WSJ reporter faces up to 20 years in prison if convicted of spying charges US says are politically motivated

A Russian court has begun a closed-door trial of the Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich on spying charges that he, his employer and the US government have all described as politically motivated.

Gershkovich appeared in a courtroom in Ekaterinburg on Wednesday, his head shaven by prison authorities, after being transferred from the Moscow jail where has been held since March 2023.

Continue reading...

💾

© Photograph: Evgenia Novozhenina/Reuters

💾

© Photograph: Evgenia Novozhenina/Reuters

After years in ferocious pursuit, the US has finally agreed to a plea deal with the WikiLeaks founder. But there are fears it may set a dangerous precedent. Julian Borger reports

For more than a decade Julian Assange has been hidden away – for seven years he was confined to the Ecuadorian embassy in London, refusing to come out in case he was arrested – until he was finally removed and detained in Belmarsh prison. In a small cell for 23 hours a day he faced charges that, had he been extradited and convicted, would carry a sentence of up to 170 years in a US prison. But now finally, and suddenly, he is being freed.

A plea deal with the US Justice department has reduced his 18 charges to one – carrying a sentence of five years. And the time he has spent in jail allows him to be freed by the court immediately. Finally, he can see his family in his home country of Australia.

Continue reading...

💾

© Photograph: WIKILEAKS/AFP/Getty Images

💾

© Photograph: WIKILEAKS/AFP/Getty Images

Stella Assange says she has not yet told the couple’s two young sons about their father’s release from prison

Julian’s Assange’s wife has told of her elation that the WikiLeaks founder has been released from Belmarsh prison in London and will soon be a “free man” under a deal in which he will plead guilty to violating US espionage law.

Speaking from Australia, where she flew on Sunday to prepare her family’s new life, Stella Assange, a human rights lawyer, said she had not told the couple’s two young sons, Gabriel and Max, about their father’s release after five years in jail for fear of the information leaking.

Continue reading...

💾

© Photograph: Anadolu/Getty Images

💾

© Photograph: Anadolu/Getty Images

Instead of just dropping the case, the Biden administration got a guilty plea and set a dangerous tone for reporters everywhere

Julian Assange is on the verge of being set free after the WikiLeaks founder and US authorities have agreed to a surprising plea deal. While it should be a relief to anyone who cares about press freedom that Assange will not be coming to the US to face trial, the Biden administration should be ashamed at how this case has played out.

Assange is flying from the UK to a US territory in the Pacific Ocean to make a brief court appearance today, and soon after, he may officially be a free man in his native Australia.

Trevor Timm is executive director of the Freedom of the Press Foundation

Continue reading...

💾

© Photograph: "@wikileaks"/X/Reuters

💾

© Photograph: "@wikileaks"/X/Reuters

Today marks two years since Roe v. Wade was overturned, wiping out federal protections for abortion rights. This decision was a direct result of Donald Trump’s actions. In 2016, during his presidential campaign, he vowed to appoint Supreme Court justices who would overturn Roe. Over the course of his presidency, he did just that – appointing the three Supreme Court justices who later voted to reverse decades of protections for abortion rights.

Trump’s devastating legacy is clear. Today, anti-abortion politicians in 17 states have banned abortion, leaving millions of people without access to care. If Trump resumes office, this will only be the beginning. Trump’s advisors are already plotting to twist a law from 1873 to effectively ban abortion in all 50 states, even where abortion is protected under state law. Trump won’t stop at abortion rights – he will seek to limit contraception access, too. At the ACLU we’re gearing up to fight in courts and at every level of government to block the Trump administration’s relentless assault on reproductive rights. Learn more in our breakdown:

The Facts: In an attempt to deceive voters – who overwhelmingly oppose restricting abortion access – Trump has waffled on whether he’d encourage Congress to pass a new law to ban abortion nationwide. He doesn’t need Congress, however, to attempt to wreak havoc on our access to abortion. According to Trump’s anti-abortion strategists, a new Trump administration can bypass Congress and use a 150-year-old law called the Comstock Act to effectively ban abortion nationwide. The Comstock Act is an 1873 anti-obscenity statute that regulates the use of the mail and common carriers concerning sending and receiving anything that is “indecent, filthy, or vile” or “intended for producing abortion.” Even though this law has long been understood not to apply to the lawful abortion, Trump’s advisors plan to misuse this antiquated law to effectively ban abortion nationwide.

In addition to weaponizing the Comstock Act to imperil abortion access, a second Trump administration would respond to calls from his allies to withdraw the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) approval of mifepristone, a safe and effective medication used in most abortions and miscarriage care in the U.S. Trump has also admitted that he has a plan to restrict access to contraception.

Why It Matters: Donald Trump made it possible for anti-abortion extremists to deny people the right to make decisions about their bodies and their lives. Since the justices he appointed overturned Roe, 17 states have banned abortion. Today, millions of people of reproductive age live hundreds of miles from the closest abortion provider, forcing more than 171,000 persons to travel outside of their home state to secure access to abortion care in 2023 alone. Many others are not able to get the care they need at all. In spite of the fact that Trump’s anti-abortion policies run counter to the will of the public, we know that, should Trump secure a second term, his administration will not hesitate to further decimate reproductive rights and try to ban abortion nationwide.

How We Got Here: When he was president, Trump not only stacked the Supreme Court with justices who would later overturn Roe, but he decimated access to birth control and family planning services for people living on low incomes. Additionally, Trump’s allies in Congress have repeatedly attempted to dismantle federal programs, like the Affordable Care Act, that support reproductive health care access, or to block laws that would codify the right to contraception or protect access to IVF.

Recently, Trump attempted to downplay his plans to further ban abortion and other critical reproductive health care to avoid alienating voters. In fact, Jonathan Mitchell, Trump’s lawyer before the Supreme Court, admitted to The New York Times that he hopes Trump does not mention his intentions to weaponize the Comstock Act to ban abortion nationwide until after the election. Yet these attempts to pull the wool over the public’s eyes cannot conceal how Trump’s unguarded statements, his allies’ public playbook and admissions, and, most importantly, his prior actions have already made his anti-abortion and anti-reproductive health stance clear.

Our Roadmap: The ACLU is fighting for our right to abortion and other reproductive health care in court, in Congress, in the states, and at the polls. If Trump is re-elected, we’ll challenge his administration’s dangerous attacks on reproductive freedom, including any attempts to weaponize the Comstock Act to ban abortion nationwide or to take medication abortion off the shelves.

Similarly, in Congress and in the courts, we’ll work to protect access to birth control and to fight any attempt to make it more difficult for people to access contraception and family planning services. Also, the ACLU and its affiliates are actively engaged in 2024 ballot initiative efforts to enshrine abortion rights in state constitutions.

