Tag Archives: SCOTUS

Supreme Court tie vote blocks temporary plan to stop deportations

Posted on by
Reply

By Carol Zimmermann
WASHINGTON (CNS) – With a tie vote June 23, the U.S. Supreme Court blocked the Obama administration’s plan to temporarily protect more than 4 million unauthorized immigrants from deportation.
The court’s 4-4 vote leaves in place a lower court injunction blocking the administration’s immigration policy with the one-page opinion stating: “The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided court.”
Legal experts have called it an ambiguous and confusing political and legal decision that leaves many in a state of limbo. It also puts a lot of attention on the vacant Supreme Court seat that may determine how the case is decided in an appeal.
Religious leaders were quick to denounce the court’s action as a setback for immigrant families and stressed the urgency of comprehensive immigration reform.
Seattle Auxiliary Bishop Eusebio L. Elizondo, chairman of the U.S. bishops’ Committee on Migration, said the court’s decision was a “huge disappointment” and a setback, but he said the focus now needs to be on how to fix the current immigration system.
“We must not lose hope that reform is possible,” he said. In a news briefing, President Barack Obama said the country’s immigration system is broken and the Supreme Court’s inability to reach a decision set it back even further.
House Speaker Paul Ryan of Wisconsin praised the court’s decision for making clear that “the president is not permitted to write laws – only Congress is,” which he said was a “major victory in our fight to restore the separation of powers.”
At issue in the United States v. Texas case are Obama’s executive actions on immigration policy that were challenged by 26 states.
The Texas Catholic Conference, the public policy arm of the state’s Catholic bishops, said in a statement that “respect for human life and dignity demands leaders put people before politics.” Added Cardinal Daniel N. DiNardo of Galveston-Houston: “Our legislators continuously refuse to address immigration policies in a comprehensive manner.”
“I am deeply disappointed by the Supreme Court’s decision … putting millions of families at risk of being ripped apart,” said Dominican Sister Bernardine Karge of Chicago, speaking for the Washington-based group Faith in Public Life.
“The stories of immigrant families are intimately woven into the tapestry of this great country, and today’s decision threatens our nation’s commitment to justice and compassion,” she said, adding that she hoped the presumptive presidential nominees and Congress makes comprehensive immigration reform a priority.
Jeanne Atkinson, executive director of Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. or CLINIC, similarly expressed disappointment in the court’s decision and said the responsibility is more than ever on Congress to come up with comprehensive immigration reform.
She said the court’s decision will put “millions of long-term U.S. residents in fear of law enforcement and at risk of mistreatment in the workplace, by landlords and from abusers due to threats of deportation.”
The case, argued before the court in April, involved Obama’s 2014 expansion of a 2012 program known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, and creation of the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents, known as DAPA.
The programs had been put on hold last November by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, upholding a Texas-based federal judge’s injunction against the executive actions. The original DACA program is not affected by the injunction.
The states suing the federal government claimed the president went too far and was not just putting a temporary block on deportations, but giving immigrants in the country without legal permission a “lawful presence” that enabled them to qualify for Social Security and Medicare benefits.
U.S. Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr., who defended the government, said the “pressing human concern” was to avoid breaking up families of U.S. citizen children, something echoed by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, CLINIC, and at least three Catholic colleges, which joined in a brief with more than 75 education and children’s advocacy organizations.
When the case was argued before the high court in mid-April, Justice Sonia Sotomayor stressed that the 4 million immigrants who might be given a temporary reprieve from deportation “are living in the shadows” and “are here whether we want them or not,” adding that the government had limited resources available for deportations.
(Follow Zimmermann on Twitter: @carolmaczim.)

Supreme Court refuses to hear abortion law appeal

Posted on by
Reply

By Carol Zimmermann
WASHINGTON (CNS) –The day after the U.S. Supreme Court issued a major abortion ruling striking down regulations on Texas abortion clinics and doctors, it rejected an appeal to reinstate laws in Mississippi and Wisconsin that would place similar requirements on abortion doctors.
It also denied an appeal of a Washington state rule requiring pharmacists to dispense Plan B or other emergency contraceptives despite their religious objections to doing so.
The court June 28 refused to hear appeals from Mississippi and Wisconsin challenging lower-court rulings blocking their laws similar to the one in Texas that require abortion doctors in the two states to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals.
Federal appeals courts in Chicago and New Orleans had previously ruled against the states.
Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel said in a statement that the court’s decision was “not surprising” after its rule on the Texas law. He had filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the Texas case.
Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant said he was disappointed by the court’s Texas ruling and Lt. Gov. Tate Reeves said the ruling endangers women’s lives.
According to The Associated Press, if Mississippi’s law had been enacted it would have likely led to the closure of the state’s only abortion clinic.
In a 5-3 vote June 27, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down restrictions on Texas abortion clinics that required them to comply with standards of ambulatory surgical centers and required their doctors to have admitting privileges at local hospitals.
The case, Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, challenged a 2013 state law, H.B. 2, placing the requirements on the state’s abortion clinics. Opponents of the law claimed the requirements were aimed at closing abortion clinics. But the state and many pro-life advocates maintained that the law protected women’s health.
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and other religious groups submitted a joint friend of the court brief in the case supporting the Texas law, which was similar to other state laws regulating abortion clinics across the country.
The Supreme Court also refused to hear an appeal from pharmacists who have religious objections to a Washington state law that requires pharmacies to dispense Plan B or other emergency contraceptives also called “morning after pills.”
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas said they would have heard the appeal and Alito wrote a 15-page dissent against the court’s decision not to hear the case, calling it an “ominous sign.”
“If this is a sign of how religious liberty claims will be treated in the years ahead, those who value religious freedom have cause for great concern,” he added.
Even before the Supreme Court issued a decision on whether it would take the case, the pharmacists’ case already had gathered 14 friend of the court briefs from supportive groups, including the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
The case was filed with the court by the legal group Alliance Defending Freedom. Kristen Waggoner, a senior counsel with the firm, said that the state of Washington allows pharmacists to refer customers to other pharmacists for just about any reason — except reasons of conscience – and the other 49 states allow conscience-based referrals, which are fully supported by the American Pharmacists Association and dozens more pharmacy associations.
Follow Zimmermann on Twitter @carolmaczim.

