Monday, January 8, 2024

Justices will review lower-court ruling on access to abortion pill - SCOTUSblog

Justices will review Texas district judge's bar on access to Mifestiprone abortion pill - SCOTUSblog December 13, 2023 By Amy Howe

The Supreme Court on Wednesday morning agreed to review a ruling by a federal appeals court that would significantly restrict (but not eliminate altogether) access to a drug used in medication abortions, which account for over half of all abortions performed in the United States. Wednesday’s announcement means that the justices will weigh in on the issue of abortion for the first time since overruling the constitutional right to an abortion last year in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Their decisions in the new cases, Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine and Danco Laboratories v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, are likely to come sometime next summer, in the middle of the 2024 presidential campaign.

The announcement that the justices had granted review in the two cases came as part of a list of orders (the rest of which will be covered in a separate post) released on Wednesday morning.

The justices declined to take up an appeal by the challengers in the case, a group of doctors and medical groups opposed to abortion who had asked them to also weigh in on the validity of the FDA’s initial approval of the drug, known as mifepristone, in 2000. A federal judge in Amarillo, Tex., agreed with the challengers and suspended both that approval and the later changes to the conditions on the use of the drug – such as allowing the drug to be used through the 10th week of pregnancy, rather than the 7th, and allowing health-care providers who are not physicians to prescribe the drug. But although the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld Kaczmaryk’s rollback of the later changes to conditions on the use of the drug, it ruled that the challengers’ efforts to invalidate the FDA’s initial approval of the drug came too late.

The Biden administration and the drug manufacturer Danco came to the Supreme Court this spring, asking the justices to intervene to maintain the status quo until the dispute is resolved. The justices granted that request, allowing the drug to remain widely available for now.  

The Biden administration and Danco came to the Supreme Court in September, asking the justices to weigh in on the propriety of the FDA’s decisions in 2016 and 2021 to make mifepristone more widely available, as well as whether the challengers have a legal right to bring their case at all. The doctors and medical groups asked the justices to take up their challenge to the FDA’s initial approval of mifepristone in 2000 – both its timeliness and the propriety of the decision itself.

In a brief order, the justices granted review of both the Biden administration’s and Danco’s appeals and indicated that they would be argued together, presumably sometime early next year. (2024)

The justices’ decision not to take up the challengers’ petition for review was the only denial of review noted on the one-page list of orders, suggesting that the justices wanted to make clear now that they would not weigh in on the FDA’s initial approval of the drug in 2000.

Recommended Citation: Amy Howe, Justices will review

Justices will review lower-court ruling on access to abortion pill - SCOTUSblog

Justices will review lower-court ruling on access to abortion pill - SCOTUSblog

The Supreme Court on Wednesday morning agreed to review a ruling by a federal appeals court that would significantly restrict (but not eliminate altogether) access to a drug used in medication abortions, which account for over half of all abortions performed in the United States. Wednesday’s announcement means that the justices will weigh in on the issue of abortion for the first time since overruling the constitutional right to an abortion last year in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Their decisions in the new cases, Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine and Danco Laboratories v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, are likely to come sometime next summer, in the middle of the 2024 presidential campaign.

The announcement that the justices had granted review in the two cases came as part of a list of orders (the rest of which will be covered in a separate post) released on Wednesday morning.

The justices declined to take up an appeal by the challengers in the case, a group of doctors and medical groups opposed to abortion who had asked them to also weigh in on the validity of the FDA’s initial approval of the drug, known as mifepristone, in 2000. A federal judge in Amarillo, Tex., agreed with the challengers and suspended both that approval and the later changes to the conditions on the use of the drug – such as allowing the drug to be used through the 10th week of pregnancy, rather than the 7th, and allowing health-care providers who are not physicians to prescribe the drug. But although the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld Kacsmaryk’s rollback of the later changes to conditions on the use of the drug, it ruled that the challengers’ efforts to invalidate the FDA’s initial approval of the drug came too late.

