L4GG's Statement on Trump v. United States Ruling

Following the Supreme Court's ruling today in Trump v. United States, Lawyers for Good Government’s Vice President of Engagement Sterling Howard released the following statement:

“Today’s decision by the Supreme Court's conservative majority marks a deeply troubling moment in our nation's history. By granting unprecedented immunity to former President Trump, the Court has undermined a core principle of our Constitution: that no person is above the law. As Justice Sotomayor aptly noted, this ruling 'makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law.’

The Court's decision effectively shields Trump from accountability for his actions to subvert the democratic process, delaying justice and eroding public trust in our legal system. This ruling contradicts the values upon which our nation was founded and endangers the very fabric of our democracy.

As defenders of justice, we must respond to this alarming decision by reaffirming our commitment to the rule of law and ensuring that all individuals, regardless of their position, are held accountable for their actions. Our democracy depends on it.

We reject any agenda that threatens our democratic principles. The fight for equal justice under the law continues, and we remain steadfast in our mission to protect the rights and freedoms of all people.”

L4GG: SCOTUS Majority Puts Access to Emergency Abortions Back on Shelf, Leaves Federal Supremacy Questions Unanswered

SCOTUS' Inaction on Idaho Abortion Law Exposes Judicial Avoidance, Endangers Health Protections

Washington, D.C. - Lawyers for Good Government (L4GG),  the nation’s largest community of attorneys committed to human rights and equal justice, finds the Supreme Court’s decision to reverse course on accepting Idaho’s petition for relief in Moyle v. United States absolutely necessary to restore Idahoans’ access to emergency healthcare in the short term, but woefully insufficient to protect the rights of millions of Americans under the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA). We call on the Court to use its authority to vindicate the supremacy of federal law over state abortion bans that restrict access to emergency care. The Court’s dismissal of the case as improvidently granted leaves pregnant people facing emergencies and the doctors who treat them in a precarious legal limbo and fails to contend with the very real harm created by the Court’s prior decision to allow Idaho to fully enforce its ban over EMTALA’s clear mandate. 

The Court's ruling returns the issue to the lower courts, allowing emergency abortions to resume in the state, but failing to provide an answer to the critical questions raised in the litigation. Although the decision did not affirmatively greenlight Idaho’s backwards interpretation of EMTALA, it also did not confirm the reality that federally mandated emergency healthcare should not be held hostage by state-level restrictions.

““The Court majority’s decision to wish away the conflict between state and federal law presented by Idaho’s abortion ban is a deeply unethical avoidance of judicial responsibility. This procedural dodge leaves essential, long-established health protections in limbo, which is far from a victory for those advocating for reproductive rights and maternal health equity.””

— Khadijah Silver (JD/MPH), L4GG’s Supervising Attorney for Civil Rights

““While the Court’s decision today does not take the extraordinary step of expressly allowing a draconian state abortion ban to override clear federal law, it is far from the vindication of the rights of pregnant people that is needed to safeguard access to critical life-saving emergency abortion care. The Court’s refusal to use its authority to reject states’ attempts to curtail basic liberties is not a victory but an abdication of judicial responsibility.””

— Alyssa Morrison, L4GG’s Staff Attorney for Reproductive Justice

Legal Basis and Broader Implications:

Today’s decision is neither for nor against Idaho. Instead, the Court removed the stay of the District Court’s opinion that it previously put into place and decided it should never have heard the case in the first place. The removal of this stay will allow emergency abortions to resume in the state, but it cannot remedy the very real harm created by its imposition in the first place. The Court’s decision to dismiss the case back to the lower courts also does not answer the critically important question of whether a state can turn well-established principles of preemption on their head and impose its own draconian abortion restrictions over the federally mandated provision of emergency healthcare. As long as this question remains unresolved, the rights of pregnant people continue to hang in the balance.

Response and Action Plan:

Shortly after the end of the court session, Lawyers for Good Government will host a “SCOTUS Wrapped” event to discuss the implications of the Court’s actions in Moyle and other crucial cases - we invite you to subscribe to get updates and stay informed.

