Wisconsin Supreme Court's liberal majority strikes down 176-year-old abortion ban
Wisconsin Supreme Court
's
liberal majority
struck down the state's 176-year-old
abortion ban
on Wednesday, ruling 4-3 that it was superseded by a newer state law that criminalizes abortions only after a fetus can survive outside the womb.
State lawmakers adopted the ban in 1849, making it a felony when anyone other than the mother "intentionally destroys the life of an unborn child."
It was in effect until 1973, when the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark
Roe v. Wade
decision legalizing abortion nationwide nullified it. Legislators never officially repealed the ban, however, and conservatives argued that the U.S. Supreme Court's 2022 decision to overturn Roe reactivated it.
Wisconsin Attorney General
Josh Kaul
, a Democrat, filed a lawsuit that year arguing that the ban was trumped by abortion restrictions legislators enacted during the nearly half-century that Roe was in effect. Kaul specifically cited a 1985 law that essentially permits abortions until viability. Some babies can survive with medical help after 21 weeks of gestation.
Sheboygan County District Attorney Joel Urmanski, a Republican, defended the ban in court, arguing that the 1849 ban could coexist with the newer abortion restrictions, just as different penalties for the same crime coexist.
Live Events
Dane County Circuit Judge Diane Schlipper ruled in 2023 that the 1849 ban outlaws feticide - which she defined as the killing of a fetus without the mother's consent - but not consensual abortions. Abortions have been available in the state since that ruling but the state Supreme Court decision gives providers and patients more certainty that abortions will remain legal in Wisconsin.
Urmanski asked the state Supreme Court to overturn Schlipper's ruling without waiting for a decision from a lower appellate court. It was expected as soon as the justices took the case that they would overturn the ban. Liberals hold a 4-3 majority on the court and one of them, Janet Protasiewicz, openly stated on the campaign trail that she supports
abortion rights
.
Democratic-backed Susan Crawford defeated conservative Brad Schimel for an open seat on the court in April, ensuring liberals will maintain their 4-3 edge until at least 2028. Crawford has not been sworn in yet and was not part of Wednesday's ruling. She'll play pivotal role, though, in a separate
Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin
lawsuit challenging the 1849 ban's constitutionality. The high court decided last year to take that case. It's still pending.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
36 minutes ago
- First Post
'Encouraging': Musk mocks Trump as approval rating falls to all-time low
As US President Donald Trump's approval rating has fallen to an all-time low, Elon Musk has called it an 'encouraging' sign. He previously threatened to launch a new political party to remove all those from office who supported the 'One Big Beautiful Bill'. read more US President Donald Trump talks to the media, next to Tesla CEO Elon Musk with his son X Æ A-12, at the White House in Washington, DC, US, March 11, 2025. (Photo: Reuters) Amid their ongoing feud, billionaire Elon Musk has welcomed the declining approval rating of US President Donald Trump. Trump's approval rating has fallen to an all-time low of 40 per cent. Musk said in a post on X that the fall was 'encouraging'. The remark comes at a time when Musk and Trump have sparred again over the 'One Big Beautiful Bill'. As Musk has continued to condemn the bill over trillions of dollars that it would add to the federal deficit, Trump has threatened to deport Musk — who emerged as his principal political partner last year until their public fallout last month. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD As his immigration policies have triggered mass protests and trade policies have slowed economic growth forecasts, Trump's approval among Americans fell to 40 per cent in June from 44 per cent in March, according to a Yahoo News/YouGov survey conducted on June 26-30. More Americans now disapprove than approve Trump's immigration agenda — his strongest area. From 44 per cent disapproval in March, Trump's disapproval rating on immigration rose to 46 per cent in April, 48 per cent in May, and 52 per cent in June — with just 44 per cent Americans approving it. While Musk has occasionally continued to praise Trump, he has completely turned against him on economy and trade. He said that all those supporting the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' 'should hang their head in shame'. He said he would launch a new political party to take on the Republicans if the bill would pass. 'If this insane spending bill passes, the America Party will be formed the next day. Our country needs an alternative to the Democrat-Republican uniparty so that the people actually have a voice,' said Musk in a post on X. In response, Trump threatened to deport Musk and cut his government subsidies. When asked by a reported whether he would deport Musk, Trump replied, 'We'll have to take a look.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Trump further said, 'We might have to put Doge on Elon. You know what Doge is? The monster that might have to go back and eat Elon. Wouldn't that be terrible? He gets a lot of subsidies.'