The Biden administration and the drug manufacturer Danco came to the Supreme Court this spring, asking the justices to intervene to maintain the status quo until the dispute is resolved. The justices granted that request, allowing the drug to remain widely available for now.

The Biden administration and Danco came to the Supreme Court in September, asking the justices to weigh in on the propriety of the FDA’s decisions in 2016 and 2021 to make mifepristone more widely available, as well as whether the challengers have a legal right to bring their case at all. The doctors and medical groups asked the justices to take up their challenge to the FDA’s initial approval of mifepristone in 2000 – both its timeliness and the propriety of the decision itself.

In a brief order, the justices granted review of both the Biden administration’s and Danco’s appeals and indicated that they would be argued together, presumably sometime early next year.

The justices’ decision not to take up the challengers’ petition for review was the only denial of review noted on the one-page list of orders, suggesting that the justices wanted to make clear now that they would not weigh in on the FDA’s initial approval of the drug in 2000.


Posted in Merits Case

“Ruined” by Maybell Romero - Georgetown Law Journal

“Ruined” by Maybell Romero* - Georgetown Law Journal
  Judges play a critical role in one of the most important stages of a criminal case’s adjudication—sentencing. While there have been substantial limitations placed on the discretion judges can exercise in devising punishments, there are little to none on what judges say at such hearings when articulating their rationales for the sentences they impose on convicted defendants. This Article examines the language judges use when sentencing defendants convicted of rape, sexual assault, and sexual abuse that describes victims of those crimes and the harms they have sustained, especially language that describes victims as “ruined,” “broken,” or “destroyed.” The use of such language, while apparently meant to be empathetic, only serves to uphold misogynistic understandings of rape and sexual assault and actively harms victims. Judges trying to justify harsh sentences for defendants convicted of sex crimes also engage in shaming and exploitation of victims when saying that defendants have left victims “ruined” at sentencing. 
In this Article, I use traditional scholarly methods of reviewing and analyzing cases and legal doctrine to show why the use of such language is harmful to victims and fouts the purposes of criminal punishment. However, I also engage in autoethnographic methods, relying on my own experiences of rape and sexual assault, as well as prosecuting such cases. 
This Article considers how other fields such as medicine and public health have approached destigmatizing other historically stigmatized conditions such as substance use and mental illness, arguing that judges should take similar steps to destigmatize being a victim of rape and sexual assault by more carefully considering their language use at sentencing. 
I conclude by reflecting on the use of personal narrative in legal scholarship and in the classroom and argue that it can be a powerful tool that scholars should more openly embrace. 

* Felder-Fayard Associate Professor, Tulane University Law School; U.C. Berkeley School of Law, J.D. 2006; Cornell University, B.A. 2003. © 2022, Maybell Romero

Gaza Is Starving | The New Yorker

Gaza Is Starving | The New Yorker

By Isaac Chotiner 
Interview with UN World Food Program Chief Economist  Arif Husain
January 3, 2024

Last month, a United Nations report on hunger described a catastrophic situation in Gaza, where more than ninety per cent of the population has been facing “acute food insecurity,” and where “virtually all households are skipping meals every day.” Much of Gaza is at risk of famine in the next several months. Parents have been going without food to insure that their kids have at least something to eat; where food is available, moreover, prices have skyrocketed, making it inaccessible even for middle-class families. The report noted, “This is the highest share of people facing high levels of acute food insecurity” ever recorded “for any given area or country.” I recently spoke by phone with Arif Husain, the chief economist at the United Nations World Food Program, which was one of the partner organizations that compiled the report. The W.F.P. also collects data on hunger around the world and delivers food to needy people. During our conversation, which has been edited for length and clarity, we discussed what the people of Gaza are currently facing, the reasons many cannot access food, and why this crisis is so unprecedented.

Could you describe the food-access situation in Gaza right now?