We will also continue to work with healthcare providers and legal advocates to protect patients' rights nationwide. One way we support our partners is through our Policy Resource Hub for Reproductive Health, a vital, constantly updated tool for patients and providers to find legal guidance, up-to-date policy analysis, and advocacy tools aimed at navigating the evolving landscape of reproductive health laws. The Hub serves as a central platform for mobilizing grassroots support and equipping stakeholders with the information necessary to advocate for comprehensive reproductive healthcare access.

Chevron Deference on Trial at SCOTUS: Impact Survey for Legal Practitioners

A Landmark Case

In the coming days, the U.S. Supreme Court will issue a ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, a pivotal case that could redefine administrative law by potentially overturning Chevron deference. Chevron deference, established in 1984, requires courts to defer to a federal agency’s interpretation of ambiguous statutes, recognizing the agency's expertise. This principle has been instrumental in maintaining consistent regulatory practices across various sectors.

The implications of this case extend beyond administrative law. A decision against Chevron deference could significantly impact federal regulatory authority in areas such as environmental protection, food and drug safety, employment, consumer protection, and immigration. It would shift more power to the judiciary, allowing courts to override agency interpretations and create a less predictable regulatory environment.

Understanding the Case: A Special L4GG Explainer

To help you grasp the complexities of this case and its potential consequences, L4GG has prepared an explainer document. This guide provides a clear understanding of the issues at stake, the arguments presented, and the broader significance of the Supreme Court's decision for regulatory practices in the United States.

Participate in Our Impact Survey

We are reaching out to our community of legal practitioners to gather insights on how the potential ruling might affect your practice. Please take this quick survey - your feedback is crucial in helping us understand how we can best support you in navigating the post-ruling landscape.

Why Your Input Matters

The outcome of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo could reshape the legal landscape in which we operate. Whether you specialize in administrative law, environmental law, healthcare, or any field subject to federal regulation, the ramifications of this decision could be profound. By participating in our survey, you will help L4GG prepare for the challenges ahead and ensure we can effectively mobilize our community in response to this landmark ruling.

We hope you will take a few minutes to share your thoughts with us. Together, we can stand ready to address the potential upheaval in administrative law and continue our fight for justice and regulatory stability.

Emergency Medicine on Trial at Supreme Court: 4/24

L4GG Experts Provide Case Overview + Debrief Call for Landmark SCOTUS Case on Emergency Abortions

A Landmark Case

On April 24, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Idaho v. United States, a historic post-Dobbs case that will determine the scope of the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) in the face of state abortion bans.

Idaho’s abortion ban criminalizes the delivery of abortion services except where necessary to save the life of the pregnant person, remove an ectopic pregnancy or in very limited cases of reported rape or incest, making no exception for those cases where the abortion is necessary to protect the patient’s health. However, for forty years, EMTALA has required Medicare-recipient emergency rooms to provide stabilizing care to any patient who needs it to preserve their life or health. Idaho argues that they are able to enforce their more restrictive ban over federal EMTALA obligations. 

This case is not only critical for access to reproductive healthcare, but also tests whether a state can unilaterally override federal regulations that protect the right of every person to access emergency medicine. It leaves medical professionals with an impossible choice: either violate Idaho’s law, risking criminal prosecution and loss of their professional license, or violate EMTALA and face federal enforcement and civil sanctions.

The ramifications of this case are immense, potentially influencing not only abortion access but also the broader spectrum of emergency medical care under federal law. If a state can “carve out” abortion from federally mandated services, it threatens access to a range of highly politicized medical care, from AIDS-related emergencies to treatment of high-cost chronic or mental health conditions.

Our debrief will provide insight into the legal and ethical dimensions of this crucial public health issue.

Understanding the Case: A Special L4GG Explainer

To navigate the complexities of this case and its potential impact, L4GG has crafted an accessible case overview and listening guide. This guide offers a clear understanding of the issues at stake, the opposing arguments, and the significance of this Supreme Court case for emergency medicine and reproductive health rights in the U.S.