What Our Experts Say: “Overturning Roe was not the last stop for Trump and his anti-abortion allies. They are quietly plotting to ban abortion nationwide using a law from 1873 and will not hesitate to try to do so if Trump returns to the White House. We will continue our work to ensure that Americans know the truth, and to thwart Trump’s attempts to pull the wool over the public’s eyes. If he returns to office, we will be there every step of the way to expose his plans, galvanize efforts to stop him, and to fight him in court whenever possible.” – Jennifer Dalven, director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project

What You Can Do Today: Politicians are relentless in their attacks on reproductive freedom, but a majority of this country believes that people must have the power to make personal decisions during pregnancy. Join us in this fight to expand and restore our rights by urging legislators to pass federal legislation that safeguards our reproductive freedom – including abortion, birth control, and IVF care.

"freedom, as Rosa Luxemburg said, is 'freedom for the other fellow.' The same principle is contained in the famous words of Voltaire: 'I detest what you say; I will defend to the death your right to say it.' If the intellectual liberty which without a doubt has been one of the distinguishing marks of Western civilization means anything at all, it means that everyone shall have the right to say and to print what he believes to be the truth, provided only that it does not harm the rest of the community in some quite unmistakeable way." [George Orwell, via NYT; previously]

newspeak, translated [openculture; content note, previously]

This month, the Supreme Court refused to consider a request by anti-abortion groups to impose nationwide restrictions on mifepristone, a safe medication used in most U.S. abortions and for miscarriage care. Without addressing whether mifepristone should be further restricted, the court found that these anti-abortion plaintiffs lack “legal standing” – meaning they do not have a sufficient connection to the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) regulation of mifepristone to be able to challenge the agency’s decisions in court.

The court’s decision is a relief, but we should not be dazzled by the fact that the justices did the right thing based purely on a legal technicality. While the Supreme Court refused to allow these particular anti-abortion groups to bring this case, extremist politicians have vowed to continue to use the courts and the law to strip away access to medication abortion nationwide. Below, we break down why this case matters, and what happens next.

The plaintiffs in Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA are organizations and doctors who want to see all abortion banned nationwide. To further their agenda, they used junk science to target access to mifepristone, a medication used in most U.S. abortions. They filed this lawsuit in Amarillo, Texas, where they could guarantee it would be heard by a Trump-appointed district court judge with a record of hostility to abortion. That district judge rubber-stamped all of their requests, and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals largely did the same – overriding the consensus of the FDA and every leading national medical authority in order to impose medically unnecessary restrictions on mifepristone.

In its decision, the Supreme Court did not address the plaintiffs’ arguments that mifepristone should be severely restricted. The court found that the lawsuit suffered from a critical defect: the anti-abortion groups and doctors who brought the case lack legal standing. As the court explained, these anti-abortion plaintiffs don’t prescribe mifepristone and have no actual connection to the FDA’s regulation of the drug. Instead, “the plaintiffs want [the] FDA to make mifepristone more difficult for other doctors to prescribe and for pregnant women to obtain.” But under the Constitution, “a plaintiff ’s desire to make a drug less available for others does not establish standing to sue.”

For now, the court’s decision preserves the state-level patchwork access to medication abortion that has existed since the Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade in 2022. That means that, for the time being, people across the United States can continue to fill their mifepristone prescriptions through mail-order and retail pharmacies, just as they would for any other similarly safe medication – without having to travel, sometimes hundreds of miles, just to pick up a pill. Health care professionals with specialized training, like nurse-practitioners, will also maintain the ability to prescribe mifepristone where state law allows. Furthermore, in the U.S. nearly 1 in 5 abortions relies on telemedicine. For many people – including low-income patients, people of color, folks in rural areas, and women in abusive households – retaining accessibility options, such as telemedicine, is essential – especially when it may be impossible to arrange and afford lengthy transportation and childcare, to secure time off work, or to escape the surveillance of an abuser in order to access time-sensitive care.

The court’s order also forestalls the dire consequences the American Cancer Society and many other patient advocacy groups warned of should the court override the FDA’s actions and undermine drug development and impede access to critical medications well beyond reproductive health care.

There is no credible dispute about mifepristone’s safety. The nation’s leading medical associations describe the science confirming its safety as “overwhelming.” While all drugs carry risks, medical experts have explained that mifepristone is among the safest medications used in medical practice today – safer than Viagra or penicillin – with serious complications experienced by fewer than 1 percent of patients.

By contrast, the plaintiffs’ evidence rested on testimony and research from a few anti-abortion doctors who travel the country peddling junk science about abortion safety. As the ACLU explained in a friend-of-the-court brief, when other courts have heard these folks testify, time and again, they have discredited them. For instance, Dr. Ingrid Skop – cited 17 times in the appellate court’s ruling– had her testimony on abortion thrown out by a Florida court two years ago for being “inaccurate.” Dr. Skop admitted under oath in 2020 that she is “not a really good researcher,” so it’s no surprise that her research on mifepristone was published by a fringe advocacy group known for promoting blatantly false conspiracy theories, such as that President Barack Obama hypnotized listeners with his speeches. Several of the studies relied on by these plaintiffs have been retracted because they are so profoundly flawed. Another study is based on 98 anonymous blogs.

Maintaining access to mifepristone has never been more crucial. Since it was approved in 2000, nearly 6 million people in the United States, and millions more globally, have used this medication. Today, medication abortion comprises almost two-thirds of all abortions in this country.

Play the video

The Supreme Court refused to allow these particular anti-abortion groups to bring this case, but extremist politicians are waiting in the wings to continue this campaign to strip away access to medication abortion nationwide. Indeed, the same Trump-appointed district judge in Texas has already permitted Idaho, Kansas, and Missouri to intervene in the district court proceedings on the same side as the anti-abortion groups. And these extremist politicians have said that they will try to continue this case in Texas – even though the Supreme Court just found that the original plaintiffs lack standing – or else bring copycat lawsuits in other jurisdictions.

Moreover, in the coming weeks, the Supreme Court will decide another abortion case that will determine whether politicians can force doctors to withhold emergency room care from their patients suffering severe pregnancy complications. These cases show how far politicians will go to prevent people from getting the reproductive health care they need.

Since Roe was overturned, every time an abortion issue has been put to the ballot, the people have voted in favor of access. Politicians are relentless in their attacks, but a majority of this country believes that people must have the power to make personal decisions during pregnancy. We’ll continue using every tool at our disposal to fight back against these cruel and deeply unpopular attacks on our health, our futures, and our bodily autonomy.