Mint
an hour ago
- Mint
US House prepares final vote on Donald Trump's tax and spending bill; Jeffries warns of Medicaid cuts
US House lawmakers are poised to take a final vote on President Donald Trump's tax and spending bill as early as Thursday morning (July 3). Republican leaders and Trump himself worked through the night, personally calling skeptical lawmakers to break the internal deadlock. House Speaker Mike Johnson expressed confidence after marathon talks: 'There couldn't be a more engaged and involved president,' Johnson said. 'We had a long, productive day discussing the issues.' In a 219-213 vote around 3:30 a.m. ET, the House cleared the final procedural step needed to begin debate. The chamber, controlled 220-212 by Republicans, can afford no more than three defections. House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries seized the floor in an hours-long address. Using the so-called 'magic minute,' which allows leaders unlimited speaking time, he condemned the legislation in blistering terms: 'This one big, ugly bill—this reckless Republican budget—this disgusting abomination is not about improving the quality of life of the American people,' Jeffries declared. He accused Republicans of gutting health care and social programs to enrich the wealthiest Americans: 'The focus of this bill…is to provide massive tax breaks for billionaires.' Jeffries began shortly before 5 a.m. ET, reading letters from Americans fearful of losing Medicaid and recounting historical struggles over economic inequality: 'I'm going to take my time,' he said, as colleagues listened in the chamber. 'This is a giveaway to billionaires and a gut punch to working families,' Jeffries said as he continued his speech. Once Jeffries yields the floor, Republicans are expected to proceed quickly to a final vote—capping weeks of turmoil and marking a defining test of unity for the GOP majority. At nearly 887 pages, the bill not only extends Trump's 2017 tax cuts but rolls back policies from the last two Democratic administrations. Cuts to Medicaid and food assistance Elimination of many solar and clean-energy tax credits New funding for immigration enforcement A $5 trillion debt ceiling increase to prevent default The Congressional Budget Office issued a stark review on Sunday, estimating the bill would add $3.3 trillion to the federal debt by 2034—nearly $1 trillion more than previous drafts. 11.8 million Americans would lose health insurance by 2034 The national debt would grow to over $39 trillion within a decade Earlier this week, the Senate narrowly passed the measure after intense debate over the bill's $900 million cut to Medicaid. If the House makes any changes, the Senate would have to vote again, likely pushing approval past Trump's July 4 deadline. Despite the hurdles, Republican leaders insist the package is essential to keeping the government solvent and advancing Trump's second-term agenda. Extends Trump's 2017 tax cuts Cuts Medicaid and food assistance Ends solar energy tax credits Boosts funding for immigration enforcement Raises debt ceiling by $5 trillion Does not eliminate taxes on Social Security benefits, despite Trump's claims
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
India's legal system avoids sweeping lower court injunctions recently curtailed by US Supreme Court
Written by Swapnil Tripathi President Donald Trump's second term has seen a surge in executive orders, including the withdrawal of diversity and inclusion mandates and a recent order seeking to deny birthright citizenship to children born in the United States to undocumented immigrants or temporary visa holders. To date, he has signed 164 executive orders. Several of these orders have been subject to legal challenge, with federal district courts granting interim relief in the form of nationwide stays on their implementation. Last week, the US Supreme Court ruled on this practice in Trump vs CASA, holding that lower federal courts cannot grant universal stays prohibiting the enforcement of executive orders and must confine relief to the parties before them. This development raises an important question: Could a district court in India exercise similar powers? The US Constitution establishes a federal structure where powers are divided between the federal and state governments, each with its own constitution, legislature, executive, and judiciary. Disputes arising from federal executive action or legislation are adjudicated in the federal courts. These courts follow a three-tier hierarchy: District courts, courts of appeals, and the US Supreme Court. District courts, at the base of this structure, have the authority to review executive actions for their conformity with the Constitution and federal law. They can grant interim injunctions, including nationwide stays, and may ultimately strike down the action as unconstitutional. In contrast, India's