life.

After noting those inconsistencies, Hames moved on to argue in favor of legalizing abortions in order to protect women's health, as the Georgia law was intended to do. Hames claimed that laws criminalizing abortions had not stopped illegal abortions from taking place, and that it would be better to make abortions a legal part of healthcare and thus safer for women seeking them. The Georgia abortion law, she said, made the process of seeking and receiving an abortion cumbersome and time consuming. She said that abortions were safer when performed in the first trimester, presenting three times less risk than when performed after twelve weeks' gestation. Therefore, she said, the process would be better if it was less time-consuming. One way to do that would be to legalize abortions and dismantle the Georgia law.

Hames's final argument in front of the US Supreme Court was against the Georgia abortion law's requirement that hospital committees approve abortion requests. She argued that the hospital committees could not properly determine if abortions were right for women, because the women and their physicians were not permitted to present their cases to the committees. For example, some committees made their decisions based on women's medical charts, and those medical charts did not say if the women were financially able to support and raise healthy children, which she claimed was a reason why women may want to end a pregnancy. Hames further argued that the hospital committees infringed on physicians' rights to practice medicine, as the law required physicians to abide by other physicians' decisions about their patients.

After Hames argued for Doe, Dorothy T. Beasley began her arguments in favor of Bolton and the state of Georgia. Beasley opened with the question of what value should be placed on fetal life. She said that the state considered fetal lives to be valuable and thus deserving of protection. She claimed that the purpose of Georgia's law was to prevent fetal lives from being arbitrarily destroyed by pregnant women. She also claimed that the law was meant to protect women's health by making sure abortions were safe, and that physicians and hospital committees approved the abortions. Beasley stated that the law balanced the competing interests of pregnant women and their fetuses.

Beasley argued that women did not have constitutional rights to abortion. Instead, she claimed, women had rights to self-defense. The Georgia law permitted abortions in cases of rape or incest, she said, which were examples of women defending themselves after the fact. Also, Beasley said, the law enabled women to defend themselves against the circumstances of bearing and raising gravely, permanently malformed children. Finally, Beasley stated, the law enabled women to defend themselves if their health or lives were in danger. Given that the law protected women's rights to self-defense, Beasley claimed the law was constitutional.

Beasley concluded her arguments by stating that the Georgia abortion law did not hinder due process or equal protection, as Doe and Hames had claimed in the district court case. She added that the law protected physicians from potential wrongdoing by giving them a procedure to follow when seeking abortions for patients.

On 13 December 1971, Beasley and Hames both made their arguments in front of the seven US Supreme Court justices. However, justices William Rehnquist and Lewis Powell joined the US Supreme Court on 7 January 1972 and did not hear the opening arguments of Doe v. Bolton. Therefore, Hames and Beasley reargued the case.

On 11 October 1972, Hames and Beasley again made arguments for their respective sides. Hames focused her arguments on how the Georgia law unduly restricted women's access to abortions and physicians' rights to practice medicine. She claimed that forcing women to go to hospitals approved by the Joint Commission for Accreditation of Hospitals meant they had fewer hospitals to choose from, which unduly restricted access to abortions. She also claimed that requiring committees at hospitals to approve women's application for abortions was burdensome. Finally, she stated that requiring physicians to gain the approval of two other physicians unduly restricted physicians' rights to practice medicine.

Beasley focused her argument on the rights of fetuses. She claimed that Doe had to show that she had constitutional rights to abortion. Beasley stated that Doe had not shown that she possessed those rights. Therefore, Beasley claimed, Doe had done something wrong in terminating her pregnancy. Beasley asserted that the state had a duty to care for fetuses and that pregnancies should only be terminated in extreme instances. She based her claims on the Ninth Amendment to the US Constitution, which states that people retain all rights not discussed in the Constitution. She interpreted the people to include fetuses, and argued that any laws about abortions had to balance the rights of women and their fetuses.

The US Supreme Court made its decision on 22 January 1973, the same day it decided the companion case . In their decision of Roe v. Wade, the justices determined that abortion was a legal procedure in the US, based on women's rights to privacy established in the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution. The justices used that reasoning in Doe v. Bolton and added to it.

