Category
Prime minister’s questions: a shouty, jeery, very occasionally useful advert for British politics. Here’s what you need to know from the latest session in POLITICO’s…
Read more →The Lancashire County Council elections to elect county councillors will take place in May, and the voting registration deadline is next week. People can vote for the county councillors representing […]
Read more →The poll’s findings are a blow to Keir Starmer. Support for Labour has plunged to just 21% in a new opinion poll, dealing a major…
Read more →Listen on Spotify Apple Music Amazon Music – Merz plant das Super-Kanzleramt: Der voraussichtlich nächste Kanzler will einen Nationalen Sicherheitsrat schaffen – und damit auch…
Read more →<img src="https://api.follow.it/track-rss-story-loaded/v1/qPPbn0zCnQTep04qHVv5Pnn9ye8UNv30" border=0 width="1" height="1" alt="Announcement of opinions for Wednesday, April 2" title="Announcement of opinions for Wednesday, April 2"> <img width="150" height="150" src="https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Banner190626-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Announcement of opinions for Wednesday, April 2" title="Announcement of opinions for Wednesday, April 2" style="float:right;" decoding="async" /><p><a class="a2a_button_facebook" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/facebook?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fannouncement-of-opinions-for-wednesday-april-2%2F&linkname=Announcement%20of%20opinions%20for%20Wednesday%2C%20April%202" title="Facebook" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_linkedin" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/linkedin?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fannouncement-of-opinions-for-wednesday-april-2%2F&linkname=Announcement%20of%20opinions%20for%20Wednesday%2C%20April%202" title="LinkedIn" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_twitter" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/twitter?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fannouncement-of-opinions-for-wednesday-april-2%2F&linkname=Announcement%20of%20opinions%20for%20Wednesday%2C%20April%202" title="Twitter" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_email" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/email?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fannouncement-of-opinions-for-wednesday-april-2%2F&linkname=Announcement%20of%20opinions%20for%20Wednesday%2C%20April%202" title="Email" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_printfriendly" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/printfriendly?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fannouncement-of-opinions-for-wednesday-april-2%2F&linkname=Announcement%20of%20opinions%20for%20Wednesday%2C%20April%202" title="PrintFriendly" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_dd addtoany_no_icon addtoany_share_save addtoany_share" href="https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fannouncement-of-opinions-for-wednesday-april-2%2F&title=Announcement%20of%20opinions%20for%20Wednesday%2C%20April%202" data-a2a-url="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/04/announcement-of-opinions-for-wednesday-april-2/" data-a2a-title="Announcement of opinions for Wednesday, April 2">Share</a></p><p>On Wednesday, April 2, we will be live blogging as the court releases opinions in one or more argued cases from the current term.</p> <p>Click <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/faqs-announcements-of-orders-and-opinions/">here</a> for a list of FAQs about opinion announcements.</p> <p><span id="more-319423"></span></p> <div class="arena-chat" data-publisher="scotusblog" data-chatroom="6tKhzia" data-position="in-page"> </div> <p> </p> <p>The post <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/04/announcement-of-opinions-for-wednesday-april-2/">Announcement of opinions for Wednesday, April 2</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com">SCOTUSblog</a>.</p>
Read more →<img src="https://api.follow.it/track-rss-story-loaded/v1/I-MSlNcv7O6yMp3GR3W56Xn9ye8UNv30" border=0 width="1" height="1" alt="Detainees under Alien Enemies Act urge justices to leave judge’s bar on removal in place" title="Detainees under Alien Enemies Act urge justices to leave judge’s bar on removal in place"> <img width="150" height="150" src="https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/supremecourt-2-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Detainees under Alien Enemies Act urge justices to leave judge’s bar on removal in place" title="Detainees under Alien Enemies Act urge justices to leave judge’s bar on removal in place" style="float:right;" decoding="async" srcset="https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/supremecourt-2-150x150.jpg 150w, https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/supremecourt-2-570x570.jpg 570w, https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/supremecourt-2-500x500.jpg 500w, https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/supremecourt-2-1000x1000.jpg 1000w" sizes="(max-width: 150px) 100vw, 150px" /><p><a class="a2a_button_facebook" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/facebook?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fdetainees-under-alien-enemies-act-urge-justices-to-leave-judges-bar-on-removal-in-place%2F&linkname=Detainees%20under%20Alien%20Enemies%20Act%20urge%20justices%20to%20leave%20judge%E2%80%99s%20bar%20on%20removal%20in%20place" title="Facebook" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_linkedin" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/linkedin?