The bottom line is that, in Gaza, pretty much everybody is hungry at the moment. In the food-security-analysis business, we do something called I.P.C., or Integrated Phase Classification. This is an exercise that has about twenty-three partners, including nineteen U.N. agencies and international N.G.O.s and about four donors. This group analyzes the food-security situation. And, on the basis of that, it presents a report, which is independent. It is not one agency or one entity. There’s a consensus-based analysis. This exercise is done in between forty and fifty countries worldwide that may have a food-security issue, whether it is because of conflict or climate or anything else. What an I.P.C. does in any given location is put people in five different classifications. I.P.C. Phase 1 is that everything is fine; I.P.C. Phase 2 is that people are stressed in terms of their food-security situation; I.P.C. Phase 3 is that people are, in fact, in a food-security crisis; I.P.C. Phase 4 is that people are in food-security emergencies; and the last phase is called the famine, or catastrophe, phase. Now, the same analysis was done for Gaza, which came out in December, and, according to that, pretty much the entire population of 2.2 million people is in a food-security crisis or a worse situation.

Can you describe the difference between crisis, emergency, and famine?

Old Constitutional Provisions and Presidential Selection: The folly of exhuming Section 3 of the 14th Amendment

Old Constitutional Provisions and Presidential Selection: The folly of exhuming Section 3 of the 14th Amendment
By Samuel Issacharoff (NYU Law)

The moves to disqualify former President Donald Trump in Colorado and Maine will doubtless force the Supreme Court to confront the obscure Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. In his petition for certiorari, and in particular in Part II of the argument section of the brief, Trump points to, but ultimately shies away from, a disturbing question of constitutional design. The vexing question is what becomes of a constitutional provision that lives beyond its historical context with nothing in either legislation or judicial interpretation to keep it up to date.

Section 3 of the 14th amendment, by its text, limits the application of the disqualification to only those who had previously taken an oath as an officeholder of the United States. Leaving aside the interpretive debate on whether the President and Vice President are in fact “officers of the United States” as that term has been understood, the prohibition is an odd one outside of the obvious context of the Civil War. Why would any country forbid election to high office for individuals who have engaged in insurrection or aiding national enemies, but only if they had previously been a member of government? Why prohibit an insurrectionist who had previously served one term in a state legislature from subsequent office-holding, but allow the election of a fellow insurrectionist who may have committed even more egregious acts but merely had been a county commissioner or not held office in the past?

No doubt formal arguments can be constructed around the nature of the oath. I suspect, however, that the real reason follows from the historical fact that the political and officer corps of the Confederacy were drawn from governing officials who predated secession and then emerged as drivers of the rebellion. Similarly, other countries have circumscribed the political ambition of individuals with links to government power in the service of antidemocratic aims. Following World War II, West Germany’s constitutional authority to ban political parties was meaningfully invoked only twice; once to bar former Nazis from recreating themselves after the war, and once to ban the Communist Party from serving as the propagandist for East Germany. Context matters.

Sunday, January 7, 2024

Millhiser: The Supreme Court arguments for (and against) removing Trump from the ballot - Explained - Vox



a roadmap - at least to January 6  for the Colorado case 
23-719 TRUMP, DONALD J. V. ANDERSON, NORMA, ET AL. Certiiorari granted
The Supreme Court arguments for (and against) removing Trump from the ballot - Vox

 

The Constitution has a right to defend itself, but Trump also has a right to due process.

The 5th Circuit Will Not Have The Last Word On Abortion In Emergency Rooms /Talking Pints Memo

The 5th Circuit Will Not Have The Last Word On Abortion In Emergency Rooms

The caption tells the story. 