Join us in this fight to expand and restore our rights by urging legislators to pass federal legislation that safeguards our reproductive freedom – including abortion, birth control, AND IVF care.

pThe outcome of the 2024 election will have a profound impact on access to abortion care in this country. Donald Trump’s allies have drawn up an agenda for a potential second presidential term, and they have made clear that if Trump is elected, he will dust off a 150-year-old federal statute called the Comstock Act to iban all abortions nationwide/i without any need for congressional action./p pYou read that right: Anti-abortion groups are peddling the radical theory that abortion could be banned in every state the moment he takes office./p pAnd because anti-abortion politicians know that the American people a href=blankoppose/a having our reproductive rights taken away, they’re trying to keep these plans under the radar until it’s too late—advising Trump and anti-abortion groups to a href=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/17/us/politics/trump-allies-abortion-restrictions.htmlkeep quiet/a about their plan to impose a back-door abortion ban until after the election./p pIt’s long past time to shine a spotlight on this outrageous scheme, and why it’s just plain wrong./p pThe Comstock Act is an 1873 anti-obscenity law that, among other things, makes it a crime to mail anything that’s “indecent, filthy, or vile” or “intended for producing abortion.” Its namesake, Anthony Comstock, was an infamous Victorian-era anti-vice crusader who, as the Supreme Court has explained, “believed that anything remotely touching upon sex was obscene.” Comstock took credit for arresting thousands and driving at least 15 people to suicide through his anti-vice crusades./p pTrump’s anti-abortion allies are trying to revive this zombie law, claiming that the Comstock Act is a dormant national abortion ban already on the books, just waiting to be enforced by a Trump Department of Justice. According to anti-abortion extremists, the Comstock Act makes it a crime to send or receive drugs or articles that are used in abortion care by mail or common carriers like UPS and FedEx. That interpretation of the law is wrong; it flies in the face of how courts and the Department of Justice have long interpreted the law. But if anti-abortion judges buy into this unfounded theory, it would effectively amount to a nationwide abortion ban because the medication and equipment used in abortion care are transported by mail and common carrier./p div class=mp-md wp-link div class=wp-link__img-wrapper a href=https://www.aclu.org/campaigns-initiatives/abortion-criminal-defense-initiative target=_blank tabindex=-1 img width=2800 height=1400 src=https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/12/3dbe18c0063d3b7aed43c26f2ed07610.jpg class=attachment-4x3_full size-4x3_full alt= decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/12/3dbe18c0063d3b7aed43c26f2ed07610.jpg 2800w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/12/3dbe18c0063d3b7aed43c26f2ed07610-768x384.jpg 768w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/12/3dbe18c0063d3b7aed43c26f2ed07610-1536x768.jpg 1536w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/12/3dbe18c0063d3b7aed43c26f2ed07610-2048x1024.jpg 2048w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/12/3dbe18c0063d3b7aed43c26f2ed07610-400x200.jpg 400w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/12/3dbe18c0063d3b7aed43c26f2ed07610-600x300.jpg 600w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/12/3dbe18c0063d3b7aed43c26f2ed07610-800x400.jpg 800w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/12/3dbe18c0063d3b7aed43c26f2ed07610-1000x500.jpg 1000w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/12/3dbe18c0063d3b7aed43c26f2ed07610-1200x600.jpg 1200w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/12/3dbe18c0063d3b7aed43c26f2ed07610-1400x700.jpg 1400w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/12/3dbe18c0063d3b7aed43c26f2ed07610-1600x800.jpg 1600w sizes=(max-width: 2800px) 100vw, 2800px / /a /div div class=wp-link__title a href=https://www.aclu.org/campaigns-initiatives/abortion-criminal-defense-initiative target=_blank Abortion Criminal Defense Initiative /a /div div class=wp-link__description a href=https://www.aclu.org/campaigns-initiatives/abortion-criminal-defense-initiative target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7-mobile is-size-6-tablet/p /a /div div class=wp-link__source p-4 px-6-tablet a href=https://www.aclu.org/campaigns-initiatives/abortion-criminal-defense-initiative target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7Source: American Civil Liberties Union/p /a /div /div pThat likely means that abortion medication like mifepristone won’t even leave the factory. It means that companies that produce medical instruments, ultrasound machines, and other items used in abortion care couldn’t send them to abortion providers, and abortion providers couldn’t obtain the materials they need./p pThe plan to enforce the Comstock Act as an abortion ban is spelled out in the Heritage Foundation’s a href=https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf180-Day Playbook/a, which details nearly 900 pages’ worth of “actions to be taken in the first 180 days of the new Administration.” The scheme is echoed by Jonathan Mitchell, Trump’s lawyer before the Supreme Court and the architect of Texas’s abortion bounty-hunter law, S.B. 8, who has a href=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/17/us/politics/trump-allies-abortion-restrictions.htmlmade clear/a that a Trump Department of Justice would wield the Comstock Act as a backdoor abortion ban: “We don’t need [Congress to pass] a federal ban when we have Comstock on the books.”/p pMitchell wants Trump and anti-abortion groups to “keep their mouths shut [on Comstock] as much as possible until the election.” Once in office, they plan to shut down abortion care nationwide without any need for congressional action./p pTo be clear, the argument that the Comstock Act is a dormant national abortion ban is legally wrong. That’s true for many reasons:/p ul liFirst, starting in the early twentieth century, federal appellate courts reached a consensus that the Comstock Act only criminalizes sending and receiving materials to be used for iotherwise unlawful /iabortion and contraception. The courts’ uniform conclusion was that the Act does not apply to drugs and articles sent and received for ilawful/i abortion care. Importantly, courts reached this consensus well before the Supreme Court’s recognition of the constitutional right to contraception and abortion in iGriswold v. Connecticut/i, and iRoe v. Wade/i; the interpretation in no way turned on the existence of a constitutional right./li /ul ul liSecond, Congress was well aware of the court decisions that the Comstock Act doesn’t apply to lawful abortions. If Congress disagreed with the courts, it could have changed the law. Instead, Congress repeatedly reenacted the Comstock Act’s abortion provisions without modifying the language in response to the decisions. This means that Congress concurred with courts narrowing the scope of laws under the principle of congressional ratification. As the Supreme Court explained in iTexas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project/i, “[i]f a word or phrase has been #8230; given a uniform interpretation by inferior courts #8230;, a later version of that act perpetuating the wording is presumed to carry forward that interpretation.”/li /ul ul liThird and relatedly, the United States Postal Service, the agency that enforces the Comstock Act’s mailing restrictions, also concurred with the courts’ settled interpretation of the Act, and in 1970 informed Congress of its position. This timeline bolsters the conclusion that Congress accepted the appellate courts’ narrowing construction of the law./li /ul ul liFourth, the Department of Justice has publicly endorsed this interpretation of the Comstock Act in a December 2022 Office of Legal Counsel a href=https://www.justice.gov/olc/opinion/file/1560596/dl?inlineopinion/a. As the opinion explains, “[b]ased upon a longstanding judicial construction of the Comstock Act, which Congress ratified and USPS itself accepted,” the Comstock Act “does not prohibit the mailing, or the delivery or receipt by mail, of [abortion-inducing medications] where the sender lacks the intent that the recipient of the drugs will use them unlawfully./li /ul pIn short, Trump’s allies’ argument that the Comstock Act can be enforced as a national abortion ban defies the settled determination by federal courts and the Justice Department that the law does not apply to lawful abortion care./p pBut we have seen anti-abortion extremists manipulate the law to ban abortion before. iRoe/i was settled law for decades until a reconstituted Supreme Court reversed course in iDobbs /iand allowed states to ban abortion. And before iDobbs/i, Trump’s lawyer, Jonathan Mitchell, managed to impose an abortion ban in Texas that ought to have been struck down as unconstitutional, but that survived because of its manipulative bounty-hunter enforcement scheme./p pSo when Mitchell, who is on the short list to become Trump’s attorney general, endorses the dangerous Comstock scheme, the threat is deadly serious./p

