SCOTUS Appeared Divided Over Louisiana Abortion Law | Are Divisions Between Justices As Prevalent As Ever?

March 4, 2020

The much-anticipated abortion case out of Louisiana reached the Supreme Court today for oral argument. Justices are considering whether a state law that requires doctors at abortion clinics to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals unduly burdens women’s access to abortion. The Louisiana law is very similar to one in Texas that SCOTUS struck down in 2016. During argument, CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS wondered whether the court could consider abortion regulations on a state-by-state basis depending on the specific medical landscape in an individual state. All eyes are on Roberts for this one because even though he was a dissenter in the 2016 Texas case, and has never found that an abortion restriction went too far, he sided with his liberal colleagues in February to keep the law from going into effect.

Generally, it seemed the justices were divided in how they might rule in the Louisiana abortion case. JUSTICE ALITO seemed to be the most supportive of the law, while ROBERTS and KAVANAUGH asked questions that suggested they may also be supportive. Neither JUSTICE THOMAS nor JUSTICE GORSUCH asked a single question. On the other hand, the liberal justices appeared united in their opposition to the restrictive law. JUSTICE BREYER at one point said, “Why depart from what was pretty clear precedent?” JUSTICE GINSBURG repeatedly noted that the law is not medically necessary and that abortions are far safer than other procedures, including child birth.

Adam Liptak with The New York Times reports that justices yesterday were divided over the constitutionality of the CFPB’s leadership structure. The agency was created to be independent and insulated from politics, and so the president is only allowed the remove its director for cause, which Liptak notes is defined as “inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance.” During argument, JUSTICE GINSBURG made clear she thinks that the president still has plenty of control over the agency, while CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS seemed to be looking for ways to narrow the scope of the court’s decision to avoid constitutional issues brought up in the case.

“U.S. Supreme Court justices on Tuesday appeared inclined to back the Securities and Exchange Commission’s power to use federal courts to force defendants to surrender profits obtained through fraud as part of enforcement of investor-protection laws.” That’s Andrew Chung and Lawrence Hurley with Reuters reporting on an appeal heard yesterday from a California couple contesting a civil action brought against them by the SEC. Chung and Hurley write, “Conservative and liberal justices were skeptical of the couple’s bid to strip the SEC of its disgorgement power in federal courts, although some suggested that limits should be imposed.”

Mark Joseph Stern with Slate argues the Supreme Court is as divided as ever. He writes, “The current term is shaping up to be one of the most momentous and divisive in history. And we are already feeling the tremors of the coming earthquake.” SCOTUS hasn’t handed down as many closely divided decisions as quickly as it has this term for a decade — and we can expect even more to come in even more controversial and closely watched cases.