Judges Continue to Embrace Technology In The Age Of Coronavirus | States Differ Over Abortion Being Medically Essential
March 25, 2020
TECHNOLOGY, A MAGICAL THING
|John Kruzel with The Hill reports that judges around the country are adjusting to courtroom closures in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic and turning to phone and video conferencing to hold hearings and conduct judicial business. Some are even making history by embracing video technology. He reports, “For the first time in its history, the North Dakota Supreme Court on Monday heard oral arguments over a video-conferencing application, which allowed the justices to practice social distancing as they peppered lawyers with questions.”
POLITICIZING OF MEDICAL PROCEDURES
|The COVID-19 pandemic is also having an important impact on ongoing abortion access debates. The virus has led to disputes over whether the procedure should be considered medically essential. POLITICO’S Alice Miranda Ollstein, Renuka Rayasam and Danielle Muoio report, “Anti-abortion forces led by Republican governors in Ohio, Texas and Mississippi are citing the critical shortage of medical supplies in trying to close abortion clinics, in some instances threatening jail time if they don’t shut down and donate protective gear and other necessities to local hospitals. Meanwhile, in blue states like New York, Washington and New Jersey, governors are deeming abortion and family planning clinics an essential service that can continue during the pandemic.”
WE'RE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER
|“Like most of the country, the Supreme Court is in coronavirus lockdown, closing its building to the public and postponing oral arguments until some future date. Yet even as the justices seek shelter from a pandemic, they still managed to hand down five opinions on Monday. One of them, in the case Comcast Corp. v. National Association of African American Media, is a blow for the civil rights community — and a potential harbinger for civil rights cases to come.” That’s Ian Millhiser with Vox arguing that because this week’s SCOTUS decision on the Comcast case was a unanimous one, what could have otherwise been viewed as a narrow decision now has broad implications.
SAYING ONE THING, DOING ANOTHER?
|For Slate, Carissa Byrne Hessick looks at another one of the decisions justices handed down earlier this week which dealt a major blow to the insanity defense. JUSTICE ELENA KAGAN joined her conservative colleagues and wrote the court’s opinion in Kahler v. Kansas. Hessick asserts: “Kagan’s majority opinion said that Kansas did not abolish the insanity defense; it merely changed the defense. That is not true.”
SCOTUS VIEWS
Supreme Court Ruling May Let Big Business Hide What It Does With Public Money
San Francisco Chronicle“The government seems poised, in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic and resulting economic disaster, to bail out big businesses and assist small businesses. One resulting question arises: Will taxpayers be able to figure out how the money given to big businesses gets used? The answer: Maybe not, given a ruling last year by the John Roberts Supreme Court.”
The Supreme Court Must Not License Taxpayer Funded Discrimination
The Hill“The Supreme Court recently announced it will hear a case to decide whether a local government contractor can pick and choose which civil rights laws it follows. Specifically, the case involves a foster care agency in Philadelphia that sued after the city stopped contracting with the agency when it refused to comply with non-discrimination requirements to work with all qualified families, including same-sex couples. With hundreds of thousands of children in desperate need of loving and caring homes, the outcome of this case could have profound and far-reaching consequences. The court must uphold the fundamental principle that government-funded child welfare agencies are required to abide by non-discrimination laws and perform the work of the contract.”