Anderson v. Griswold - Colorado Supreme Court Bars Trump from ballot

 Colorado high court - divided - bars Trump from primary ballot; stays order pending appeal.
Anderson v Griswold
2023 CO 63  December 19, 2023
Supreme Court of the United States grants certiorari
Petition GRANTED. The case is set for oral argument on Thursday, February 8, 2024. Petitioner s brief on the merits, and any amicus curiae briefs in support or in support of neither party, are to be filed on or before Thursday, January 18, 2024. Respondents briefs on the merits, and any amicus curiae briefs in support, are to be filed on or before Wednesday, January 31, 2024. The reply brief, if any, is to be filed on or before 5 p.m., Monday, February 5 2024.

The Supreme Court has now granted certiorari and set oral argument for February  in #23-719.




Gerard Magliocca | Only Congress Can Exempt Trump From Disqualification - The New York Times

Gerard Magliocca| Only Congress Can Exempt Trump From Disqualification - The New York Times

Gerard Magliocca is a law professor at University of Indiana, and the author of Founding Son - about John Bingham -  principal drafter of the fourteenth Amendment.'
Many Americans are convinced that the disqualification of Donald Trump from Colorado’s primary ballot is a terrible idea and want the Supreme Court — which agreed on Friday to take up this question — to find a way to let the former president run. Mr. Trump’s supporters are eager to vote for him and argue that his exclusion from the election would be anti-democratic. Some of Mr. Trump’s opponents are just as eager to see him thrown in prison but believe that throwing him off the ballot would set a more dangerous precedent.

What unites these two sides is their unwillingness to ask Congress to exempt Mr. Trump from disqualification or admit that they want him to receive special treatment.

Unlike other constitutional provisions, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment draws a sharp line between law and politics. The first part of Section 3 is a legal command about who cannot hold office that focuses primarily on individual conduct and does not require congressional action. But the second part says that “Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House remove” a disqualification for any reason.

The framers of the 14th Amendment deliberately gave Congress — not the president or the Supreme Court — the power to grant a Section 3 waiver on public policy grounds. Congress’s amnesty authority for disqualification from office is the equivalent of executive clemency in criminal cases, which can be exercised in the interests of justice or for the common good.

Jamelle Bouie | If Trump Is Not an Insurrectionist, What Is He? - The New York Times

Opinion | If Trump Is Not an Insurrectionist, What Is He? - The New York Times
By Jamelle Bouie

Last month the states of Colorado and Maine moved to disqualify Donald Trump as a candidate in the 2024 presidential election, citing Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. In response, Trump has asked the Supreme Court to intervene on his behalf in the Colorado case, and he has appealed Maine’s decision.

There is a real question of whether this attempt to protect American democracy — by removing a would-be authoritarian from the ballot — is itself a threat to American democracy. Will proponents and supporters of the 14th Amendment option effectively destroy the village in order to save it?

KEEP READING

Why Trump Should Not Be Removed, v3 | by Lessig | Jan, 2024 | Medium

Why Trump Should Not Be Removed, v3 | by Lessig | Jan, 2024 | Medium
By Lawrence Lessig

I’ve written a couple of short pieces about the move to invoke Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to block Donald Trump from the ballot. The gist of those two swipes was this: That while electing Donald Trump to a second term of office would be catastrophic, removing him from the ballot based on a forgotten snippet of the 14th Amendment would be catastrophic as well.

**

But as I’ve long argued — and argued at length in my book, Fidelity and Constraint (Oxford 2019)—the story of our Court has never been one of fidelity to meaning alone. Always, and from the Left and Right, there has been a focus on fidelity to role as well. Indeed, from the very beginning, the Court has understood the Constitution’s meaning — for it, at least—as a function of its own role. Or put differently, the institutional capacity of the Court has constrained the range of permissible meanings of the Constitution, at least as they are available to the Court.

****

For these reasons, I remained convinced that though Donald Trump should not be elected President, neither should the Supreme Court affirm an order that he be removed from the ballot.