Courts rule on three cases impacting Mississippians

Posted on by
Reply

By Maureen Smith
JACKSON – Federal court decisions in three cases in the last weeks of June directly impact the work of the church in Mississippi. Federal Judge Carlton Reeves blocked the implementation of HB 1523, also known as the religious liberty law, hours before it was to go into effect Friday, July 1. Earlier in the week, the Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of a proposed law that would have required abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at local hospitals. Turning away the case means the last abortion clinic in Mississippi remains open. In the third case, a tie vote in the Supreme Court blocked a plan to protect millions of immigrants from deportation.
The coincidence that the rulings all came during Fortnight for Freedom was not lost on local church leaders. “The U.S. bishops set aside these weeks for us to reflect on threats to religious liberty and to celebrate our protected American freedoms,” said Bishop Joseph Kopacz. “There is a certain irony to the fact that these all happened during the fortnight,” he added.
The bishop released a statement relating to the religious liberty law and the abortion case on Friday, July 1. “We must strike a just balance between church and state, not just for our own protection, but for the protection of other faiths and society as a whole,” wrote Bishop Kopacz. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), in its statement on religious liberty states “‘This is not a Catholic issue. This is not a Jewish issue. This is not an Orthodox, Mormon, or Muslim issue. It is an American issue.’ Once the state begins to limit rights of people of one faith, we must be concerned for people of all faiths and beliefs,” he added.
The bishop has emphasized from the start of the HB1523 debate this is not an issue of whom the church serves, but how.
“The Catholic Church welcomes everyone in our parishes, schools and service centers. We have and will continue to help anyone in need through Catholic Charities, schools and parish ministries, regardless of your faith, beliefs or background. And we will continue to raise our voices both in our churches and in our communities in defense of human dignity and justice,” he wrote. The full text of his statement is available on page 9.
The religious liberty law was originally meant to protect religious organizations from violating their beliefs regarding marriage. The church sought exemptions from performing civil unions between gay partners, placing foster children or adopting children to gay couples and from being forced to hire people in ministry or education positions whose lifestyles contradicted church teachings. Lawmakers added a host of provisions to the original bill and critics called the resulting legislation discriminatory. Earlier in the year, Bishop Kopacz released a statement explaining the stance of the Diocese of Jackson on the issue.
“The Diocese of Jackson supported and would continue to support a religious exemption on behalf of the mission of the Catholic Church with regard to education and social services. We would like to continue to provide these services while remaining faithful to the teachings of the Catholic Church,” said the bishop in April. “The diocese had no involvement in the other portions of the bill that addressed business and government operations. The church will continue to work to protect its First Amendment right to worship, to educate and to serve in the public domain while respecting the dignity of all citizens,” he continued.
State Attorney General Jim Hood said he would have to think ‘long and hard’ before filing an appeal. “I believe in the free exercise of religion and there will be a case in the future in which the U.S. Supreme Court will better define our religious rights. This case, however, is not that vehicle,” he said. Governor Phil Bryant, however, has called for an appeal.
In his ruling, Judge Reeves called HB1523 unconstitutional because, he says, it “grants special rights to citizens who hold one of three “sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions” reflecting disapproval of lesbian, gay, transgender, and unmarried persons. That violates both the guarantee of religious neutrality and the promise of equal protection of the laws.” He goes on to say the rights of religious institutions are already protected under the First Amendment and do not need an additional protection. Another part of his ruling calls HB1523 unclear in its instructions in too many cases to which it might be applied.
In the second case, a lower court had blocked a Mississippi law requiring doctors at abortion clinics to be able to admit patients at local hospitals. “We are saddened at this country’s insistence on abortion, the destruction of innocent lives, and the laws that have been passed to support this continued destruction,” said Bishop Kopacz. “The laws requiring doctors to have admitting privileges, although seen as a roadblock for abortion facilities, are in reality a commitment to the good health of all,” he added. There is only one abortion clinic left in Mississippi, the Jackson Women’s Health Organization. For more on this case, see the related story on page1.
The final court action involves the work of immigrants’ rights advocates in Mississippi. Advocates have reported an uptick in law enforcement raids in Hispanic communities in the state since January and they expect those raids to continue so the center is stepping up its efforts to make sure immigrants know their rights. See page 8 for more on the ruling and what the Migrant Support Center is doing to address the rights of immigrants here. See related stories on page 8.
Bishop Kopacz said the church in Mississippi will continue to work for justice for all through political involvement and social justice outreach, especially on behaf of those on the margins of our communities while respecting the dignity of each person. “People of faith are called to be active in the political process – to protect the dignity of each human being and to make our communities stronger overall.”