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fdetainees-under-alien-enemies-act-urge-justices-to-leave-judges-bar-on-removal-in-place%2F&linkname=Detainees%20under%20Alien%20Enemies%20Act%20urge%20justices%20to%20leave%20judge%E2%80%99s%20bar%20on%20removal%20in%20place" title="LinkedIn" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_twitter" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/twitter?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fdetainees-under-alien-enemies-act-urge-justices-to-leave-judges-bar-on-removal-in-place%2F&linkname=Detainees%20under%20Alien%20Enemies%20Act%20urge%20justices%20to%20leave%20judge%E2%80%99s%20bar%20on%20removal%20in%20place" title="Twitter" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_email" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/email?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fdetainees-under-alien-enemies-act-urge-justices-to-leave-judges-bar-on-removal-in-place%2F&linkname=Detainees%20under%20Alien%20Enemies%20Act%20urge%20justices%20to%20leave%20judge%E2%80%99s%20bar%20on%20removal%20in%20place" title="Email" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_printfriendly" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/printfriendly?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fdetainees-under-alien-enemies-act-urge-justices-to-leave-judges-bar-on-removal-in-place%2F&linkname=Detainees%20under%20Alien%20Enemies%20Act%20urge%20justices%20to%20leave%20judge%E2%80%99s%20bar%20on%20removal%20in%20place" title="PrintFriendly" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_dd addtoany_no_icon addtoany_share_save addtoany_share" href="https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fdetainees-under-alien-enemies-act-urge-justices-to-leave-judges-bar-on-removal-in-place%2F&title=Detainees%20under%20Alien%20Enemies%20Act%20urge%20justices%20to%20leave%20judge%E2%80%99s%20bar%20on%20removal%20in%20place" data-a2a-url="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/04/detainees-under-alien-enemies-act-urge-justices-to-leave-judges-bar-on-removal-in-place/" data-a2a-title="Detainees under Alien Enemies Act urge justices to leave judge’s bar on removal in place">Share</a></p><p>Lawyers for alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/trump-v-j-g-g/">urged the Supreme Court on Tuesday</a> to leave in place an order by a federal judge in Washington, D.C., that prohibits the federal government from removing them, or anyone else, from the United States under the Alien Enemies Act, an 18th-century law that until now has only been invoked during wartime.</p> <p>In a 39-page filing, the plaintiffs noted that “it is becoming increasingly clear that many (perhaps most) of the men” who were sent to El Salvador on March 15 “were not actually members of” TdA, “and were instead erroneously listed” as TdA members largely because of their tattoos. The order by U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, the plaintiffs say, “is thus essential to ensure that more individuals who have no affiliation with the gang will not be sent to a notorious foreign prison.”</p> <p>President Donald Trump issued the executive order at the center of the case on March 15. It targets Tren de Aragua, a large Venezuelan gang that began in that country’s prisons and then expanded into other parts of Latin America. The order directs government officials to quickly remove, without a hearing, noncitizens who are designated as members of TdA.<span id="more-319430"></span></p> <p>Trump relied on the Alien Enemies Act, a 1798 law that authorizes the president to detain or deport citizens of an enemy nation without a hearing when Congress has declared war or when an “invasion” has occurred.</p> <p>Five Venezuelans in immigration custody who believed they could be removed under Trump’s order went to federal court in Washington to challenge Trump’s use of the AEA. Boasberg prohibited the federal government from removing any of the individual plaintiffs for 14 days, as well as anyone else under the AEA. During a hearing, he directed any flights carrying noncitizens that had already taken off to return to the United States, although news reports later indicated that more than 200 noncitizens later landed in El Salvador, where they were taken to a maximum-security prison.</p> <p>The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit expedited the government’s appeal, and on March 26 it turned down the government’s request to put Boasberg’s order on hold.</p> <p>The government came to the Supreme Court on March 28, asking the justices to step in. It told the court that Boasberg’s orders “jeopardize sensitive diplomatic negotiations and delicate national-security operations, which were designed to extirpate TdA’s presence in our country before it gains a greater foothold.”</p> <p>The plaintiffs countered on Tuesday that there is no harm to the government from keeping Boasberg’s orders in place. Indeed, the plaintiffs noted, the government has, using other immigration laws and procedures, continued to remove alleged members of the Tren de Aragua.</p> <p>But by contrast, the plaintiffs wrote, if Boasberg’s orders are lifted, the plaintiffs “will suffer extraordinary and irreparable harms — being sent out of the United States to a notorious Salvadoran prison, where they will remain incommunicado, potentially for the rest of their lives, without having had <em>any</em> opportunity to contest their designation as gang members.”