But whether you agree with that conclusion or not, please agree with at least this one: Whatever the Supreme Court does, if it is to preserve itself as an institution of justice, it needs to act unanimously. If it removes Trump 9–0, that would be a profound act, and done in a way to remove the suggestion that it is political. And if it reverses Colorado and declares Trump cannot be excluded from the ballot, that decision, too, should be 9–0. This is not the time for the egos of individual justices to muddy the perception of the Court’s decision. However the Court acts, it will be among the most important decisions it will have ever made. It needs to make that decision as one Court, whatever the individual views of individual justices might be.

The January 6 Attack was an Insurrection - Ilya Somin - Volokh Conspiracy

Insurrectionists - January 6, 2020

Fourteenth Amendment  Equal Protection and Other Rights

  • Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office

    No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

The first intifada on our soil since cannon fire opened in Charleston harbor was by those who marched on the Capitol, incited by Donald Trump's promise that it "will be wild" and that "I will be there with you". Was it an insurrection YES.  Should, in prudence. the Courts apply this language to Trump Not sure on that score. 
- GWC 1/7/2024

The January 6 Attack was an Insurrection
By Ilya Somin (George Washington Law and Cato Institute

Today is the third anniversary of the January 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol, intended to keep Donald Trump in power after he lost the 2020 election. One of the points at issue in the Supreme Court case considering whether Trump should be disqualified under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment is whether the events of that day qualify as an "insurrection." It should be an easy call. The January 6 attack was an insurrection under any plausible definition of that term.

As legal scholar Mark Graber shows, contemporary definitions of "insurrection" prevalent at the time the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted were quite broad: possibly broad enough to encompass any violent resistance to the enforcement of a federal statute, when that resistance was motivated by a "public purpose." That surely includes the January 6 attack!

I'm not convinced courts should actually adopt such a broad definition. It could set a dangerous precedent. As Graber notes, on that theory people who violently resisted enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act qualify as insurrectionists, too. But January 6 was an insurrection even under a narrow definition that covers only violent attempts to illegally seize control of the powers of government. After all, the attackers were using force to try to keep the loser of the 2020 election in power, blocking its transfer to the rightful winner. If that isn't a violent attempt to seize government power, it's hard to know what is.

Saturday, January 6, 2024

Supreme Court grants certiorari in Colorado 14th Amendment Disqualification case

 CERTIORARI GRANTED 23-719 TRUMP, DONALD J. V. ANDERSON, NORMA, ET AL. 

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. 

The case is set for oral argument on Thursday, February 8, 2024. 

Petitioner’s brief on the merits, and any amicus curiae briefs in support or in support of neither party, are to be filed on or before Thursday, January 18, 2024. 

Respondents’ briefs on the merits, and any amicus curiae briefs in support, are to be filed on or before Wednesday, January 31, 2024. 

The reply brief, if any, is to be filed on or before 5 p.m., Monday, February 5, 2024.

Ian Millhiser (Vox media) has a good roadmap of the Colorado challenge to Trump's presence on the presidential primary ballot.

EMTALA Miscellaneous Order (01/05/2024)

Miscellaneous Order (01/05/2024)

The Supreme Court’s new, nightmare abortion cases could sentence women to die - Vox



The Supreme Court’s new, nightmare abortion cases could sentence women to die - Vox
 The high court has blocked a lower court order enforcing a federal law that protects patients who require medically necessary abortions.

Friday, January 5, 2024

TWO Down - Stefanik gloats as Harvard President steps down

 




Two Down - Stefanik gloats as Harvard President steps down

 

The claim of the elite universities is that merit rules.  700 SAT, LSAT, or GRE scores prove that only the best of the best qualify for the ivies.  Of course, it’s never been true.  At varying times neither Irish, nor Jews, Chinese, or African Americans were seen or welcomed into their ranks.  But the College Board standardized tests promised to put an end to the reign of the St. Grottlesex schools, and the legacy admittees. In truth it never really worked out as advertised.