pThe Supreme Court’s docket this term includes many of the complex issues American society is currently facing, including gun control, free speech online, race-based discrimination in voting, reproductive rights, presidential immunity from criminal accountability, and more./p pThe ACLU has served as counsel or filed friend-of-the-court briefs in all of the cases addressing these hot-button issues. The court will decide all its cases by the beginning of July. Here are eight undecided cases to watch, and what they mean for the future of our civil liberties./p div class=wp-heading mb-8 hr class=mark / h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-markReproductive freedom: Protections for medication abortion and access to abortion during medical emergencies /h2 /div div class=wp-heading mb-8 h3 id= class=wp-heading-h3 with-standardFDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine/h3 /div pbThe Facts:/b Anti-abortion doctors, who do not prescribe medication abortion, are asking the Supreme Court to force the Food amp; Drug Administration (FDA) to impose severe restrictions on mifepristone – a safe and effective medication used in this country in most abortions and for miscarriage management – in every state, even where abortion is protected by state law./p pbOur Argument: /bThe FDA approved mifepristone more than 20 years ago, finding that it is safe, effective, and medically necessary. Since its approval, more than 5 million people in the U.S. have used this medication. Our brief argued that the two lower courts – a district court in Texas and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit – relied on junk science and discredited witnesses to override the FDA’s expert decision to eliminate medically-unnecessary restrictions on an essential medication with a stronger safety record than Tylenol. We urged the Supreme Court to protect access to medication abortion and reverse the lower courts’ rulings./p div class=mp-md wp-link div class=wp-link__img-wrapper a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/danco-laboratories-llc-v-alliance-for-hippocratic-medicine-u-s-fda-v-alliance-for-hippocratic-medicine target=_blank tabindex=-1 img width=700 height=350 src=https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/05/359637f7872568a863b03d635c156d9a.jpg class=attachment-4x3_full size-4x3_full alt= decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/05/359637f7872568a863b03d635c156d9a.jpg 700w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/05/359637f7872568a863b03d635c156d9a-400x200.jpg 400w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/05/359637f7872568a863b03d635c156d9a-600x300.jpg 600w sizes=(max-width: 700px) 100vw, 700px / /a /div div class=wp-link__title a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/danco-laboratories-llc-v-alliance-for-hippocratic-medicine-u-s-fda-v-alliance-for-hippocratic-medicine target=_blank Danco Laboratories, LLC, v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine; U.S. FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine /a /div div class=wp-link__description a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/danco-laboratories-llc-v-alliance-for-hippocratic-medicine-u-s-fda-v-alliance-for-hippocratic-medicine target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7-mobile is-size-6-tabletThe American Civil Liberties Union joined over 200 reproductive health, rights, and justice organizations in an amicus brief to the Supreme Court.../p /a /div div class=wp-link__source p-4 px-6-tablet a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/danco-laboratories-llc-v-alliance-for-hippocratic-medicine-u-s-fda-v-alliance-for-hippocratic-medicine target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7Source: American Civil Liberties Union/p /a /div /div pbWhy it Matters:/b Today, with abortion access already severely restricted, the ability to get medication-abortion care using mifepristone is more important than ever. If the Fifth Circuit’s ruling is allowed to stand, individuals would be blocked from filling mifepristone prescriptions through mail-order pharmacies, forcing many to travel, sometimes hundreds of miles, just to pick up a pill they can safely receive through the mail. Healthcare professionals with specialized training, like advanced practice clinicians, would also be prohibited from prescribing mifepristone, further limiting where patients can access this critical medication. The American Cancer Society and other leading patient advocacy groups are also sounding the alarm that overturning the FDA’s decision would upend drug innovation and research, with consequences well beyond reproductive health care./p pbThe Last Word: /b“As this case shows, overturningi Roe v. Wade /iwasn’t the end goal for extremists. In addition to targeting nationwide-access to mifepristone, politicians in some states have already moved on to attack birth control and IVF. We need to take these extremists seriously when they show us they’re coming for every aspect of our reproductive lives.” – emJennifer Dalven, director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project./em/p div class=wp-heading mb-8 h3 id= class=wp-heading-h3 with-standardIdaho amp; Moyle et. al v. US/h3 /div pbThe Facts: /bIdaho politicians want the power to disregard the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) that requires emergency rooms to provide stabilizing treatment to patients in emergency situations, including abortion where that is the appropriate stabilizing treatment. If the state prevails, it would jail doctors for providing pregnant patients with the necessary emergency care required under this federal law./p pbOur Argument: /bThe ACLU and its legal partners filed a friend-of-the-court brief explaining that the law requires hospitals to provide whatever emergency care is required; there is no carve-out for patients who need an abortion to stabilize an emergency condition. All three branches of government have long recognized that hospitals are required under EMTALA to provide emergency abortion care to any patient who needs it./p div class=mp-md wp-link div class=wp-link__img-wrapper a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/idaho-and-moyle-et-al-v-united-states target=_blank tabindex=-1 img width=700 height=350 src=https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/05/359637f7872568a863b03d635c156d9a.jpg class=attachment-4x3_full size-4x3_full alt= decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/05/359637f7872568a863b03d635c156d9a.jpg 700w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/05/359637f7872568a863b03d635c156d9a-400x200.jpg 400w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/05/359637f7872568a863b03d635c156d9a-600x300.jpg 600w sizes=(max-width: 700px) 100vw, 700px / /a /div div class=wp-link__title a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/idaho-and-moyle-et-al-v-united-states target=_blank Idaho and Moyle, et al. v. United States /a /div div class=wp-link__description a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/idaho-and-moyle-et-al-v-united-states target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7-mobile is-size-6-tabletIdaho and Moyle, et al. v. United States was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court by Idaho politicians seeking to disregard a federal statute — the.../p /a /div div class=wp-link__source p-4 px-6-tablet a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/idaho-and-moyle-et-al-v-united-states target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7Source: American Civil Liberties Union/p /a /div /div pbWhy it Matters:/b Because Idaho#8217;s current abortion ban prohibits providing the emergency care required under EMTALA, medical providers have found themselves having to decide between providing necessary emergency care to a pregnant patient or facing criminal prosecution from the state. Depending on how the court rules, medical providers and patients in several other states with extreme abortion bans could find themselves in a similar position./p pbThe Last Word: /b“If these politicians succeed, doctors will be forced to withhold critical care from their patients. We’re already seeing the devastating impact of this case play out in Idaho, and we fear a ripple effect across the country.” – emAlexa Kolbi-Molinas, deputy director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project/em/p div class=wp-heading mb-8 hr class=mark / h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-markFree speech: Government authority over online and political speech /h2 /div div class=wp-heading mb-8 h3 id= class=wp-heading-h3 with-standardNational Rifle Association v. Vullo /h3 /div pbThe Facts: /bIn 2018, Maria Vullo, New York’s former chief financial regulator, in coordination with then-Mayor Andrew Cuomo, threatened to use her regulatory power over banks and insurance companies to coerce them into denying basic financial services to the National Rifle Association (NRA) because she and Cuomo disagreed with its pro-gun rights advocacy. The NRA argued that Vullo’s alleged efforts to blacklist the NRA penalized it for its political advocacy, in violation of the First Amendment./p pbOur Argument: /bThe ACLU, representing the NRA at the Supreme Court, argued that any government attempt to blacklist an advocacy group and deny it financial services because of its viewpoint violates the right to free speech. Our brief urges the court to apply the precedent it set in 1963 in iBantam Books v. Sullivan/i, which established that even informal, indirect efforts to censor speech violate the First Amendment./p div class=mp-md wp-link div class=wp-link__img-wrapper a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/national-rifle-association-v-vullo target=_blank tabindex=-1 img width=700 height=350 src=https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/02/29cdadc17d83f5ef0a78a0e3eca67374.jpg class=attachment-4x3_full