</p> <p>The plaintiffs stressed that the government agrees with them that individuals should have an opportunity to challenge their designation as TdA before they can be removed. Instead, they observed, the government simply contends that the plaintiffs were instead required to bring a habeas corpus case – that is, a case to challenge the legality of their detentions – and contests the decision to challenge the president’s use of the Alien Enemies Act in Washington, D.C., rather than in Texas, where the five named plaintiffs are being held. These kinds of questions “are procedural issues more appropriately decided by lower courts in the first instance,” rather than by the Supreme Court in an emergency appeal, the plaintiffs suggested.</p> <p>Moreover, the plaintiffs continued, because the Trump administration concedes that some court somewhere can review their case, “its dire claims about the TRO amounting to intolerable judicial interference with national security reduce, at best, to technical disputes” about where that court should be, which can be determined by the district court.</p> <p>And the government is in any event wrong on the merits, the plaintiffs concluded. The Alien Enemies Act does not justify the president’s March 15 order. The AEA was intended to “address ‘military’ hostilities directed at the United States, not criminal activity by a gang during peacetime.”</p> <p>The plaintiffs are also not required to bring their claims as habeas cases, they insisted. This is particularly true, they say, when it will be a “practical impossibility” for most people subject to the AEA to bring a habeas claim in time to stave off their removals. Among other things, the plaintiffs noted, the government continues to contend that it is not obligated to notify individuals who are covered by the president’s order. “And when asked pointedly in the court of appeals whether it plans to load more individuals onto plans without notice the moment the TRO is dissolved, the government did not hesitate to take that position.” As a result, the plaintiffs said, Boasberg’s order “is the only thing preventing” the Trump administration “from invoking the AEA to send individuals to a prison in El Salvador,” “perhaps never to be seen again, without any kind of procedural protection, much less judicial review.”</p> <p><em>This article was <a href="https://amylhowe.com/2025/04/01/detainees-under-alien-enemies-act-urge-justices-to-leave-judges-bar-on-removal-in-place/">originally published at Howe on the Court</a>. </em></p> <p>The post <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/04/detainees-under-alien-enemies-act-urge-justices-to-leave-judges-bar-on-removal-in-place/">Detainees under Alien Enemies Act urge justices to leave judge’s bar on removal in place</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com">SCOTUSblog</a>.</p>
Read more →<img src="https://api.follow.it/track-rss-story-loaded/v1/pkiIGJc0hnpdc5gGKGTUAXn9ye8UNv30" border=0 width="1" height="1" alt="Justices likely to allow damages suit against Palestinian Authority to go forward in U.S. courts" title="Justices likely to allow damages suit against Palestinian Authority to go forward in U.S. courts"> <img width="150" height="150" src="https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/supremecourt-1-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Justices likely to allow damages suit against Palestinian Authority to go forward in U.S. courts" title="Justices likely to allow damages suit against Palestinian Authority to go forward in U.S. courts" style="float:right;" decoding="async" srcset="https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/supremecourt-1-150x150.jpg 150w, https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/supremecourt-1-570x570.jpg 570w, https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/supremecourt-1-500x500.jpg 500w, https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/supremecourt-1-1000x1000.jpg 1000w" sizes="(max-width: 150px) 100vw, 150px" /><p><a class="a2a_button_facebook" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/facebook?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fjustices-likely-to-allow-damages-suit-against-palestinian-authority-to-go-forward-in-u-s-courts%2F&linkname=Justices%20likely%20to%20allow%20damages%20suit%20against%20Palestinian%20Authority%20to%20go%20forward%20in%20U.S.%20courts" title="Facebook" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_linkedin" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/linkedin?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fjustices-likely-to-allow-damages-suit-against-palestinian-authority-to-go-forward-in-u-s-courts%2F&linkname=Justices%20likely%20to%20allow%20damages%20suit%20against%20Palestinian%20Authority%20to%20go%20forward%20in%20U.S.%20courts" title="LinkedIn" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_twitter" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/twitter?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fjustices-likely-to-allow-damages-suit-against-palestinian-authority-to-go-forward-in-u-s-courts%2F&linkname=Justices%20likely%20to%20allow%20damages%20suit%20against%20Palestinian%20Authority%20to%20go%20forward%20in%20U.S.%20courts" title="Twitter" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_email" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/email?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fjustices-likely-to-allow-damages-suit-against-palestinian-authority-to-go-forward-in-u-s-courts%2F&linkname=Justices%20likely%20to%20allow%20damages%20suit%20against%20Palestinian%20Authority%20to%20go%20forward%20in%20U.S.