In the opinion of the Court, written by Harry Blackmun, the justices decided in favor of Doe in a seven to two decision. In his opinion, Blackmun agreed with several of the arguments made by Hames on behalf of Doe and the physicians, nurses, and social workers who joined her case. Blackmun addressed the requirement for hospital accreditation, agreeing with Hames that the requirement restricted access to abortions unduly. He stated that requiring hospitals to be approved by the Joint Commission for the Accreditation of Hospitals was not relevant to providing abortions, as no one had shown that those requirements made the abortion procedure any safer for women, which was the claimed intent of the law. Blackmun also responded to Hames's claim that Georgia's system discriminated against lower income people, as not all hospitals in Georgia had Joint Commission for the Accreditation of Hospitals approval. Because the justices had already struck down the accreditation requirement, Blackmun stated that there was no longer a cause for any discrimination.

Blackmun's opinion also agreed with Hames on other requirements of the Georgia abortion law, including that hospital abortion committees approve abortion requests and that women requesting abortions be residents of Georgia. Blackmun stated that the hospital abortion committees were redundant to physicians' opinions, and that they restricted women's rights to receive medical care from their chosen physicians and physicians' rights to provide medical care. Blackmun also struck down the requirement that each physician receive two more physicians' opinions, claiming that the best judgment of one physician was sufficient. In addition, Blackmun stated that the requirement that women be residents of Georgia was not constitutional. Blackmun cited the privileges and immunities clause of the US Constitution, which says that each state in the US cannot treat the citizens of other states any differently within its borders. Blackmun ruled that Georgia could not limit its medical care, including abortions, to the residents of Georgia only.

Though Blackmun largely agreed with Hames and decided in favor of Doe, he also included some caveats in his opinion. Blackmun stated that even though the decision legalized abortion, it did not give women unbounded rights to receive abortions. Blackmun disagreed with Hames's claim that Georgia had previously restricted abortions to save women's lives, but now emphasized fetuses' rights. He claimed that states had a compelling interest in protecting the lives and rights of fetuses and that a state's interest of protect fetuses lives should not be downgraded as Hames had suggested. Blackmun also disagreed with Hames and Doe's claim that the law was vague. Blackmun stated that the Georgia abortion law required physicians to act on their best clinical judgments, and that the law was not vague, but rather a directive that required physicians to consider all factors before providing women with abortions.

Blackmun authored the majority opinion in favor of Doe, with justices Brennan, Stewart, Marshall, and Powell joining, or agreeing, with Blackmun's opinion. Two other justices, Burger and Douglas, also agreed with the majority decision in favor of Doe, but wrote their own concurring opinions to address specific points they agreed or disagreed with. In his, Burger noted that Georgia's law violated the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution and reiterated that states were allowed to regulate abortions but must avoid uncertainty in those regulations because the consequences could be severe. Burger said that he did not view the requirement of two additional physicians' opinions as burdensome. He also mentioned that the US Supreme Court rejected the claim that the US Constitution requires that women be able to receive abortions on demand.

Douglas also wrote a concurring opinion. In it, he asserted that people in the US had control over developing and expressing their intellects, interests, tastes, and personality. They also had rights to make their own choices about marriage, divorce, procreation, contraception, and child rearing. However, he noted that some of those decisions could be regulated by the state if it had a compelling interest. The Georgia law, he said, conflicted with those freedoms, especially women's rights to decide to bear or not bear unwanted children. Douglas argued that states had an interest in protecting women's health, but could not limit the reasons for which women could receive abortions. He claimed that the state, therefore, must limit the performance of abortions to qualified physicians, which had little impact on women's privacy. But Georgia's abortion law, he said, outlawed nearly all procedures and was thus overbroad. Finally, Douglas concluded that states could not force women to share private medical details with physicians other than their own. Requiring that those details be shared with two other physicians, he claimed, violated the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution.

Justices White and Rehnquist both wrote dissenting opinions, disagreeing with the majority of the Court. In White's opinion, which Rehnquist joined, White asserted that without laws like Georgia's, women could get abortions for no discernable health-related reason. He claimed that such a policy would value the convenience of pregnant women over the lives of their fetuses. He denied that the US Constitution gave women those rights. He also claimed that the Court had used its power extravagantly in Doe v. Bolton, and he stated that he would reverse the district court's decision, retaining the full Georgia law.

