As Ian Millhiser of the Center for American Progress writes in a new post, there is good reason to be very, very worried.

Less than a year from now, Roe v. Wade could be all-but-dead. Employers, health providers, and pharmacists could gain sweeping new power to impose their religious views on women who use birth control. And elected lawmakers could even be stripped of their power to correct Supreme Court decisions that read religious objectors’ rights too expansively. Simply put, the Supreme Court term that begins next month is likely to do more to determine how much control women have over their own bodies than any term since the justices decided Roe v. Wade.
(Emphasis supplied).

Click here to read the entire disturbing story.


Gay marriage 3In a one-sentence order and without dissent, the U.S. Supreme Court late yesterday denied a request by a Kentucky county clerk for a stay of orders requiring her to perform marriages as part of her job duties, pending her appeal on the merits to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Rowan County Clerk, Kim Davis, stopped issuing any marriage licenses shortly after the high court’s decision in Obergfell v. Hodges in order to avoid doing so for same-sex couples — which she said would violate her religious beliefs.

A federal district court judge in Kentucky, David L. Bunning, ruled that Davis either had to start issuing marriage licenses to all couples or resign, and the Sixth Circuit refused to block that order while it considered the underlying merits of her appeal, saying that it found “little or no likelihood that the clerk in her official capacity [would] prevail” on those merits.

As SCOTUSblog’s Lyle Denniston noted yesterday, the request “mark[ed] the first time that the Court has been asked to take any action on the spreading resistance, based on religious opposition, to the June 26 ruling opening marriage rights to same-sex couples.”

State lawmakers here codified that right to refuse based upon religious objection this session when it enacted the magistrate’s refusal bill, Senate Bill 2 — over a veto by Gov. Pat McCrory.

Justice Elena Kagan, who handles emergency filings from the Sixth Circuit. referred the request to the full court, which then issued the order.

Read the Kentucky clerk’s full application in Davis v. Miller here.


Editorial writers have penned several good ones across North Carolina in recent days.

This morning’s Winston-Salem Journal is on the mark when it reminds the state Senate that driver’s education should remain in the public schools. As the editorial notes: “It’s not just a matter of money, but of public safety.”

In an editorial entitled “There’s a better way than political gerrymandering,” the Fayetteville Observer says this:

“In one of its final decisions before ending its term this week, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Arizona’s use of an independent commission to draw congressional districts.

We hope the leaders of the N.C. Senate took note. The decision gives them one less reason to resist a bipartisan initiative to create a redistricting commission here.”

An editorial in Raleigh’s N&O comments on native daughter Loretta Lynch’s return to the state yesterday by noting her sterling qualifications to be the nation’s new Attorney General and blasting the GOP Senators who filibustered her nomination:

“Disgracefully, both of North Carolina’s Republican U.S. senators, Richard Burr and Thom Tillis, opposed Lynch’s nomination on thin and blatantly partisan grounds. They embarrassed themselves more than they did Lynch, and Tillis as a freshman failed the political character test.”

The Charlotte Observer expounds thoughtfully on “Three more Supreme Court decisions that could – and should – have an impact on North Carolina.”

And, finally, in case you missed it, a Tuesday editorial in the Asheville Citizen-Times gets it right with this take on the Affordable Care Act:

“The Affordable Care Act is here to stay. It’s time for critics to stop trying to repeal it and start trying to improve it.

The Supreme Court put the final nail in the repeal-ACA coffin last week when it upheld health-care subsidies in states that have not set up their own insurance exchanges. By a 6-3 vote the justices recognized a drafting error for what it was and rejected the notion that Congress would have deliberately written a law to guarantee it would not work….

The ACA is not perfect. The unwieldy law is too complicated for many Americans and it faced an embarrassingly rocky rollout as thousands were unable to access the website. Its effect on the labor force is yet to be fully ascertained, but there’s always the threat of reduced employee hours and a smaller workforce if people don’t need a job for benefits.

We’re all up for discussing ways to improve the ACA. But the opposition is going to have to bring concrete solutions to the table to build off of the plan instead of continuing to face a fruitless battle to tear it down.”


Supreme courtThe U.S. Supreme Court handed down the last of its opinions this morning, closing out a term that saw several blockbuster cases go down to the wire.

Below, in the order in which opinions were released starting last Thursday, are brief recaps of some of the court’s landmark decisions.

Fair Housing  In a 5-4 decision written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court held in Texas Dep’t of Housing v. Inclusive Communities Project that housing discrimination cases can proceed in court upon a showing that a challenged practice disproportionately affects minorities, rejecting the argument that such cases turn upon proof of discriminatory intent and handing an important win to fair housing advocates and civil rights groups.

A Texas non-profit filed the case in 2008, alleging that the state housing agency distributed affordable housing tax credits in a way that thwarted integration efforts — disproportionately granting them to minority areas while denying them in white areas of Dallas.

The court’s decision is here.