%20courts" title="Email" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_printfriendly" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/printfriendly?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fjustices-likely-to-allow-damages-suit-against-palestinian-authority-to-go-forward-in-u-s-courts%2F&linkname=Justices%20likely%20to%20allow%20damages%20suit%20against%20Palestinian%20Authority%20to%20go%20forward%20in%20U.S.%20courts" title="PrintFriendly" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_dd addtoany_no_icon addtoany_share_save addtoany_share" href="https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fjustices-likely-to-allow-damages-suit-against-palestinian-authority-to-go-forward-in-u-s-courts%2F&title=Justices%20likely%20to%20allow%20damages%20suit%20against%20Palestinian%20Authority%20to%20go%20forward%20in%20U.S.%20courts" data-a2a-url="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/04/justices-likely-to-allow-damages-suit-against-palestinian-authority-to-go-forward-in-u-s-courts/" data-a2a-title="Justices likely to allow damages suit against Palestinian Authority to go forward in U.S. courts">Share</a></p><p>The Supreme Court on Tuesday appeared inclined to allow a lawsuit by U.S. victims of terrorist attacks in Israel against the Palestinian Authority and the Palestine Liberation Organization to go forward. A majority of the justices appeared skeptical of contentions by the PA and the PLO that a law allowing those victims to sue them in U.S. courts violates the Constitution’s guarantee of due process, even if there was not necessarily any agreement on the bench on exactly how courts should reach that conclusion.</p> <p>During nearly two hours of debate, the justices often seemed to be grappling with broader questions as well, such as the extent to which courts should defer to national-security and foreign-policy judgments made by the other branches of government. </p> <p>At issue the case is the concept of personal jurisdiction – whether courts have the power to hear a case against certain defendants. In 2019, Congress passed the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act to give federal courts personal jurisdiction over cases by terrorism victims abroad. The law provides that the PLO and the PA “shall be deemed to have consented to personal jurisdiction” in any civil case brought under the Anti-Terrorism Act, no matter when the act of international terrorism occurred, if they make payments to the families of terrorists who injured or killed a U.S. citizen or engaged in any activities within the United States. The law carves out a few narrow exceptions to the latter criterion – for example, for conduct relating to official United Nations business or meeting with government officials.</p> <p>The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit ruled that the dispute now before the court, brought by U.S. citizens injured in terrorist attacks in Israel, as well as the families of U.S. citizens killed in such attacks, could not move forward. It reasoned that the Palestine Liberation Organization, which is the official representative of the Palestinian people for foreign affairs, and the Palestinian Authority, the governing body for parts of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, had not agreed to have U.S. courts exercise jurisdiction over them. Nor, the court of appeals added, is the conduct that the PSJVTA targets the kind of conduct from which it would be fair to infer consent.</p> <p>After the full court of appeals, over a dissent by four judges, declined to reconsider the decision, the victims and families came to the Supreme Court, which agreed last fall to weigh in.</p> <p>Representing the victims and families, Kent Yalowitz urged the court to reverse the 2nd Circuit’s decision and revive his clients’ lawsuit. The PSJVTA provided the PLO and the PA with “fair warning,” he said. “Their conduct was knowing and voluntary.” And the law “reasonably advances legitimate government interests in the context of our federal system.”</p> <p>Much of the oral argument focused on whether the due process clauses in the 14th Amendment (which applies only to the states) and the Fifth Amendment (which applies to the federal government) impose the same limits on jurisdiction – and, if they impose different limits, what those limits are for cases under the Fifth Amendment.</p> <p>Yalowitz insisted that the two amendments have different limits. He reasoned that the 14th Amendment has to account for the interests of the states involved, so that one state does not infringe on the sovereignty of another by exercising jurisdiction over a defendant with minimal contacts with the state. But the “federal government doesn’t suffer from that limitation,” Yalowitz maintained, because its “powers are more expansive.”</p> <p>Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked whether Yalowitz was “basically saying there is no due process protection under the Fifth Amendment even for U.S. citizens?” Could Congress say, she enquired, that a U.S. citizen could face trial in California for an act in New York?</p> <p>Yalowitz insisted that he was not advocating for a rule that would eliminate a requirement that the exercise of jurisdiction be fair or reasonable, to protect “citizens and non-citizens alike from arbitrary federal action.” But the PSJVTA meets such a requirement, he maintained.</p> <p>Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked whether, if the court were to interpret the Fifth Amendment as requiring that the defendant have some connection with the United States, the justices would effectively be overruling some of the 19th century cases interpreting the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause more to provide fewer protections.