size-4x3_full alt= decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/02/29cdadc17d83f5ef0a78a0e3eca67374.jpg 700w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/02/29cdadc17d83f5ef0a78a0e3eca67374-400x200.jpg 400w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/02/29cdadc17d83f5ef0a78a0e3eca67374-600x300.jpg 600w sizes=(max-width: 700px) 100vw, 700px / /a /div div class=wp-link__title a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/national-rifle-association-v-vullo target=_blank National Rifle Association v. Vullo /a /div div class=wp-link__description a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/national-rifle-association-v-vullo target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7-mobile is-size-6-tabletOn January 9th, 2024, the American Civil Liberties Union filed its opening brief on behalf of the National Rifle Association (NRA) in National.../p /a /div div class=wp-link__source p-4 px-6-tablet a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/national-rifle-association-v-vullo target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7Source: American Civil Liberties Union/p /a /div /div pbWhy it Matters: /bWhile the ACLU stands in stark opposition to the NRA on many issues, this case is about securing basic First Amendment rights for all advocacy organizations. If New York State is allowed to blacklist the NRA, then Oklahoma could similarly penalize criminal justice reformers advocating for bail reform, and Texas could target climate change organizations advancing the view that all fossil fuel extraction must end. The ACLU itself could be targeted for its advocacy./p div class=mp-md wp-link div class=wp-link__img-wrapper a href=https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/why-is-the-aclu-representing-the-nra-before-the-us-supreme-court target=_blank tabindex=-1 img width=1200 height=628 src=https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/05/7e5c30fc4a1d9a737ed614291b23e1ec.jpg class=attachment-4x3_full size-4x3_full alt= decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/05/7e5c30fc4a1d9a737ed614291b23e1ec.jpg 1200w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/05/7e5c30fc4a1d9a737ed614291b23e1ec-768x402.jpg 768w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/05/7e5c30fc4a1d9a737ed614291b23e1ec-400x209.jpg 400w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/05/7e5c30fc4a1d9a737ed614291b23e1ec-600x314.jpg 600w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/05/7e5c30fc4a1d9a737ed614291b23e1ec-800x419.jpg 800w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/05/7e5c30fc4a1d9a737ed614291b23e1ec-1000x523.jpg 1000w sizes=(max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px / /a /div div class=wp-link__title a href=https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/why-is-the-aclu-representing-the-nra-before-the-us-supreme-court target=_blank Why is the ACLU Representing the NRA Before the US Supreme Court? /a /div div class=wp-link__description a href=https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/why-is-the-aclu-representing-the-nra-before-the-us-supreme-court target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7-mobile is-size-6-tabletThe ACLU has always stood up for free speech – no matter the speaker./p /a /div div class=wp-link__source p-4 px-6-tablet a href=https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/why-is-the-aclu-representing-the-nra-before-the-us-supreme-court target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7Source: American Civil Liberties Union/p /a /div /div pbThe Last Word: /b“The right to advocate views the government opposes safeguards our ability to organize for the country we want to see. It’s a principle the ACLU has defended for more than 100 years, and one we will continue to protect from government censorship of all kinds, whether we agree or disagree with the views of those being targeted.” – emDavid Cole, ACLU legal director/em/p div class=wp-heading mb-8 h3 id= class=wp-heading-h3 with-standardNetChoice v. Paxton and Moody v. NetChoice /h3 /div pbThe Facts: /bMotivated by a perception that social media platforms disproportionately silence conservative voices, Florida and Texas passed laws that give the government authority to regulate how large social media companies like Facebook and YouTube curate content posted on their sites./p pbOur Argument: /bIn a friend-of-the-court brief, the ACLU, the ACLU of Florida and the ACLU of Texas argued that the First Amendment right to speak includes the right to choose what to publish and how to prioritize what is published. The government’s desire to have private speakers, like social media companies, distribute more conservative viewpoints–or any specific viewpoints–is not a permissible basis for state control of what content appears on privately-owned platforms./p pbWhy it Matters:/b If these laws are allowed to stand, platforms may fear liability and decide to publish nothing at all, effectively eliminating the internet’s function as a modern public square. Or, in an attempt to comply with government regulations, social media companies may be forced to publish a lot more distracting and unwanted content. For example, under the Texas law, which requires “viewpoint neutrality,” a platform that publishes posts about suicide prevention would also have to publish posts directing readers to websites that encourage suicide. ./p pbThe Last Word: /b“Social media companies have a First Amendment right to choose what to host, display, and publish. The Supreme Court has recognized that right for everyone from booksellers to newspapers to cable companies, and this case should make clear that the same is true for social media platforms.” — emVera Eidelman, staff attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, amp; Technology Project/em/p div class=wp-heading mb-8 hr class=mark / h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-markVoting rights: Racial gerrymandering and the fight for fair maps /h2 /div div class=wp-heading mb-8 h3 id= class=wp-heading-h3 with-standardAlexander v. South Carolina NAACP/h3 /div pbThe Facts: /bIn 2022, South Carolina adopted a racially-gerrymandered congressional map. The state legislature singled out Black communities, “cracking” predominantly Black communities and neighborhoods across two districts to reduce their electoral influence in the state’s first congressional district./p pbOur Argument: /bThe ACLU and its legal partners sued on behalf of the South Carolina NAACP and an affected voter to challenge the constitutionality of the new congressional map. We argued that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids the sorting of voters on the basis of their race, absent a compelling interest, which the state failed to provide./p div class=mp-md wp-link div class=wp-link__img-wrapper a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/alexander-v-south-carolina-state-conference-of-the-naacp target=_blank tabindex=-1 img width=1000 height=667 src=https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/05/adacb5fd2b08ce6397602bca3ce44e82.jpg class=attachment-4x3_full size-4x3_full alt= decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/05/adacb5fd2b08ce6397602bca3ce44e82.jpg 1000w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/05/adacb5fd2b08ce6397602bca3ce44e82-768x512.jpg 768w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/05/adacb5fd2b08ce6397602bca3ce44e82-400x267.jpg 400w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/05/adacb5fd2b08ce6397602bca3ce44e82-600x400.jpg 600w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/05/adacb5fd2b08ce6397602bca3ce44e82-800x534.jpg 800w sizes=(max-width: 1000px) 100vw, 1000px / /a /div div class=wp-link__title a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/alexander-v-south-carolina-state-conference-of-the-naacp target=_blank Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP (Congressional Map Challenge) /a /div div class=wp-link__description a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/alexander-v-south-carolina-state-conference-of-the-naacp target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7-mobile is-size-6-tabletSouth Carolina unlawfully assigned voters to congressional districts based on their race and intentionally discriminated against Black voters in.../p /a /div div class=wp-link__source p-4 px-6-tablet a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/alexander-v-south-carolina-state-conference-of-the-naacp target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7Source: American Civil Liberties Union/p /a /div /div pbWhy it Matters: /bThis racially-gerrymandered congressional map deprives Black South Carolinians the political representation they deserve in all but one of seven districts, limiting the power and influence of more than a quarter of the state’s population just before the 2024 election./p pbThe Last Word: /b“South Carolina’s failure to rectify its racially-gerrymandered congressional map blatantly disregards the voices and the rights of Black voters. The ACLU is determined to fight back until Black South Carolina voters have a lawful map that fairly represents them.” – emAdriel I. Cepeda Derieux, deputy director of the ACLU Voting Rights Project/em/p div class=wp-heading mb-8 hr class=mark / h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-markGender justice: Denying guns to persons subject to domestic violence restraining orders/h2 /div div class=wp-heading mb-8 h3 id= class=wp-heading-h3 with-standardUnited States v. Rahimi /h3 /div pbThe Facts: /bZackey Rahimi was convicted under a federal law that forbids individuals subject to domestic violence protective orders from possessing a firearm. Mr. Rahimi challenged the law as a violation of his Second Amendment right to bear arms./p pbOur Argument: /bThe U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that individuals subject to domestic violence protective orders have