More Than A Magazine, A Movement
Today, not only are all three branches of the federal government under the control of the Republican party, they are all acting in obedient servitude to a single individual, President Donald J. Trump. To compound the problem, the U.S. Supreme Court is employing a rarely used procedure to create a law-free zone to help Trump aggressively implement his executive orders despite the fact that they have already been found unconstitutional by numerous federal judges.
Late last month, a 60-hour “Protect Medicaid Vigil” took place on the National Mall across from the Capitol. Featuring live music, speakers and a collaborative art table, it was a space for collective grief, anger, joy and hope in response to steep Medicaid cuts in the recently enacted Republican spending package.
The event was organized by Caring Across Generations, a national organization of family caregivers, care workers, disabled people and aging adults advocating for social and political change. It spanned 60 hours to represent each year of the Medicaid program to-date. During the vigil, Caring Across Generations lit 8,000 candles as a visual representation of the nearly 80 million Americans who rely on Medicaid coverage for healthcare.
Feminist thought-leaders, including Audre Lorde and Judith Butler, have theorized that emotions (particularly grief and anger) are essential to any successful social movement. By holding a vigil followed by a joyful day of action, Caring Across Generations and its partners showed how emotion can fuel and sustain activism under Trump.
Friday, June 27, marked the final day of the ’24-’25 Supreme Court term. This year brought a series of stunning, high-stakes decisions that delivered major setbacks for reproductive rights and civil liberties—from a landmark case threatening judiciary checks and birthright citizenship and a ruling that expands parental opt-outs in public schools, to the Court’s decision to uphold both South Carolina’s ban on Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood and Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming healthcare for trans teens.
On July 2, the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law at Georgetown University hosted its annual Supreme Court Term in Review, co-hosted by Ms. magazine, Ms. Studios, the Brennan Center for Justice and the American Constitution Society. The event brought together legal scholars, litigators, journalists and activists to reflect on the most consequential rulings of the 2024-’25 term.
“We should not have to have seances with slave owners to know what our rights are today.”
—Lourdes A. Rivera
“The president can, with the stroke of a pen, revoke your constitutional right to citizenship.”
—Jamelle Bouie
“The Supreme Court and Congress are basically enabling this. Not just being feckless, but enabling it.”
—Lourdes A. Rivera
“I thought Justice Barrett was extraordinarily disrespectful toward Justice Jackson in that opinion.”
—Mark Joseph Stern
“We get hope from our clients and the communities that are stepping up when many elite institutions are not.”
—Skye Perryman
In Trump v. CASA, this is the legal framework the Supreme Court has set up: When Trump—or any future president—takes flagrantly unlawful actions against us, the only way to stop it is for each and every person affected to file their lawsuit.
This will create a nation in which only people who can afford legal representation, who live in certain states, or who happen to hold the same political views as the sitting president enjoy the full protection of the Constitution.
Alongside the 2024 Supreme Court ruling granting broad presidential immunity, this new limitation to the power of the judiciary is a devastating blow to the core checks and balances of our 250-year-old democracy.
In a 6-3 decision last Friday, the Supreme Court granted the Trump administration a partial, but crucial, victory in its efforts to stop federal courts from blocking Trump’s agenda.
The vehicle for this power grab, CASA v. Trump, is a case about the legality of denying citizenship to children born to parents who are in the U.S. unlawfully or temporarily. In the majority’s ruling that nationwide injunctions were probably outside the federal judiciary’s authority, and therefore, judges should limit their orders to the parties and plaintiffs before them, it has tipped the balance of power to the president. And that is going to make many people’s lives—immigrants and nonimmigrants alike—much more difficult.
In its Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic ruling last week, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a devastating blow to reproductive health clinics across the nation. A substantial slate of decisions issued by the Court Friday dealt several more severe blows to the rule of law and our constitutional rights—though a silver lining was the Court’s decision to uphold the Affordable Care Act’s preventive-care mandate.
The Trump administration’s recent decision to drop the Biden-era lawsuit defending emergency abortion access in Idaho under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) is another powerful indication of its intent to dismantle existing federal protections for sexual and reproductive health.
Anticipating this move, St. Luke’s Health System filed filed a new lawsuit against Idaho during the first month of Trump’s presidency. On March 3, upon learning that dismissal was imminent, St. Luke’s sought and was granted a temporary restraining order to preserve the status quo—meaning Idaho remains barred from enforcing its criminal abortion law to the extent it conflicts with EMTALA. At least for the moment, pregnant Idahoans with emergency medical conditions that pose serious threats to their health are not faced with the dilemma of whether to be airlifted out of the state to receive stabilizing abortion care or wait until an abortion becomes necessary to prevent their death. However, the case is far from over, and the eventual outcome is uncertain—especially if it winds up again before the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority.
As abortion access is increasingly being decided by state and federal courts, two reproductive rights attorneys make sense of past rulings and the ongoing fight for reproductive healthcare.
The Supreme Court majority’s extreme belief in Trump v. U.S. that our president is above the law is anathema to the history of our nation.
In almost every case, the dissenting justices write, “I respectfully dissent,” but both Sotomayor and Jackson omit the “respectfully” in their dissents in Trump v. U.S. There is little to cling to in this decision. It is as un-American as can be.
The Supreme Court’s dismissal of the EMTALA case drew the fierce ire of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. Warning of the “storm clouds [that] loom ahead,” Jackson condemned the Court’s failure to resolve the case on the merits, in accordance with the long-settled principle that “state laws that conflict with federal laws, are ‘without effect.’”
In an alternate dissent, the Court’s hardcore conservative justices—Alito, Thomas and Gorsuch—paid homage to the unborn child.