</p> <p>Yalowitz acknowledged that at the very least, such an interpretation would be “in tension” with the older cases.</p> <p>Deputy Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler told the justices that the PSJVTA is “an integral part of the foreign policy and national security policy of the political branches, including the securing of compensation for victims of terrorism.” Both kinds of conduct that can trigger the PSJVTA’s jurisdictional provision are, he said, “knowing and voluntary. They have a clear nexus to United States territory and to United States nationals and to the compelling U.S. interests in deterring terrorism.” Moreover, he added, the jurisdiction triggered by the law “is narrowly limited to terrorism cases.” “Congress’s judgment on these issues, as in all issues of national security and foreign policy, are entitled to great deference,” Kneedler concluded.</p> <p>But Chief Justice John Roberts was unimpressed by the rule that the government was advancing. “It sounds like it’s a grab bag,” Roberts scoffed. It’s just “a bunch of words.”</p> <p>Justice Neil Gorsuch saw what he characterized as a “tension” in the government’s position. On the one hand, as Kneedler agreed, under the Fifth Amendment the Supreme Court should play almost no role in “saying that what Congress has done is improper” with a law like the PSJVTA. But on the other hand, Gorsuch complained, the federal government wants a “safety valve” for the Supreme Court “to overrule” Congress in some cases.</p> <p>Justice Elena Kagan suggested that the federal government might be reluctant to take a position “where anything Congress says goes” – that is, that there is essentially no role for courts to play in reviewing laws creating personal jurisdiction – because, among other things, there would be foreign-policy implications from “extremely broad” assertions of jurisdiction over foreign nationals, which could in turn encourage other countries to retaliate against U.S. nationals and companies.</p> <p>Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson made a similar point, observing that without limits imposed by the Fifth Amendment on what Congress and the president can do, it could open a Pandora’s Box of other problems. She posited that the court could simply rule that the 14th and Fifth Amendments do not impose the same requirements and then send the case back to the lower courts.</p> <p>But Barrett pushed back against any suggestion that such concerns might lead to the court issuing a narrower ruling. “[T]hese judgments about foreign policy considerations are for Congress and the president to make,” she emphasized.</p> <p>Justice Samuel Alito chimed in, telling Kneedler that if the court looks at the 19th-century Fifth Amendment cases “you don’t want us to adopt that fully” and “and say ‘anything goes,’” then the court would have to “say what the test is. And then,” Alito asked, “what is the test?”</p> <p>Justice Brett Kavanaugh clearly believed that the role of the courts in reviewing laws like the PSJVTA should be very limited. This is a case involving national security and foreign policy, he stressed, in which Congress and the president have already agreed on the proper role of the courts and acted pursuant to their constitutional powers to regulate the conduct of the PLO and the PA. Courts can still weigh in, he acknowledged, “to make sure they’re not crossing some other constitutional line,” but it’s normally “a very sensitive judgment” for courts to make, because Congress and the executive branch are generally going to be responsible for determining whether a law like the PSJVTA is fair.</p> <p>Representing the PLO and the PA, Mitchell Berger told the justices that his clients’ conduct does not “support a presumption” that they consented to be sued in the United States under the PSJVTA. “Among other things,” he noted, when Congress passed the PSJVTA, two courts of appeals had already held that the same kinds of conduct that can now trigger jurisdiction under the PSJVTA “are constitutionally insufficient to support jurisdiction” over the PLO and the PA. “Continuing to engage in jurisdictionally insufficient conduct is the exact opposite of submitting to the court’s jurisdiction,” Berger argued.</p> <p>Alito had a more practical question. “What exactly,” he queried, “is the unfairness in this case? Is it too burdensome to litigate this in New York, where the PA and the PLO,” at the U.N., engage in some activities?</p> <p>Berger countered that the “unfairness” is the idea that the PA and the PLO can lose “a liberty interest for engaging in activity previously held constitutionally insufficient to support jurisdiction.”</p> <p>Alito was dubious, telling Berger that his answer didn’t “sound like a personal jurisdiction argument.”</p> <p>Berger then compared the situation of the PLO and the PA to a situation in which someone is “on a train where it’s sitting still and another train is moving backwards.” “That’s what Congress keeps doing with these statutes,” Berger told the justices, “which is we’re doing the same thing, and Congress keeps moving the context around us. And that’s what makes this statute as applied” to the PLO and the PA unconstitutional, Berger concluded.</p> <p>But by the time the justices left the bench a few minutes later, it seemed likely that Congress would not need to tinker further with the law, and that this dispute – which Yalowitz described as “old enough to go to law school” – would go forward. </p> <p><em>This article was <a href="https://amylhowe.com/2025/04/01/justices-likely-to-allow-damages-suit-against-palestinian-authority-to-go-forward-in-u-s-courts/">originally published at Howe on the Court</a>. </em></p> <p>The post <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/04/justices-likely-to-allow-damages-suit-against-palestinian-authority-to-go-forward-in-u-s-courts/">Justices likely to allow damages suit against Palestinian Authority to go forward in U.S. courts</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com">SCOTUSblog</a>.</p>