 

The successful assault on Harvard College admissions showed that there was ethnic engineering still at work under the guise of compensatory affirmative action programs.  Some like Christopher Rufo have waged a persistent campaign to cleanse the elite schools of a perceived liberal bias.  Approving the University leadership’s decision “to sacrifice its plagiarist president”, Harvard College grad and New York Times columnist Ross Douthat sees in conservative criticism “an entirely reasonable response to academia’s own internal transformation in the past 10 years or so: the ideological ferment of the Great Awokening, the swift expansion of the diversity-equity-inclusion complex”.  So much for worrying about the legacy of the three hundred years of unapologetic racial academic steering and empire building that formally ended only with the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

But the advantages of race and lineage that were so long tolerated could not be tolerated when a flawed academic record and a stumbling response to a belligerent Member of Congress combined to create a firestorm that forced from office Harvard’s first African American, and second female President – the African American Studies and Political Science Professor Claudine Gay.  She had held the post only three months when she resigned under pressure – acknowledging some errors in citations in her published work.

But more importantly she declared - in an essay in the New York Times - her pride that as “a Black woman (I was) selected to lead a storied institution. Someone who views diversity as a source of institutional strength and dynamism. Someone who has advocated a modern curriculum that spans from the frontier of quantum science to the long-neglected history of Asian Americans. Someone who believes that a daughter of Haitian immigrants has something to offer to the nation’s oldest university.

“TWO DOWN," Rep. Elise Stefanik (N.Y.) wrote on social media, referring to the resignations of Gay and former University of Pennsylvania president Liz Magill, who stepped down last month.

"Harvard knows that this long-overdue forced resignation of the antisemitic plagiarist president is just the beginning of what will be the greatest scandal of any college or university in history," Stefanik added.

It is an alarming prospect – that the assault on our most prestigious universities is in fact just beginning, with not just a stumble but a fall the objective.

-        George Conk   1/5/2024

The Unpredictable But Entirely Possible Events That Could Throw the 2024 Election Into Turmoil - POLITICO

The Unpredictable But Entirely Possible Events That Could Throw the 2024 Election Into Turmoil - POLITICO
 

The abortion battle gets even hotter

BY ROBERT L. TSAI

Robert L. Tsai is professor of law at Boston University and the author of Practical Equality: Forging Justice in a Divided Nation.

For the moment, access to mifepristone to terminate pregnancy is unchanged. But imagine that the GOP-dominated Supreme Court upholds the Fifth Circuit’s ruling, rolling back access to mifepristone that’s been available for years. Since 2016, the FDA has allowed online ordering, mail delivery and receipt, and pharmacists to dispense the drug. Medication abortion now apparently accounts for nearly half of all terminated pregnancies in the U.S. — mostly in the comfort and safety of a person’s home.

Additionally, what if there were five votes to go with Judge James Ho’s more strident concurring opinion where he insisted federal law already bans “mail-order abortion?” Ho asserted that shipping mifepristone across state lines violates the Comstock Act, an anti-vice law from 1873 once used to ban mail-order contraception nationwide as “obscene.” (His colleagues on the panel didn’t go that far, striking down the FDA’s actions as “arbitrary” and refusing to defer to the FDA’s views about drug safety.) Because there is no longer a federal right to terminate one’s pregnancy after Dobbs, such a ruling would seem to immediately revive that 19th century law and potentially bar federal action to protect abortion access in other ways.

Thursday, January 4, 2024

'This is Definitely Plagiarism': Harvard University President Claudine Gay Copied Entire Paragraphs From Others’ Academic Work and Claimed Them as Her Own

'This is Definitely Plagiarism': Harvard University President Claudine Gay Copied Entire Paragraphs From Others’ Academic Work and Claimed Them as Her Own
 

Extremism in the military is a problem - The Atlantic

Extremism in the military is a problem - The Atlantic

Extremism in the Military Is a Problem

It doesn’t have to be big to be lethal.