Rehnquist, in addition to joining White's opinion, also wrote his own. In it, he referenced his dissent in the decision. In both and Doe v. Bolton, the majority of the Court decided that women's rights to abortion outweighed states' rights to regulate abortions. Rehnquist agreed that a complete ban on abortions would violate women's rights. However, he stated that the women's rights did not prevent states from regulating abortions in the first trimester.

Doe v. Bolton, along with , overturned many laws in the US that restricted women's access to abortion. It helped establish women's access to abortion as a legal right, insulated from states' regulation before the second trimester. The precedent established by the case was used in later court cases to protect women's access to abortion.

Sources

1. Atwell, Mary. "Doe v. Bolton (1973)". In The Encyclopedia of Civil Liberties in America, eds. David Schultz and John R. Vile, 283-4. London: Routledge, 2005.

2. Criminal Abortion. Georgia Criminal Code Sections 26-1201, 26-1202, 26-1203 (1968). Pages 1277-80. http://www.galileo.usg.edu/express?link=zlgl (Accessed June 29, 2017).

3. "Doe v. Bolton Oral Argument." Oyez. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1971/70-40 (Accessed September 25, 2016).

4. Doe v. Bolton, 319 F. Supp. 1048 (N.D. Ga. 1970). https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=doe+v+bolton&hl=en&as_sdt=806&case=15661234597130733812&scilh=0 (Accessed June 5, 2017).

5. Doe v. Bolton, 410 US 179 (1973). https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=doe+v+bolton&hl=en&as_sdt=806&case=11713857759343795310&scilh=0 (Accessed June 5, 2017).

6. Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution. (1868). https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv (Accessed June 5, 2017).

7. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 US 479 (1965). https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=Griswold+v.+Connecticut&hl=en&as_sdt=806&case=12276922145000050979&scilh=0 (Accessed June 5, 2017).

8. Ninth Amendment to the US Constitution. (1791). https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/ninth_amendment (Accessed June 5, 2017).

9. Roe v. Wade, 410 US 113 (1973). https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=roe+v+wade&hl=en&as_sdt=806&case=12334123945835207673&scilh=0 (Accessed June 5, 2017).

Abboud, Carolina J., "Doe v. Bolton (1973)". Embryo Project Encyclopedia (2017-11-29). ISSN: 1940-5030 http://embryo.asu.edu/handle/10776/13019.

Arizona State University. School of Life Sciences. Center for Biology and Society. Embryo Project Encyclopedia.

Copyright Arizona Board of Regents Licensed as Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0) http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/

Birth control clinics; Abortion; Family Planning Services; United States, Supreme Court; McCorvey, Norma, 1947-2017; Abortion--Law and legislation--United States; United States. Constitution. 14th Amendment; Bolton, Arthur K. (Arthur Key), 1922-; United States. District Court (Georgia : Northern District : Atlanta Division); Vagueness (Philosophy); Blackmun, Harry A. (Harry Andrew), 1908-1999; Burger, Warren E., 1907-1995; Douglas, William O. (William Orville), 1898-1980; Brennan, William J., 1906-1997; Marshall, Thurgood, 1956-; United States. Supreme Court; Law

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Doe v. Bolton (1973) | The Embryo Project Encyclopedia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Doe v. Bolton (1973) In the 1973 court case Doe v. Bolton, the US Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., ruled that a Georgia law regulating abortion was unconstitutional. The Georgia abortion law required women seeking abortions to get approval for the procedure from their personal

# data[].attributes.body
The Supreme Court is trying to Determine If Biden Administration can Terminate the “Remain In Mexico” Policy which the Trump Administration heavily enforced back In 2020. This Policy caused the number of Immigrants not being documented in the camps because Trump Admin. Would make the Migrants “wait outside the U.S” for their Asylum Hearing.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Supreme Court on Tuesday heard oral arguments in a case that could determine whether the Biden administration can terminate the so-called "Remain in Mexico" policy, a rule first implemented under former President Donald Trump that requires migrants arriving at the southern border to wait outside the U.S. for their asylum hearings.

At the center of the case, known as Biden v. Texas, is the decision last year by President Biden's appointees to suspend and ultimately end the policy, which the Trump administration utilized to require 70,000 Latin American migrants to wait outside the U.S. while their asylum requests were reviewed.