Join Us for a Deeper Dive: L4GG’s Same-Day Analysis Call

Later that same day, at 4 PM ET, join our staff experts in a same-day analysis call to unpack the oral arguments and discuss their implications for healthcare providers and patients alike. Our Supervising Attorney for Civil Rights, Khadijah Silver, JD/MPH, and Staff Attorney for Reproductive Justice, Alyssa Morrison, JD, will highlight the key issues and what they mean for emergency medical care across the United States.

This debrief call will illuminate the critical aspects of Idaho v. U.S. and galvanize attendees to protect our fundamental right to health and reproductive autonomy.

Why You Should Attend

The implications of this Supreme Court case will touch on the very core of reproductive rights and emergency medicine access in the United States. Whether you're a legal expert, a reproductive rights advocate, or simply someone who cares deeply about the right to health, our analysis event and listening guide will equip you with the knowledge you need to understand the outcomes of this historic case. We hope you'll join us on 4/24 at 4 pm and stand united with us for reproductive rights!

A Guide to Understanding the Next Major Abortion Case at SCOTUS on March 26

A Landmark Case

On March 26, the U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments in Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine vs. FDA, marking the first major abortion-related case since the Dobbs v. Jackson ruling. This pivotal moment could drastically shape the future of access to medication abortion (mifepristone) in the United States and challenge its availability nationwide.

Despite mifepristone's proven safety record, anti-choice organizations are pushing to limit its accessibility, even in states where abortion remains a legal right. The outcome of this case could have profound implications for reproductive rights, making it a historic event in the ongoing battle for healthcare access and bodily autonomy.

Understanding the Case: A Special L4GG Explainer

To navigate the complexities of this case and its potential impact, L4GG has crafted a comprehensive case overview and listening guide. This guide offers a clear understanding of the issues at stake, the opposing arguments, and the significance of this Supreme Court case for reproductive health rights in the U.S. It also delves into the potential changes to mifepristone access, the FDA's authority, and the implications for marginalized communities.

Join Us for a Deeper Dive: L4GG’s Same-Day Analysis Call

A couple of hours after the Supreme Court's hearing, we invite you to join L4GG for a special same-day analysis call on 3/26 at 4 PM ET. This live event will feature L4GG’s Supervising Attorney for Civil Rights, Khadijah Silver, JD/MPH, and Staff Attorney for Reproductive Justice, Alyssa Morrison, JD, as they break down the day's proceedings and offer expert insights into the arguments presented and their significance.

This debrief call will illuminate the critical aspects of Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine vs. FDA and galvanize attendees to protect our fundamental right to health and reproductive autonomy.

Why You Should Attend

The implications of this Supreme Court case will touch on the very core of reproductive rights and healthcare access in the United States. Whether you're a legal expert, a reproductive rights advocate, or simply someone who cares deeply about the right to health, our analysis event and listening guide will equip you with the knowledge you need to understand the outcomes of this historic case. We hope you'll join us on 3/26 at 4 pm ET and stand united with us for reproductive rights!

SCOTUS' Sackett Decision is Anti-Science & Will Devastate Our Water Supplies

Today, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Sackett v Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), overruling over 50 years of well-established protections for surface waters and wetlands. The Court has dramatically narrowed the scope of the Clean Water Act and the EPA’s authority, undoing protections that have safeguarded our water resources for over 50 years.  The Court’s ruling embraces extreme demands of big polluters and favors landowners and developers over the health and security of our Nation’s most precious resource—water.  

Everyone should be troubled by this Supreme Court ruling.

By removing critical protections for wetlands and surface waters, and completely ignoring established science, the Court has failed the most vulnerable among us—namely indigenous communities, communities of color, those most vulnerable to pollution, and those facing intensifying climate disasters. Now the EPA is stripped of its ability to protect our communities, public health, and local ecosystems. 

A majority of Americans do NOT support this. On the contrary, more than three in four people in this country support strong federal protections for our waters.

Congress and state officials across the country need to act fast to protect water bodies that our nation relies on for drinking, farming, cooking, fishing, and fueling local economies. While today’s ruling guts our nation’s bedrock clean water law, it’s imperative that we take full advantage of tools that remain to stop big polluters from indiscriminately bulldozing our wetlands and dumping waste into our streams, impacting critical water supplies.