a constitutional right to possess guns. It invalidated the federal gun law because it found no historical analogues in the 1700s or 1800s that prohibited those subject to domestic violence protective orders from possessing a firearm. The ACLU argued that the Fifth Circuit’s analysis is a misapplication of the Supreme Court’s decision in iNew York State Rifle amp; Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen/i because it effectively required a “historical twin” law in order to uphold a law today. There were no identical laws at the time of the Framing because there were no domestic violence protective orders then, but that should not be a basis for invalidating the laws today. We also argued that imposing time-limited firearms restrictions based on civil restraining orders is a critical tool for protecting those who have experienced domestic violence and face a threat of further violence./p div class=mp-md wp-link div class=wp-link__img-wrapper a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/united-states-v-rahimi target=_blank tabindex=-1 img width=700 height=350 src=https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/03/5d4549447588adb73b5aba378f7d7f59.jpg class=attachment-4x3_full size-4x3_full alt= decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/03/5d4549447588adb73b5aba378f7d7f59.jpg 700w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/03/5d4549447588adb73b5aba378f7d7f59-400x200.jpg 400w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/03/5d4549447588adb73b5aba378f7d7f59-600x300.jpg 600w sizes=(max-width: 700px) 100vw, 700px / /a /div div class=wp-link__title a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/united-states-v-rahimi target=_blank United States v. Rahimi /a /div div class=wp-link__description a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/united-states-v-rahimi target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7-mobile is-size-6-tabletWhether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), which prohibits the possession of firearms by persons subject to domestic-violence restraining orders, violates the.../p /a /div div class=wp-link__source p-4 px-6-tablet a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/united-states-v-rahimi target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7Source: American Civil Liberties Union/p /a /div /div pbWhy it Matters: /bIf the Fifth Circuit’s rationale is affirmed, then governments would lose the ability to prohibit gun possession by persons subject to restraining orders — and presumably even to run pre-acquisition background checks, which have stopped more than 77,000 purchases of weapons by individuals subject to domestic violence orders in the 25 years that the federal law has been in place. This “originalist” interpretation of the Second Amendment not only hinders our ability to protect individuals against newly recognized threats, but also tethers the authority to regulate gun possession to periods when governments disregarded many forms of violence directed against women, Black people, Indigenous people, and others./p pbThe Last Word:/b “It would be a radical mistake to allow historical wrongs to defeat efforts today to protect women and other survivors of domestic abuse. The Supreme Court should affirm that the government can enact laws aimed at preventing intimate partner violence, consistent with the Second Amendment.” –em Ria Tabacco Mar, director of the ACLU Women’s Rights Project/em/p div class=wp-heading mb-8 hr class=mark / h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-markCriminal justice: Eighth-Amendment protections for unhoused persons accused of sleeping in public when they have nowhere else to go /h2 /div div class=wp-heading mb-8 h3 id= class=wp-heading-h3 with-standardCity of Grants Pass v. Johnson /h3 /div pbThe Facts: /bGrants Pass, Oregon, enacted ordinances that make it illegal for people, including unhoused persons with no access to shelter, to sleep outside in public using a blanket, pillow, or even a cardboard sheet to lie on. Last year, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that punishing unhoused people for sleeping in public when they have no other choice violates the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment./p pbOur Argument: /bIn Oregon, and elsewhere in the United States, the population of unhoused persons often exceeds the number of shelter beds available, forcing many to sleep on the streets or in parks. The ACLU and 19 state affiliates submitted a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that it is cruel and unusual to punish unhoused people for the essential life-sustaining activity of sleeping outside when they lack access to any alternative shelter./p div class=mp-md wp-link div class=wp-link__img-wrapper a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/city-of-grants-pass-v-johnson target=_blank tabindex=-1 img width=700 height=350 src=https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/06/ba988bc008254460d80a4ea1aa03d252.jpg class=attachment-4x3_full size-4x3_full alt= decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/06/ba988bc008254460d80a4ea1aa03d252.jpg 700w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/06/ba988bc008254460d80a4ea1aa03d252-400x200.jpg 400w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/06/ba988bc008254460d80a4ea1aa03d252-600x300.jpg 600w sizes=(max-width: 700px) 100vw, 700px / /a /div div class=wp-link__title a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/city-of-grants-pass-v-johnson target=_blank City of Grants Pass v. Johnson /a /div div class=wp-link__description a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/city-of-grants-pass-v-johnson target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7-mobile is-size-6-tablet/p /a /div div class=wp-link__source p-4 px-6-tablet a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/city-of-grants-pass-v-johnson target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7Source: American Civil Liberties Union/p /a /div /div pbWhy it Matters: /bWhen applied to people with nowhere else to go, fines and arrests for sleeping outside serve no purpose and are plainly disproportionately punitive. Arresting and fining unhoused people for sleeping in public only exacerbates cycles of homelessness and mass incarceration./p pbThe Last Word: /b“There is no punishment that fits the ‘crime’ of being forced to sleep outside. Instead of saddling people with fines, jail time, and criminal records, cities should focus on proven solutions, like affordable housing, accessible and voluntary services, and eviction protections.” – emScout Katovich, staff attorney with the ACLU Trone Center for Justice and Equality/em/p div class=wp-heading mb-8 hr class=mark / h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-markDemocracy: Presidential immunity from prosecution for criminal acts after leaving office /h2 /div div class=wp-heading mb-8 h3 id= class=wp-heading-h3 with-standardTrump v. United States/h3 /div pbThe Facts: /bFormer President Donald Trump is asking the Supreme Court to rule that he cannot be held criminally liable for any official acts as president, even after leaving office, and even where the crimes concern efforts to resist the peaceful transition of power after an election. This claim runs contrary to fundamental principles of constitutional accountability, and decades of precedent./p pbOur Argument: /bOur friend-of-the-court brief argues that former President Trump is not immune from criminal prosecution, and that the Constitution and long-established Supreme Court precedent support the principle that in our democracy, nobody is above the law — even the president. Our brief warns that there are “few propositions more dangerous” in a democracy than the notion that an elected head of state has blanket immunity from criminal prosecution./p div class=mp-md wp-link div class=wp-link__img-wrapper a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/trump-v-united-states target=_blank tabindex=-1 img width=700 height=350 src=https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/06/ba988bc008254460d80a4ea1aa03d252.jpg class=attachment-4x3_full size-4x3_full alt= decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/06/ba988bc008254460d80a4ea1aa03d252.jpg 700w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/06/ba988bc008254460d80a4ea1aa03d252-400x200.jpg 400w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/06/ba988bc008254460d80a4ea1aa03d252-600x300.jpg 600w sizes=(max-width: 700px) 100vw, 700px / /a /div div class=wp-link__title a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/trump-v-united-states target=_blank Trump v. United States /a /div div class=wp-link__description a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/trump-v-united-states target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7-mobile is-size-6-tablet/p /a /div div class=wp-link__source p-4 px-6-tablet a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/trump-v-united-states target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7Source: American Civil Liberties Union/p /a /div /div pbWhy it Matters: /bNo other president has asserted that presidents can never be prosecuted for official acts that violate criminal law. The president’s accountability to the law is an integral part of the separation of powers and the rule of law. If the President is free, as Trump’s legal counsel argued, to order the assassination of his political opponents and escape all criminal accountability even after he leaves office, both of these fundamental principles of our system would have a fatal Achilles’ heel./p pbThe Last Word: /b“The United States does not have a king, and former presidents have no claim to being above the law. A functioning democracy depends on our ability to critically reckon with the troubling actions of government officials and hold them accountable.” – emDavid Cole, ACLU legal director /em/p