Read more →Donald Trump and Keir Starmer at the White House in February. Keir Starmer has been urged to form “a united front” with the European Union…
Read more →BRUXELLES — C’est une chose de s’attaquer aux motos Harley-Davidson et au bourbon. C’en est une autre de s’attaquer à la Silicon Valley ou à…
Read more →<img src="https://api.follow.it/track-rss-story-loaded/v1/bum_Ot3cH13PH11i1ysbLnn9ye8UNv30" border=0 width="1" height="1" alt="Supreme Court considers South Carolina’s effort to strip Planned Parenthood of Medicaid funding" title="Supreme Court considers South Carolina’s effort to strip Planned Parenthood of Medicaid funding"> <img width="150" height="150" src="https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/supremecourt-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Supreme Court considers South Carolina’s effort to strip Planned Parenthood of Medicaid funding" title="Supreme Court considers South Carolina’s effort to strip Planned Parenthood of Medicaid funding" style="float:right;" decoding="async" srcset="https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/supremecourt-150x150.jpg 150w, https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/supremecourt-570x570.jpg 570w, https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/supremecourt-500x500.jpg 500w, https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/supremecourt-1000x1000.jpg 1000w" sizes="(max-width: 150px) 100vw, 150px" /><p><a class="a2a_button_facebook" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/facebook?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fsupreme-court-considers-south-carolinas-effort-to-strip-planned-parenthood-of-medicaid-funding%2F&linkname=Supreme%20Court%20considers%20South%20Carolina%E2%80%99s%20effort%20to%20strip%20Planned%20Parenthood%20of%20Medicaid%20funding" title="Facebook" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_linkedin" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/linkedin?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fsupreme-court-considers-south-carolinas-effort-to-strip-planned-parenthood-of-medicaid-funding%2F&linkname=Supreme%20Court%20considers%20South%20Carolina%E2%80%99s%20effort%20to%20strip%20Planned%20Parenthood%20of%20Medicaid%20funding" title="LinkedIn" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_twitter" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/twitter?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fsupreme-court-considers-south-carolinas-effort-to-strip-planned-parenthood-of-medicaid-funding%2F&linkname=Supreme%20Court%20considers%20South%20Carolina%E2%80%99s%20effort%20to%20strip%20Planned%20Parenthood%20of%20Medicaid%20funding" title="Twitter" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_email" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/email?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fsupreme-court-considers-south-carolinas-effort-to-strip-planned-parenthood-of-medicaid-funding%2F&linkname=Supreme%20Court%20considers%20South%20Carolina%E2%80%99s%20effort%20to%20strip%20Planned%20Parenthood%20of%20Medicaid%20funding" title="Email" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_printfriendly" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/printfriendly?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fsupreme-court-considers-south-carolinas-effort-to-strip-planned-parenthood-of-medicaid-funding%2F&linkname=Supreme%20Court%20considers%20South%20Carolina%E2%80%99s%20effort%20to%20strip%20Planned%20Parenthood%20of%20Medicaid%20funding" title="PrintFriendly" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_dd addtoany_no_icon addtoany_share_save addtoany_share" href="https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fsupreme-court-considers-south-carolinas-effort-to-strip-planned-parenthood-of-medicaid-funding%2F&title=Supreme%20Court%20considers%20South%20Carolina%E2%80%99s%20effort%20to%20strip%20Planned%20Parenthood%20of%20Medicaid%20funding" data-a2a-url="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/04/supreme-court-considers-south-carolinas-effort-to-strip-planned-parenthood-of-medicaid-funding/" data-a2a-title="Supreme Court considers South Carolina’s effort to strip Planned Parenthood of Medicaid funding">Share</a></p><p>The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Wednesday in a case that, at first glance, appears to involve only a technical interpretation of the federal Medicaid Act. But the dispute has drawn widespread attention because of the context in which it came to the justices: an attempt by South Carolina to exclude Planned Parenthood from the state’s Medicaid program because it provides abortions.</p> <p>Created in 1965, the federal Medicaid program provides medical care, in cooperation with the states, to more than 72 million lower-income Americans – including families, the elderly, and people with disabilities. The Medicaid Act was enacted pursuant to Congress’s power under Laws under the Constitution’s spending clause, which allows Congress to attach conditions to federal funds.