constitutional architecture provides for a single, unified judiciary. While India adopts a quasi-federal model with a division of powers between the Union and the states, the judiciary remains integrated. It comprises district courts, high courts, and the Supreme Court, functioning within a hierarchical framework. Unlike their American counterparts, Indian district courts are confined to civil and criminal matters under statutory law and lack the authority to entertain constitutional challenges to executive action or legislation. This power lies exclusively with the Supreme Court and the high courts. Under Articles 32 and 226, respectively, both courts can directly hear petitions for the enforcement of fundamental rights and issue writs or interim orders, including staying or striking down executive and legislative action. Although high courts have fixed territorial jurisdiction, they can entertain challenges to the central government's actions if the cause of action arises within their territory. This ensures that litigants need not approach the Supreme Court in the first instance for relief against Union's action. Since the adoption of the Constitution, high courts have often acted as first responders in constitutional litigation. Within the first year itself, laws abolishing the zamindari system were challenged before multiple High Courts, with the Patna High Court striking down the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. Similarly, in Tara Singh vs State, the Punjab High Court struck down Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code — the erstwhile sedition provision — as violative of the right to freedom of speech. The importance of empowering both the high courts and the Supreme Court to review executive action became particularly evident during the Emergency (1975–77). When the President suspended the right to approach courts for enforcing key fundamental rights, including the right to life, thousands were detained. Despite this suspension, nine high courts entertained habeas corpus petitions and held them maintainable where detention orders were contrary to law or vitiated by mala fides. Although these decisions were later overruled by the Supreme Court in the infamous ADM Jabalpur case, the episode highlights the value of concurrent constitutional forums. The availability of multiple judicial avenues meant that, even when the Supreme Court ruled against the detainees, the high courts had, at least for a time, provided a measure of protection. This capacity for different forums to reach different conclusions highlights why constitutional powers were vested in both levels: To ensure multiple judicial voices and, in moments of institutional failure, offer alternative avenues for relief. Unlike their American counterparts, Indian courts are generally reluctant to stay the operation of legislation or executive action. In Bhavesh Parish vs Union of India (2000), the Supreme Court held that courts must exercise judicial restraint and intervene only where the provisions are 'manifestly unjust or glaringly unconstitutional'. This high threshold reflects the presumption in favour of the constitutionality of legislation. Among recent challenges, the Court has declined to stay the operation of the Citizenship Amendment Act and its rules, the law governing the appointment of Election Commissioners, and the Waqf (Amendment) Act. However, this institutional design creates the possibility of conflicting decisions across high courts. It is common for a central government action to be challenged simultaneously before multiple High Courts, resulting in inconsistent rulings — one court staying or striking down the action, while another upholds it. A contemporary example is the challenge to the Information Technology Rules, 2021, governing online intermediaries, where some courts granted stay orders while others declined to do so. In such situations, parties often approach the Supreme Court, which typically adopts one of two approaches: First, transferring all proceedings to a single high court to ensure uniformity, as it did in the challenges to the IT Rules by designating the Delhi High Court as the exclusive forum; or second, transferring the proceedings to itself, as seen in the petitions seeking legal recognition for same-sex marriage. India's system, by design, avoids the kind of sweeping trial-court-level injunctions recently curtailed by the US Supreme Court. By reserving these powers to the constitutional courts, it maintains a clear appellate structure and prevents conflicting orders from subordinate forums. At the same time, by empowering both the high courts and the Supreme Court, it preserves multiple avenues for citizens to challenge government action, even if that occasionally results in divergent rulings across high courts. The writer is a lawyer currently pursuing a DPhil in law at the University of Oxford