pThe Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in iIdaho v. United States and Moyle v. United States/i, which will determine whether politicians can put doctors in jail for treating pregnant patients experiencing medical emergencies. The ultimate decision in the case — which is expected by the summer — could have severe consequences on the health and lives of people across the country facing emergency pregnancy complications. Here’s what you need to know:/p div class=wp-heading mb-8 h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-standardThis case is about politicians trying to block emergency care for pregnant patients./h2 /div pAnti-abortion politicians brought this case all the way up to the Supreme Court to deny pregnant people access to emergency abortion care that is necessary to prevent severe and potentially life-altering health consequences, and even death. A federal law, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act or EMTALA, has long guaranteed that, in an emergency, patients can get the care they need — including abortion care — regardless of where they live. This is not a Democrat or Republican issue: Every administration from President Reagan to President Biden has recognized that EMTALA requires emergency abortion care. The Supreme Court#8217;s decision to overturn iRoe v. Wade/i did not diminish these longstanding federal protections, which override state laws that would prohibit such care, but now, extreme politicians are doing everything in their power to prevent someone experiencing emergency pregnancy complications from getting care in emergency rooms./p div class=wp-heading mb-8 h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-standardThis case could have a severe impact on emergency care across the country, and these devastating effects are already playing out in Idaho. /h2 /div pWhile it considers the case, the Supreme Court has already allowed Idaho politicians to block emergency care for pregnant people using the state’s abortion ban which has no exception for health, and the impact is already reverberating across the state. For example, St. Luke’s Health System, the largest health system in Idaho, which sees hundreds of thousands of emergency department visits each year, reports that they are now transferring pregnant patients with medical emergencies out of state to get the care they need, but even that delay can also increase the unacceptable risks patients face. Not surprisingly, doctors do not want to practice in a state where they are criminalized for providing the emergency care their patients need: Since Idaho’s extreme abortion ban took effect, more than 20 percent of obstetricians in Idaho have left the state, according to a a href=https://www.idahocsh.org/idaho-physician-wellbeing-action-collaborativereport/a published by the Idaho Coalition for Safe Healthcare./p pIf the Supreme Court sides with Idaho in this case, these devastating effects on patients and doctors alike could spread to other states with extreme abortion bans, such as Arizona, and would give anti-abortion politicians around the country the green light to try to prohibit this essential, even life-saving, emergency care./p div class=wp-heading mb-8 h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-standardThis case is about doctors and hospitals that want to provide care, but politicians want to stop them from treating patients. /h2 /div pThe issues in this case are about hospitals and physicians who want to fulfill their oath and provide care to patients experiencing medical emergencies, but politicians want to enforce Idaho’s abortion ban up until the moment that a pregnant person’s life is at imminent risk. “Can I continue to replace her blood loss fast enough? How many organ systems must be failing? Can a patient be hours away from death before I intervene, or does it have to be minutes?”/p div class=wp-audio mb-8 div class=wp-audio__content span class=wp-audio__episode-title is-hidden-tablet is-hidden-desktop is-size-5 is-size-6-mobile In Alabama, Embryos Are People and It Won't Stop There /span div class=wp-audio__metadata columns div class=column span class=wp-audio__episode-title is-hidden-mobile is-size-5 is-size-6-mobileIn Alabama, Embryos Are People and It Won't Stop There/span p class=wp-audio__episode-description line-clamp-3 is-size-6 is-hidden-mobile On February 16, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos are children under state law, meaning the embryo has rights consistent with a person living in the United States. While this marks the first time a frozen embryo has been granted ... /p p class=wp-audio__episode-description line-clamp-5 is-size-7 is-hidden-tablet is-hidden-desktop On February 16, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos are children under state law, meaning the embryo has rights consistent with a person living in the United States. While this marks the first time a frozen embryo has been granted ... /p /div div class=wp-audio__thumbnail-wrapper column img class=wp-audio__thumbnail src=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/at-liberty_500x500.jpg alt=Cover artwork for / /div /div /div div class=wp-audio__links is-flex is-align-items-center pl-none pl-4-tablet div class=wp-audio__links-episode is-size-7 has-text-grey has-text-weight-bold p-4 a href=https://www.aclu.org/podcast/in-alabama-embryos-are-people-and-it-wont-stop-there class=visit-link p-none mb-none no-underline column span class=visit-link__textVisit this episode/spanspan class=icon caret is-dark right / /a /div /div /div pThese are some of the questions our client Dr. Caitlin Gustafson shared that some Idaho providers are now forced to consider when a patient comes in with an emergency pregnancy complication in a recent a href=https://time.com/6968774/idaho-abortion-doctors-essay/op-ed/a on the case. Politics shouldn’t matter when you’re trying to treat a patient whose condition is rapidly deteriorating before your very eyes, but that’s the exact dystopia politicians are trying to force on all of us./p div class=wp-heading mb-8 h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-standardThe extremists behind this case won’t stop with abortion. /h2 /div pOverturning iRoe v. Wade/i was just the beginning. Anti-abortion politicians are using every tool at their disposal in their campaign to ban abortion nationwide, and they won’t stop there. They are also pushing a legal strategy to give rights to embryos and fetuses that would override the rights of the pregnant person. We saw what happened in Alabama when the state supreme court granted rights to embryos, which forced IVF clinics across the state to temporarily shut down services. To be clear: There isn’t a serious argument to use EMTALA to grant legal rights to embryos, but that may not stop justices from considering whether to follow the lead of the anti-abortion movement and issue another devastating blow to people’s power to make personal medical decisions during pregnancy./p div class=wp-heading mb-8 h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-standardWe have the power to fight back, and we will win!/h2 /div pAnti-abortion politicians and the groups supporting them are trying to use the courts to further their agenda because the policies they’re pushing are deeply unpopular. Every time abortion is on the ballot, voters send a clear message that they want reproductive freedom to be protected. That’s why the anti-abortion movement has turned to the courts to carry out their agenda, and the scary thing is they might just be successful./p pWhile there is already federal law to protect access to emergency care, the way anti-abortion politicians are trying to manipulate their state’s ban to deny people emergency care shows why we need to put an end to state bans once and for all. We need Congress to pass federal protections for abortion rights that will end extreme bans in states and protect access to care nationwide./p