Formally known as the Migrant Protection Protocols, the Trump administration scaled back the rule at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, and Mr. Biden ordered it ended upon taking office. In August 2021, Republican officials in Texas convinced a federal judge to order U.S. border officials to reinstate the program.

In his ruling, which was later upheld by a federal appeals court, U.S. Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, a Trump appointee, said the administration did not adequately justify Remain in Mexico's termination and that the policy's end led officials to violate a 1996 law that requires the detention of certain migrants. The Biden administration has been implementing the policy since December, albeit in a limited fashion.

The justices on Tuesday expressed concern about whether Texas should be able to dictate federal policy involving foreign diplomacy and acknowledged that officials can't logistically detain all border-crossers. But the justices also questioned whether the administration has the authority to release large groups of migrants instead of detaining them or returning them to Mexico.

The Justice Department, which asked the Supreme Court to intervene in the case on an expedited basis, argued Tuesday that the executive branch has broad authority to rescind policies enacted by previous administrations, especially those that implicate foreign relations.

Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, who represented the administration, said the conclusions reached by the lower courts would mean that every U.S. administration has been violating the 1996 migrant detention law since only Trump implemented the Remain in Mexico policy, and not until early 2019.

Prelogar also noted it is logistically impossible to detain all migrants who reach the U.S.-Mexico border since Congress has only allocated funds for fewer than 40,000 immigration detention beds.

"The secretary should finally be allowed to put his policy decision into effect," Prelogar told the justices, referring to Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas' decision to end Remain in Mexico in June 2021.

Chief Justice John Roberts told Prelogar he was "sympathetic" toward the position that the government can't detain all border-crossers. But he questioned whether releasing large groups of migrants complies with federal law.

"You're in a position where the facts have sort of overtaken the law," Roberts said. "But in that situation, what are we supposed to do? It's still our job to say what the law is."

Texas' Solicitor General Judd Stone, however, argued that federal law generally requires U.S. border officials to either detain or return migrants to Mexico. If the U.S. cannot detain migrants because of capacity limits, he argued, it should be returning them to Mexico so they can wait there for the duration of their asylum cases.

Judd acknowledged the government's inability to detain all migrants, but said Remain in Mexico's enforcement ensures there are "fewer" violations of the 1996 detention law at the center of the case. He said the policy mitigates concerns about detention limits because it deters migrants from crossing the border and in turn, leads to fewer migrants entering U.S. custody.

The specific questions the Supreme Court considered are whether it should overturn the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals' conclusion that officials need to enforce Remain in Mexico to comply with the 1996 migrant detention law, and whether the appeals court should have considered the Biden administration's second attempt to end the policy. The high court could issue a ruling this summer.

In its ruling in December upholding the original order against Remain in Mexico's termination, the 5th Circuit rejected the argument that a second termination memo by Mayorkas remedied the alleged legal defects of his first termination memo.

"DHS claims the power to implement a massive policy reversal - affecting billions of dollars and countless people - simply by typing out a new Word document and posting it on the internet," the court said in its scathing opinion.

Since reinstating the rule in December, the Biden administration has enrolled 3,012 migrants in the Remain in Mexico program, most of them asylum-seekers from Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela, DHS data show. During that period, U.S. officials along the southern border have processed migrants over 700,000 times.

While Mr. Biden has sought to end the Remain in Mexico rules, his administration kept another Trump-era border policy, known as Title 42, that has allowed U.S. officials to swiftly expel migrants without screening them for asylum due to the pandemic. Title 42 is set to expire in late May.

The Trump administration's implementation of Remain in Mexico elicited strong criticism from advocates for migrants, who said the rule left asylum-seekers at the mercy of criminal groups in dangerous Mexican border towns. Human Rights First, a U.S. group, reported hundreds of cases of migrants being kidnapped, assaulted or otherwise harmed after their return to Mexico.

Advocates also said the program trampled on the due process of asylum-seekers. Fewer than 800 migrants enrolled in the Remain in Mexico protocols were granted U.S. refuge, while tens of thousands lost their cases or were ordered deported for missing court dates, an analysis of government data by Syracuse University's TRAC project shows.

But Trump administration officials said the program effectively reduced border arrivals by preventing migrants fleeing economic hardship from using the asylum system to live and work in the U.S. indefinitely.