</p> <p>Under federal law, Medicaid funds cannot generally be used for abortions. Planned Parenthood provides other medical services to its patients, both Medicaid and non-Medicaid, including gynecological and contraceptive care but also screenings for cancer, high blood pressure, and high cholesterol.<span id="more-319418"></span></p> <p>At two clinics in Charleston and Columbia, Planned Parenthood has tried to make it easier to lower-income patients in South Carolina to use its services – by, for example, offering same-day appointments and extended clinic hours. One of those Medicaid patients is Julie Edwards, who suffers from diabetes. She went to Planned Parenthood for birth control and says she wants to return to receive other care in the future.</p> <p>In 2018, South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster ordered the state’s Department of Health and Human Services to bar abortion clinics from participating in the Medicaid program. McMaster explained that because money is fungible, the use of Medicaid funds by abortion clinics “results in the subsidy of abortion and the denial of the right to life.”</p> <p>Edwards and Planned Parenthood went to federal court in South Carolina. They argued that McMaster’s order violated a provision of the Medicaid Act that allows any patient who is eligible for Medicaid to seek health care from any “qualified” provider.</p> <p>In a decision by Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson, who was reportedly once on the short list to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court during the George W. Bush administration, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit agreed with Edwards and Planned Parenthood that the Medicaid Act creates individual rights that can be enforced under federal civil rights laws, and it prohibited the state from excluding Planned Parenthood from its Medicaid program.</p> <p>South Carolina – represented by the conservative advocacy group Alliance Defending Freedom – appealed to the Supreme Court last June, asking the justices to decide whether Edwards and Planned Parenthood have a legal right to sue to enforce the Medicaid Act. The justices agreed in December to weigh in.</p> <p>In its brief at the Supreme Court, South Carolina argues that under the Supreme Court’s cases, because the Medicaid law was enacted pursuant to Congress’s spending clause power, it “must <em>unambiguously</em> confer individual federal rights.” The Supreme Court, it says, has made clear that this is a stringent test. The law must use words that explicitly create the right that a plaintiff seeks to enforce, and it must confer the right “directly on a class of persons that includes the plaintiff in the case.”</p> <p>It is noteworthy, South Carolina contends, that until now the Supreme Court has only found four provisions that clearly create privately enforceable rights. Two years ago, in <em><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/health-and-hospital-corporation-of-marion-county-indiana-v-talevski/">Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion County, Ind. v. Talevski</a></em>, the court ruled (by a vote of 7-2) that nursing-home residents could use federal civil rights laws to enforce two provisions of the Federal Nursing Home Reform Act that clearly granted individual rights. The justices also ruled that two provisions in Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, providing that “[n]o person shall,” also create privately enforceable rights.</p> <p>No such language, the state asserts, is present in the “any qualified provider” provision, which says only that “an individual eligible for medical assistance” “may obtain” it from a “qualified” provider”: Although that text may confer a benefit, the state acknowledges, it doesn’t say anything about a “right.” Moreover, the state continues, the provision is located in “a list labeled ‘Contents’ setting out 87 disparate items that plans must include.”</p> <p>By contrast, the state observes, the laws at issue in <em>Talevski</em> repeatedly referred to “rights” and were “listed in a bill of rights.” Indeed, another provision of the law at issue in <em>Talevski</em> specifically protected the “right to choose a personal attending physician” – demonstrating that Congress knows how to create the right to choose a health-care provider when it wants to.</p> <p>South Carolina also emphasizes that as a practical matter, the Medicaid Act focuses on the relationship between the states and the federal government, rather than on creating individual rights that would allow someone to bring a lawsuit. Congress, the state stresses, wanted to give states “substantial discretion” in implementing their Medicaid programs. By allowing individuals to sue when they disagreed with a state’s Medicaid decisions, the state argues, Planned Parenthood’s reading of the law would give that discretion to federal courts and pose the risk of “unanticipated (and expensive) lawsuits” for states to defend.</p> <p>In a “friend of the court” brief supporting South Carolina, the Trump administration agrees with South Carolina that Congress did not intend to create a privately enforceable right in the “any qualified provider” provision. If it had, the Trump administration posits, it would not have “bur[ied]” it “deep within” the Medicaid law and omitted the “term ‘right’ or other equally unmistakable rights-conferring language.”