Affordable Care Act  In a 6-3 decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court upheld the availability of subsidies to health insurance purchasers on both state exchanges and the federal exchange, affirming the Fourth Circuit’s decision in King v. Burwell.

“Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them,” Chief Justice John Roberts  wrote for the majority. “If at all possible, we must interpret the act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter.”

North Carolina, like three dozen other states, did not set up its own health care exchange.  More than 560,000 state residents purchased health insurance on the federal exchange instead, with more than 90 percent doing so with the help of subsidies designed to make coverage affordable for middle- and low-income purchasers.

The court’s opinion is here.

Same-sex marriage  In a 5-4 decision written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court held in Obergefell v. Hodges that state bans on same-sex marriage were unconstitutional.

“No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family,” Kennedy wrote. “[The challengers] ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law.The Constitution grants them that right.”

The court’s decision came on the anniversary of two other landmark decisions on gay rights also authored by Kennedy:  Lawrence v. Kansas, in which the court struck a Texas sodomy law, and U.S. Windsor, in which the court struck down provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act and ruled that the federal government must afford same-sex couples the same benefits it extends to heterosexual couples.

The court’s decision is here.

Redistricting  In a win for efforts to rein in gerrymandering, the court with a 5-4 decision written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg upheld a voter-approved independent redistricting commission created to draw congressional maps in Arizona.

Efforts to create such a commission in North Carolina gained some bipartisan support this year with bills filed in the General Assembly, though none moved far enough ahead to be considered this session.

The court’s decision in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission is here.

Lethal Injection In a fiery 5-4 decision written by Justice Samuel Alito that mirrored an equally contentious debate among the justices at oral argument, the court held in Glossip v. Gross that Oklahoma’s use of a three-drug cocktail containing the controversial drug midazolam did not violate the 8th Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

Midazolam was to blame in recent botched executions in that state.

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissented, with Justices Ginsburg and Breyer calling for a full review of whether the death penalty is constitutional.

North Carolina switched from a three-drug cocktail to a single drug protocol in late 2013, but the rulemaking process leading up to that change has been challenged in court. And like other execution drugs, the state’s drug of choice, pentobarbital, has grown scarce.

The court’s decision is here.

Clean Air Act In the last opinion of the term, and another 5-4 decision written this time by Justice Antonin Scalia,   the court rejected regulations requiring coal burning power plants to sharply reduce mercury emissions.  The court held that the Environmental Protection Agency should have taken costs to power producers into account during the first stage of its rule-making process, when it was deciding whether reducing mercury emissions was worth doing from a health perspective.

North Carolina was one of 20 states that opposed the request for review by the Supreme Court, saying that the EPA was well within its prerogative in prioritizing emissions impact over industry costs. Those states also argued that several of them had passed even stricter regulations and that companies have adapted.

The court’s decision is here.


In an order released this morning, the U.S. Supreme Court refused, over a dissent by Justice Antonin Scalia,  to review a ruling striking down North Carolina’s 2011 law requiring doctors to give women a narrated ultrasound before undergoing an abortion. The Court’s decision means the law, which had been challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups, cannot go into effect.

“North Carolinians should take comfort in knowing that this intrusive and unconstitutional law, which placed the ideological agenda of politicians above a doctor’s ability to provide a patient with the specific care she needs, will never go into effect,” Sarah Preston, acting Executive Director of the ACLU of North Carolina, said in a statement. “We’re very glad the courts have recognized that politicians have no business interfering in personal medical decisions that should be left to a woman and her doctor.”

Over a veto by then-Governor Bev Perdue, state lawmakers enacted the Woman’s Right to Know Act in July 2011. The law requires in relevant part that a doctor perform an ultrasound on a patient – regardless of consent — at least four hours before an abortion, showing her the images and describing what is seen.

As described by U.S. District Judge Catherine Eagles in her January 2014 decision overturning the law:

The patient must lie on an examination table where she either (i) exposes the lower portion of her abdomen, or (ii) is naked from the waist down, covered only by a drape. Depending on the stage of pregnancy, the provider (i) inserts an ultrasound probe into the patient’s vagina, or (ii) places an ultrasound probe on her abdomen.

The provider must display the images produced from the ultrasound “so that the pregnant woman may view them.” Providers must then give “a simultaneous explanation of what the display is depicting, which shall include the presence, location, and dimensions of the unborn child within the uterus,” and “a medical description of the images, which shall include the dimensions of the embryo or fetus and the presence of external members and internal organs, if present and viewable.”

The patient need not view the images nor listen to the description by the doctor; she can look away or shield her eyes and ask for ear plugs or some other device to block her hearing.

The law provides no exceptions for patients who are victims of rape or incest, who are minors or who may be carrying a fetus with severe abnormalities or which is not otherwise viable.

On appeal, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Eagles and blocked enforcement of the  law, finding that it violated the First Amendment rights of physicians who provide abortions.

For more on the case and the appeal at the Fourth Circuit, read here and here.