States are still empowered to act to protect wetlands, headwaters, and vital resources that support our water supplies, but many do not currently have necessary protections in place for wetlands. We must call on them now to use their authority to act to protect these critical resources before it’s too late.

Lawyers will be essential in this fight to help ensure that states have adequate protections in the wake of Sackett to avoid catastrophic and permanent damage to our ecosystem and water supply.

Lawyers for Good Government (L4GG) will continue its important work with our allies in the Clean Water for All Coalition to provide key legal resources to advocates and state decision-makers to pass protections where they are needed and to mitigate this significant loss of fundamental protections to our right to water. 

To learn more about L4GG’s continued efforts to protect vital resources and water supply in disadvantaged communities like Benton Harbor, Michigan, click here.

“““By disregarding established science and removing critical safeguards, the Court has failed the most vulnerable among us, including indigenous communities, communities of color, and those already facing the brunt of climate disasters. This decision, even narrower in scope than the previous Trump administration’s Clean Water Rule, undermines the progress made in preserving our water resources. It is imperative that Congress and state officials swiftly step up to protect our water bodies to ensure the well-being of future generations. Despite this setback, Lawyers for Good Government, in collaboration with the Clean Water for All Coalition, will continue to provide vital legal resources to advocates and state decision makers, standing up for the right to water and working tirelessly to mitigate the devastating consequences of this ruling. Together, we will continue fighting to defend our ecosystems and ensure a sustainable future for all.”

— Jillian Blanchard, Director of Climate Change & Environmental Justice, L4GG

Judge Brown Jackson’s Historic SCOTUS Nomination

Lawyers for Good Government Celebrates Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Nomination

WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a historic moment, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson’s final nomination vote passed the Senate, 53-47, making Justice Brown Jackson the first Black woman to be confirmed to the Supreme Court. 

This historic nomination included bipartisan support, as notable Republican Mitt Romney (R-UT) and Susan Collins (R-ME) voted for Justice Brown Jackson. Justice Brown Jackson’s nomination is pivotal in cultivating a democracy that works for all of us, regardless of our background. As a Black woman Supreme Court justice with a commitment to equitable treatment in the courts for all, Justice Brown Jackson will have an impact for generations to come. 

Justice Brown Jackson’s nomination moves our country forward and provides an opportunity to deliver on issues that Americans care about most.

“Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson devoted years of her career to public service, including representing people in D.C as a public defender,” says Mika Fernandez, Vice President of Policy and Strategic Engagement at Lawyers for Good Government.  “We are proud to see her confirmed to be the first Black woman and the first public defender on our nation’s highest court.  We need even more well-qualified jurists on our courts like Judge Jackson who have dedicated their legal careers to ensuring equal justice for all.”  

###

Lawyers for Good Government (L4GG) coordinates large scale pro bono programs and issue advocacy efforts to protect human rights and ensure equal justice under the law, and has a network of 125,000+ lawyers to assist in its efforts. 

Statement On Justice Breyer's Retirement

Mika Fernandez, Lawyers for Good Government’s (L4GG) Vice President of Policy and Strategic Engagement releases the following statement on the retirement of Justice Steven Breyer from the Supreme Court. 

“L4GG celebrates Justice Steven Breyer for his 27 years on the Supreme Court, where he fought for equality and justice for all Americans and was a critical voice for health care, women’s reproductive freedom, voting rights, and the environment. We thank him for his service.

President Biden now has the opportunity to nominate a jurist who will zealously defend civil rights and constitutional protections for all people in the country, solidify our government’s commitment to human rights and equal justice under the law, and bring much-needed racial and professional diversity to the nation’s highest court. L4GG is prepared to fight for such a nominee and to fight for her swift confirmation by the Senate. 

We ask lawyers to join us in the coming days as we organize the legal profession’s response to this Supreme Court vacancy.”

To sign up for action alerts via SMS, please text “SCOTUS” to 404-382-9644. 

To donate to the L4GG Action Fund, our 501(c)4, click here.