</p> <p>The Trump administration acknowledges that its position is an about-face from the one taken by the federal government in earlier litigation involving other laws, including <em>Talevski</em>. But the Supreme Court’s decision in <em>Talevski</em>, Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris explains, “has elucidated just how unmistakable and unusual rights-conferring statutes must be within the broader statutory context. After the change in Administration and in light of <em>Talevski</em>, the United States has concluded that” the “any qualified provider” provision does not create rights enforceable under federal civil rights laws. Adopting Planned Parenthood’s reading, she notes, could “potentially greenlight private” federal civil rights suits “to enforce a dozen or more similar provisions.”</p> <p>Another brief supporting South Carolina comes from the World Faith Foundation, a California-based nonprofit that describes its mission as preserving and defending the “customs, beliefs, values, and practices of religious faith and speech.” Pointing to the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in <em><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/dobbs-v-jackson-womens-health-organization/">Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization</a></em>, overturning the constitutional right to an abortion, the group emphasizes that the court “has explicitly returned abortion regulation to the states.” Allowing private lawsuits to enforce the “any qualified provider” provision in cases like this one, and therefore provide Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood, the group says, “would sneak forbidden funding through the back door into South Carolina and other pro-life states.”</p> <p>In its brief at the Supreme Court, Planned Parenthood also relies on <em>Talevski</em>, asserting that the “any qualified provider” provision passes the test that the justices outlined in that case. The provision, the group says, contains the kind of “individual-focused, rights-creating language necessary to confer an individual right”: It explicitly refers to “individuals” and directs the state to allow each Medicaid beneficiary to receive care from any qualified provider. In doing so, Planned Parenthood insists, Congress did not simply provide Medicaid patients with a benefit, but instead recognized “an intensely personal right” that is “fundamental to patients’ autonomy and dignity.”</p> <p>Moreover, Planned Parenthood adds, the “any qualified provider” provision is “materially similar” to the laws in <em>Talevski</em> that the justices concluded did create privately enforceable rights for nursing-home residents.</p> <p>It doesn’t matter, Planned Parenthood explains, that the “any qualified provider” provision does not specifically use the word “rights” or provide that “no person shall” do something, as in earlier cases in which the court has agreed that the text of the laws conferred privately enforceable rights. The Supreme Court, the group emphasizes, “has repeatedly rejected a magic-words requirement.”</p> <p>The context and history of the “any qualified provider” provision also indicate that Congress intended to create privately enforceable rights, Planned Parenthood continues. Not only does the provision appear in both Medicare and Medicaid, the group observes, but Congress specifically enacted the Medicaid version of the provision “after States attempted to restrict Medicaid patients’ choice of providers.”</p> <p>And Planned Parenthood pushes back against South Carolina’s contention that allowing individuals to bring private lawsuits to enforce the “any qualified provider” provision will lead to a wave of lawsuits. They note that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit first held almost two decades ago that the “any qualified provider” provision can be privately enforced. “In the years since then, most circuits have agreed with the Sixth Circuit, and yet there has been no explosion of litigation.”</p> <p>A “friend of the court” brief by Medicaid beneficiaries emphasizes Planned Parenthood’s role in providing all kinds of health care that has “nothing to do with abortion,” particularly in parts of the country where lower-income patients may have few options for good primary care. Indeed, the beneficiaries write, Planned Parenthood may be “not only their provider of choice, but potentially the <em>only</em> source of life-saving care that meets their needs.”</p> <p>A brief by a group of public health organizations and scholars focuses on the “considerable impact on maternal and child health” that it says would flow from a ruling for the state. More than 50% of South Carolina’s counties “are medically underserved, and nearly two in five counties are classified as contraceptive deserts,” the group writes. Even where there are other health care providers, the group continues, “there is no evidence that they are in a position to accept a mass influx of patients who find themselves suddenly without access to the doctors and nurses they know and rely on.”</p> <p>A decision is expected by summer.</p> <p><em>This article was <a href="https://amylhowe.com/2025/04/01/supreme-court-considers-south-carolinas-effort-to-strip-planned-parenthood-of-medicaid-funding/">originally published at Howe on the Court</a>. </em></p> <p>The post <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/04/supreme-court-considers-south-carolinas-effort-to-strip-planned-parenthood-of-medicaid-funding/">Supreme Court considers South Carolina’s effort to strip Planned Parenthood of Medicaid funding</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com">SCOTUSblog</a>.</p>
Read more →