Latest news with #NeilGorsuch
Bloomberg
an hour ago
- Politics
- Bloomberg
Supreme Court Ruling Could Unleash Trump Agenda
When Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky used contradictory justifications to give Donald Trump two of his three Supreme Court picks in his first term, Democrats warned that the Kentucky Republican's unapologetic violation of Senate norms would have tectonic consequences. On Friday, in the high court's usual end-of-term reveal, one of those consequences arrived. The court's six-member GOP-appointed supermajority curtailed one of the few powers federal judges have to restrain Trump's effort to consolidate power in a fashion unseen in the nation's 249-year history. Trump's picks, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, joined fellow Republican-appointees in ruling that lower courts in most cases can no longer issue nationwide injunctions, even when—as in the case of Trump's attempt to deprive some babies born on American soil of citizenship—they are intended to halt facially unconstitutional measures.
Wall Street Journal
5 hours ago
- Health
- Wall Street Journal
Ejecting Planned Parenthood From Medicaid
South Carolina's effort to stop its Medicaid program from funding Planned Parenthood has been tied up in the courts for years, but on Thursday the Supreme Court gave the state a big win. In a 6-3 ruling, the Justices said the federal Medicaid law doesn't create an 'enforceable right' that Planned Parenthood or its patients can sue to vindicate. The Medicaid statute says states must let recipients get care from any 'qualified' provider, though it doesn't define that term. South Carolina's Governor issued an order in 2018 to deem abortion providers unqualified. 'The payment of taxpayer funds to abortion clinics, for any purpose, results in the subsidy of abortion and the denial of the right to life,' he said. Planned Parenthood sued, along with one of its Medicaid patients, Julie Edwards, who was seeking birth control and routine services. But as Justice Neil Gorsuch writes for the Court's six conservatives in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, Congress can put conditions on federal funding, such as for Medicaid, without creating any 'right' for private citizens to enforce those terms in court. 'Though it is rare enough for any statute to confer an enforceable right, spending-power statutes like Medicaid are especially unlikely to do so,' Justice Gorsuch says. He surveys the history and finds that 'early courts described federal grants not as commands but as contracts.' If Congress wants to create an enforceable right, it must do so unambiguously.
CBS News
8 hours ago
- Politics
- CBS News
Supreme Court upholds FCC fund to expand phone and internet access
Washington — The Supreme Court on Friday upheld the Federal Communications Commission's multi-billion-dollar mechanism for expanding phone and internet access to rural and low-income communities. The high court ruled that neither Congress nor the FCC violated the Constitution with its chosen scheme for administering the Universal Service Fund, which is supported by contributions from communications carriers and funds programs designed to improve access to telecommunications services. Justice Elena Kagan authored the majority opinion for the 6-3 court, with Justices Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito in dissent. This is a breaking news story and will be updated.
Yahoo
14 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Jackson's dissent isn't heroic. It exposes big problem with Supreme Court.
As the Supreme Court term reaches its end, the decisions tend to become more divisive. It's a phenomenon that many court watchers suspect is a sort of burying the often unpopular lead, but the reality is that the court's nonunanimous decisions take more time to draft while the majority opinion sorts out its take and the dissent levies its rebuttals. Naturally, the more divisive cases tend to mean that tensions reveal themselves more, and the justices are more likely to take shots at each other in their majority opinions and dissents. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and Justice Neil Gorsuch took some fierce swings at each other in Stanley v. City of Sanford concerning a retired firefighter who wants to sue her former employer. Cast in much of the media coverage as a "declaration of independence" or being "done playing nice," Jackson's jabs cast her as a hero. But the spat between her and Gorsuch reveals a deep divide in how they look at the role of the Supreme Court – one that's not necessarily a good thing for America. Opinion: Do you think the Supreme Court is partisan? Well you're wrong. The heated debate between Jackson and Gorsuch stemmed from a rather technical case concerning whether a retired firefighter could, under the Americans with Disabilities Act, sue her former employer for terminating her health insurance. Gorsuch's majority opinion went out of its way to address the dissent from Jackson: "Finding 'pure textualism' insufficiently pliable to secure the result they seek, they invoke the statute's 'primary purpose' and 'legislative history.' " In layman's terms, Gorsuch accused the court's most junior justice, Jackson, of ignoring the text of the statute to manufacture a decision that aligned with her desired outcome of the case – a serious charge to be levied between members of the court. 'It is imperative that we interpret statutes consistent with all relevant indicia of what Congress wanted, as best we can ascertain its intent,' Jackson wrote in her dissent. 'By 'finding' answers in ambiguous text, and not bothering to consider whether those answers align with other sources of statutory meaning, pure textualists can easily disguise their own preferences as 'textual' inevitabilities.' Jackson's response more or less turns Gorsuch's charge back on him (much like a younger sibling saying 'nuh uh'). She accused the majority of disguising their policy preferences through a strict reading of the text, ignoring outside context that does not fit their narrative. Jackson dedicated a rather long footnote to levy her criticisms of Gorsuch. Still, her complaints couldn't even muster Justice Sonia Sotomayor's approval, who signed on to large chunks of Jackson's dissent but excluded herself from the contentious footnote. The text is made all the more ridiculous considering Justice Elena Kagan, one of Jackson's frequent liberal allies, sided with the six conservatives in this case. What Jackson fails to understand is that if the Supreme Court does interpret the text of a statute to be more narrow than Congress intended, the lawmakers can follow up and clarify what they meant with new legislation. Opinion: Supreme Court takes on birthright citizenship – but that's not the real case Judges should not be expected to do the legwork of deciphering what Congress meant at every turn. Due to the significant ambiguity there is in deciphering the intent of the entire legislative branch, doing so is inevitably going to result in accusations of legislating from the bench. Judges should stick to the text of statutes whenever possible, and if their determination of what the text means is out of step with what Congress intended, then Congress can pass legislation correcting the original language of a statute. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. Legislation is not frozen in time. Congress has the ability to clarify the meanings of old statutes that are somehow ambiguous. Often, they simply lack the will. However, this doesn't mean that the judicial branch needs to take on more of its responsibilities. We've already seen the failures of that line of thinking with regard to universal injunctions blocking executive action. Jackson's gripes with her colleagues are misplaced; they should be levied against Congress for its production of ambiguous statutes and refusal to clarify their meaning. Congress' laziness, or maybe apathy toward meaningful legislation, cannot be solved through judges usurping the lawmaking abilities. Doing so will only exacerbate the problem, with Congress refusing to step in as the judicial branch corrects its mistakes. In this case, Gorsuch got it right, and an ideologically diverse coalition of justices agreed with him. Jackson is the one out of step. Dace Potas is an opinion columnist for USA TODAY and a graduate of DePaul University with a degree in political science. You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: SCOTUS term ends as infighting between justices ramps up | Opinion
The Hill
a day ago
- Health
- The Hill
SCOTUS delivers gut punch to Planned Parenthood
The Big Story In a ruling made along ideological lines, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that Medicaid beneficiaries don't have the right to sue to obtain care from a provider of their choice, paving the way for South Carolina to block Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid funds. © AP The law says 'any individual' insured through Medicaid 'may obtain' care from any qualified and willing provider. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the majority that Medicaid recipients do not have the right to sue to enforce that provision. Medicaid is prohibited from paying for almost all abortions, but states want to cut government funding for other services Planned Parenthood provides. The suit, supported by the Trump administration, was brought by South Carolina. South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster (R) praised the ruling Thursday, saying, 'Seven years ago, we took a stand to protect the sanctity of life and defend South Carolina's authority and values — and today, we are finally victorious.' The ruling has implications for other states, at a time when red states across the country are looking for ways to deprive Planned Parenthood of funding. Nationally, the Trump administration is withholding federal family planning grants from nine Planned Parenthood affiliates. Texas, Arkansas and Missouri already block Planned Parenthood from seeing Medicaid patients, and the organization has said it expected many other Republican-led states to do the same if the Supreme Court sided with South Carolina. 'Today, the Supreme Court once again sided with politicians who believe they know better than you, who want to block you from seeing your trusted health care provider and making your own health care decisions,' Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said in a statement. 'And the consequences are not theoretical in South Carolina or other states with hostile legislatures. Patients need access to birth control, cancer screenings, STI testing and treatment, and more.' Roughly 72 million low-income Americans receive health insurance through Medicaid, according to the most recent enrollment numbers. And more than 1.3 million South Carolinians — or 20 percent of the state — are enrolled in the program, according to the health policy nonprofit KFF. 'As extremists in every branch of our government are targeting Planned Parenthood and attempting to strip millions of Americans of the care their health centers provide, this is nothing more than a politically-motivated green light to anti-abortion politicians,' Reproductive Freedom Caucus co-chairs Reps. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) and Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) said in a statement. Welcome to The Hill's Health Care newsletter, we're Nathaniel Weixel, Joseph Choi and Alejandra O'Connell-Domenech — every week we follow the latest moves on how Washington impacts your health. Did someone forward you this newsletter? Subscribe here. Essential Reads How policy will be impacting the health care sector this week and beyond: How Medicaid ruling could blow up Senate GOP's plans on Trump 'big, beautiful bill' Senate Republicans were dealt a significant blow Thursday when Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough advised that major pieces of the GOP megabill's Medicaid policy can't pass with a simple majority. Much of the savings in the bill come from Medicaid cuts, and the ruling impacts several of the largest and most controversial ones, including a plan to slash states' use of health care provider taxes as well as several … Reproductive rights groups fear SCOTUS ruling will inspire anti-abortion politicians Reproductive rights advocates are reeling from Thursday's Supreme Court ruling in favor of South Carolina in a legal case to block Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood, which they fear will give other states the green light to do the same. 'Today's decision is a grave injustice that strikes at the very bedrock of American freedom and promises to send South Carolina deeper into a health care crises,' said Paige Johnson, … Vaccine panel backs RFK Jr. in opposing thimerosal, a flu shot preservative The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), recently remade by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., voted Thursday in favor of only recommending flu shots that don't contain the mercury-based preservative thimerosal. The ACIP, which provides guidance to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), voted on four draft recommendations, three of which had to do with recommending … In Other News Branch out with a different read from The Hill: Senate referee rejects key Medicaid cuts in Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough has rejected key Medicaid provisions in the Senate GOP megabill, a ruling that appears to strike a major blow to Republicans' strategy for cutting federal spending. The Senate's referee rejected a plan to cap states' use of health care provider taxes to collect more federal Medicaid funding, a proposal that would have generated hundreds of billions of dollars in savings … Around the Nation Local and state headlines on health care: What We're Reading Health news we've flagged from other outlets: What Others are Reading Most read stories on The Hill right now: Hegseth slams Fox reporter at press conference: 'You've been about the worst' Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth attacked Jennifer Griffin, his former colleague at Fox News and a longtime member of the Pentagon press corps, amid … Read more GOP senator calls for Senate parliamentarian to be fired after ruling against Medicaid cuts Alabama Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R) on Thursday called for Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) to fire Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough 'ASAP,' … Read more What People Think Opinions related to health submitted to The Hill: Thank you for signing up! Subscribe to more newsletters here