State legislation is crucially connected to our civil liberties, and can either expand our rights or chip away at them. These bills touch nearly every aspect of our lives. From Roe v. Wade and the Dobbs case that overturned the right to an abortion, to Loving v. Virginia, which struck down laws banning interracial marriage, and Obergefell v. Hodges, which recognized marriage equality across the country — many Supreme Court cases that address all of our civil rights come from laws that were passed in state legislatures.

With an increasingly conservative Supreme Court and federal court system, as well as a Congress whose members are constantly in gridlock, state legislatures offer a more accessible way to enact meaningful change. State lawmakers are easier to contact regarding policies that should be passed, and also frequently go on to run for federal office, or become governors. What’s more, state actions can lead to national impact if many similar policies are passed around the country, signaling national trends.

With many state legislative sessions currently underway, learn more about this important political process, how it affects your rights, and how to get involved.

Each state has its own legislative body in which lawmakers work together to pass policies — just like Congress does at the federal level. Every state except for Nebraska has a legislature composed of two chambers, or a ​​bicameral legislature — which must work together to get a majority of favorable votes and pass bills in both chambers. While the exact names and powers of these entities depend on the specific states, once a bill is passed, it will be sent to the governor to be signed into law or may face a veto.

Most state legislatures are made up of lawmakers who meet to pass laws during legislative sessions each year. If circumstances arise that require lawmakers to address legislation outside of these regular sessions, a special session can be called. There are also several states with full-time legislatures whose lawmakers meet year-round. Lawmakers often engage in this work part time, and are often not adequately paid.

The length and timing of state legislative sessions differ from state to state. Some legislatures are in session for many months, while others only take a few. The sessions that aren’t full time usually take place in the first half of the year, traditionally beginning in January.

The laws that are passed during state legislative sessions run the gamut and can affect a number of constituents’ rights, including reproductive freedom, voting protections, access to gender-affirming care, and others. But this influence goes both ways. Presumably, the prospective laws should reflect the majority opinions of individuals in the state, with lawmakers acting as advocates for these interests. Many bills and policies that make it to state legislatures are promoted by advocacy organizations or interest groups who work with lawmakers to get them passed. The ACLU is among these entities, and is the only organization focusing on civil rights and civil liberties that has an office with staff in every state, working with local policymakers.

There are many decisions happening in states around the country that put our rights in the balance. Without the federal protections from Roe v. Wade, many lawmakers are attacking abortion rights at the state level. There has also been a surge of state laws introduced that block trans youth from receiving gender-affirming care, censor student free speech, and suppress people’s voting powers.

But the ACLU will never stop fighting for your rights. We have taken on countless state-level legal battles to protect people’s liberties — and have seen many victories along the way.

The ACLU always encourages our community to play a hands-on role in the fight for our freedoms. Across the country, we implement strategies that empower voters around the country to stay informed about local races and elect candidates whose interests align with theirs. We’re also mapping state-level attacks on LGBTQ rights so you can keep track of your own area’s legislation — and fight back accordingly.

Supporters can get in touch with the ACLU affiliate offices in their state to learn about local issues they are taking action on. Many affiliate websites offer primers on state legislatures. Our grassroots effort People Power also allows volunteers to engage with state-level actions in their area.

To learn about your state’s legislature, identify the lawmakers who represent you and what their stances are on the issues you care about most. State lawmakers and governors will usually highlight the issues they care about, and the legislative work they’ve done, wherever they are able. With most state legislative sessions underway right now, you can also keep track of policies that are being voted on. This will let you know your legislature’s priorities and if your lawmakers are fulfilling their campaign promises to constituents. Remember, the key players involved in the legislative process are voted into office by you. You have the power in numbers to elect or replace representatives based on whether they are advocating for your interests.