The Biden administration made significant changes to its iteration of the Remain in Mexico program, including by requiring U.S. border officials to ask migrants whether they fear being harmed in Mexico before sending them there.

The administration has also offered COVID-19 vaccines to prospective enrollees and expanded the categories of asylum-seekers deemed to be too vulnerable to be returned to Mexico, including the elderly, those with medical conditions and members of the LGBTQ community.
More

Camilo Montoya-Galvez

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Supreme Court hears case over ending "Remain in Mexico" rule for asylum-seekers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Supreme Court on Tuesday heard oral arguments in a case that could determine whether the Biden administration can terminate the so-called "Remain in Mexico" policy, a rule first implemented under former President Donald Trump that requires migrants arriving at the southern border to wait outside the U.S. for their asylum hearings.

# data[].attributes.body
Gideon V wainwright  was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case where the  Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution requires U.S. states to provide attorneys to criminal defendants who are unable to afford their own. This is important regarding American politics and democracy because because every one deserves to have some type of counsel even if they can't afford it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Facts:

Clarence Earl Gideon was an unlikely hero. He was a man with an eighth-grade education who ran away from home when he was in middle school. He spent much of his early adult life as a drifter, spending time in and out of prisons for nonviolent crimes.

Gideon was charged with breaking and entering with the intent to commit a misdemeanor, which is a felony under Florida law. At trial, Gideon appeared in court without an attorney. In open court, he asked the judge to appoint counsel for him because he could not afford an attorney. The trial judge denied Gideon's request because Florida law only permitted appointment of counsel for poor defendants charged with capital offenses.

At trial, Gideon represented himself - he made an opening statement to the jury, cross-examined the prosecution's witnesses, presented witnesses in his own defense, declined to testify himself, and made arguments emphasizing his innocence. Despite his efforts, the jury found Gideon guilty and he was sentenced to five years imprisonment.

Gideon sought relief from his conviction by filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Florida Supreme Court. In his petition, Gideon challenged his conviction and sentence on the ground that the trial judge's refusal to appoint counsel violated Gideon's constitutional rights. The Florida Supreme Court denied Gideon's petition.

Gideon next filed a handwritten petition in the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court agreed to hear the case to resolve the question of whether the right to counsel guaranteed under the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution applies to defendants in state court.

Procedure:

Lower Courts: Bay County Circuit Court, Fourteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida
Lower Court Ruling: The trial judge denied Gideon's request for a court-appointed attorney because, under Florida law, counsel could only be appointed for a poor defendant charged with a capital offense. The Florida Supreme Court agreed with the trial court and denied all relief.

Issue:

A prior decision of the Court's, Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455 (1942), held that the refusal to appoint counsel for an indigent defendant charged with a felony in state court did not necessarily violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court granted Gideon's petition for a writ of certiorari - that is, agreed to hear Gideon's case and review the decision of the lower court - in order to determine whether Betts should be reconsidered.

Ruling:

Reversed and remanded. In its opinion, the Court unanimously overruled Betts v. Brady.

Argued: January 15, 1963

Decided: March 18, 1963

Unanimous Decision: Justice Black (who dissented in Betts) wrote the opinion of the court. Justices Douglas, Clark, and Harlan each wrote concurring opinions.

Reasoning:

The Court held that the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of counsel is a fundamental right essential to a fair trial and, as such, applies the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In overturning Betts, Justice Black stated that "reason and reflection require us to recognize that in our adversary system of criminal justice, any person haled into court, who is too poor to hire a lawyer, cannot be assured a fair trial unless counsel is provided for him." He further wrote that the "noble ideal" of "fair trials before impartial tribunals in which ever defendant stands equal before the law . . . cannot be realized if the poor man charged with crime has to face his accusers without a lawyer to assist him."

DISCLAIMER: These resources are created by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts for educational purposes only. They may not reflect the current state of the law, and are not intended to provide legal advice, guidance on litigation, or commentary on any pending case or legislation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Facts and Case Summary - Gideon v. Wainwright

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Facts: Clarence Earl Gideon was an unlikely hero. He was a man with an eighth-grade education who ran away from home when he was in middle school. He spent much of his early adult life as a drifter, spending time in and out of prisons for nonviolent crimes.