Senator Hoylman wrongful death - NY State Senate Bill 2023-S6636

NY State Senate Bill 2023-S6636

Gaza: South Africa Charges Genocide in Application to International Court of Justice



Application instituting proceedings and Request for the indication of provisional measures 
29 December 2023

APPLICATION INSTITUTING PROCEEDINGS 
To the Registrar of the International Court of Justice, the undersigned, being duly authorised by the Government of the Republic of South Africa, state as follows: 
In accordance with Articles 36 (1) and 40 of the Statute of the Court and Article 38 of the Rules of Court, I have the honour to submit this Application instituting proceedings in the name of the Republic of South Africa (“South Africa”) against the State of Israel (“Israel”). Pursuant to Article 41 of the Statute, the Application includes a request that the Court indicate provisional measures to protect the rights invoked herein from imminent and irreparable loss.
*** 
5. South Africa, mindful of the jus cogens character of the prohibition of genocide and the erga omnes and erga omnes partes character of the obligations owed by States under the Genocide Convention, is making the present application to establish Israel’s responsibility for violations of the Genocide Convention; to hold it fully accountable under international law for those violations; and — most immediately — to have recourse to this Court to ensure the urgent and fullest possible protection for Palestinians in Gaza who remain at grave and immediate risk of continuing and further acts of genocide. 
6. In light of the extraordinary urgency of the situation, South Africa seeks an expedited hearing for its request for the indication of provisional measures. In addition, pursuant to Article 74(4) of the Rules of Court, South Africa requests the President of the Court to protect the Palestinian people in Gaza by calling upon Israel immediately to halt all military attacks that constitute or give rise to violations of the Genocide Convention pending the holding of such hearing, so as to enable any order the Court may make on the request for the indication of provisional measures to have its appropriate effects. To that end, the Court should order Israel to cease killing and causing serious mental and bodily harm to Palestinian people in Gaza, to cease the deliberate infliction of conditions of life calculated to bring about their physical destruction as a group, to prevent and punish direct and public incitement to genocide, and to rescind related policies and practices, including regarding the restriction on aid and the issuing of evacuation directives.

Tuesday, January 2, 2024

U.S. asks SCOTUS to vacate 5th Circuit injunction against Border Control - Department of Homeland Security



Texas has placed concertina wire along miles of the Rio Grande.  Greg Abbott, Governor, refuses to recognize that the United States - not Texas - is responsible for patrol of the border.  See Arizona v. United States (2012).
- GWC

23A607Application to vacate 5th Circuit injunction - DHS v. Texas

from the brief of the United States:

Under the Supremacy Clause, state law cannot be applied to
restrain those federal agents from carrying out their federally
authorized activities. That conclusion follows from centuries of
this Court’s precedent: Maryland could not tax the Bank of the
United States (McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819))
 or enforce its driver’s license laws against federal Post
Office workers delivering mail (Johnson v. Maryland, 254 U.S. 51
(1920)); California could not bring criminal charges against a
Deputy U.S. Marshal for his actions to protect a Supreme Court
Justice (In re Neagle, 135 U.S. 1, 75 (1890)); and Arizona could
not superimpose its own approval process on a congressionally au-
thorized dam-construction project (Arizona v. California, 283 U.S.
423 (1931)). So too here: Texas cannot use state tort law to
restrain federal Border Patrol agents carrying out their federal
duties.
The court of appeals’ contrary ruling inverts the Supremacy
Clause by requiring federal law to yield to Texas law. If ac-
cepted, the court’s rationale would leave the United States at the
mercy of States that could seek to force the federal government to
conform the implementation of federal immigration law to varying
state-law regimes. For example, California recently enacted a
prohibition against private detention facilities that would have
barred the federal government from contracting with private enti-
ties to operate immigration detention centers. See Geo Group,
Inc. v. Newsom, 50 F.4th 745, 750 (9th Cir. 2022) (en banc). In
conflict with the Fifth Circuit’s decision here, the en banc Ninth
Circuit correctly held that the Supremacy Clause prohibits such
interference with the federal government’s operations. Id. at
758.