Supreme Court

The U.S. Supreme Court is made up of nine justices who were each appointed by a sitting president and usually serve life terms. They take cases unsettled between lower state courts in order to provide a ruling on important decisions for the entire country, having immense political and social impacts on people and legislation for decades to come.

A Century After the Eugenics Movement, the U.S. Is Again Barring Disabled Immigrants

PUBLISHED 11/20/2025 by

This month, Secretary of State Marco Rubio instructed visa officers to consider obesity and other chronic health conditions, such as heart disease, cancer and diabetes, as justification to deny people visas to the United States.

Many were outraged and shocked, observing the Trump administration’s new expansion of the “public charge” rule—directing visa officers to deny entry to people with disabilities, chronic illnesses or age-related conditions—as a modern revival of eugenic immigration policy designed to exclude, control and institutionalize disabled and marginalized people.

When Trump first took office in 2016, the Trump administration broadened the definition of public charge to include people who receive SNAP benefits, medicaid, housing assistance, childcare subsidies and more. This new rule was published in 2019 and went into effect in 2020 and early 2021; President Biden ended the use of this public charge rule definition in March 2021, returning it to the older but still restrictive version. Following Trump’s new rule, visa denials based on the “public charge” rule exploded during Trump’s first residency, rising from just over 1,000 denials in 2016 to over 20,000 in 2019, and it had disastrous effects.

As the Migration Policy Institute (MPI) found, broadening this public charge rule led many people to reduce or stop using benefits or services for themselves.

Dobbs Has Triggered Widespread Discrimination in Non-Reproductive Healthcare

PUBLISHED 11/18/2025 by

In the years since Roe was overturned, physicians across a wide range of medical specialties have described how abortion bans are undermining their ability to follow evidence-based standards of care. Dermatologists, oncologists, neurologists, cardiologists and others told Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) that they are regularly forced to alter treatment plans, delay urgent care or avoid prescribing the most effective medications simply because those treatments could harm a pregnancy. These constraints are creating a chilling effect that reaches far beyond reproductive health and into the everyday practice of medicine.

As PHR’s Michele Heisler and Payal Shah explained, abortion bans are also fueling discriminatory care. Reproductive-age women are routinely denied the best available treatments, while men with the same conditions face no such barriers. Even within the group of reproductive-age women, clinicians are making decisions based on subjective judgments about a patient’s “contraceptive reliability”—a practice that opens the door to bias and disproportionately harms marginalized patients.

This two-tiered system of care is not hypothetical: It is already shaping medical decision-making in ban states, with dangerous consequences for patients’ health and lives.

Keeping Score: Democrats Dominate Key Elections; Federal Government Reopens After 43 Days; ICE Targets Childcare Centers

PUBLISHED 11/13/2025 by

In every issue of Ms., we track research on our progress in the fight for equality, catalogue can’t-miss quotes from feminist voices and keep tabs on the feminist movement’s many milestones. We’re Keeping Score online, too—in this biweekly roundup.

This week:
—Democratic candidates won elections across the country.
—At Crooked Con last week, Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) laid out her priorities for when Democrats regain power in Congress: “We’ve got to fix the Voting Rights Act, we have to deal with the money in politics, we have to deal with the Supreme Court and we need immigration reform.”
—ICE targeted childcare workers and is accused of inhumane detention conditions.
—Nancy Pelosi announced her retirement in 2027.
—Trump’s approval ratings continue to fall, a year out from the 2026 midterms.
—Many popular lubricants aren’t safe for vaginal health.

… and more.

Kim Davis Failed This Time, But Her Advocates Are Still American Power Players

PUBLISHED 11/13/2025 by

The Supreme Court this week declined to revisit Kim Davis’ appeal that attempted to overturn its landmark precedent recognizing same-sex marriage as a legal right nationwide.

Davis may now fade into the distance—but how did the former Kentucky county clerk become the face of America’s anti-gay marriage movement?

In short, Davis had help from some of the biggest Christian legal groups and most influential figures in the U.S., who are still actively trying to roll back LGBTQ rights on home soil and—in many cases—internationally. Now more than ever, we need to remain vigilant about Davis and these groups and monitor their efforts.

Supreme Court Soon to Hear a Religious Freedom Case That’s United Both Sides of the Church-State Divide

PUBLISHED 11/7/2025 by

A case headed to the U.S. Supreme Court on Nov. 10 stands apart from most of the high-profile cases we’ve seen lately. Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections asks whether an inmate who’s part of a minority religious group—the Rastafarians—can sue for monetary damages after a warden violated his religious rights by forcing him to cut his hair.

With nearly 2 million people currently held in prisons, jails and other detention facilities, the inability to seek damages under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act means there’s little accountability when those rights are violated.

Landor’s case also highlights something fundamental: Minority religions are entitled to the same First Amendment protections as major faiths. How the Supreme Court rules will speak volumes about the future of religious freedom—and how it applies to issues the Constitution’s authors could never have imagined.

RFK Jr. Ignores 100+ Studies to Push Abortion Pill Ban—This Is the Mifepristone Explainer You Need

PUBLISHED 11/4/2025 by

Apprehensive OB-GYNs across the country are alerting Americans that Health & Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. may withdraw abortion pill mifepristone from the market.

The threat follows the publication of a discredited study on mifepristone by a Project 2025 “think tank.” Medical organizations, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, have called the report “seriously flawed” and accused it of manipulating data. So why would RFK Jr. believe it?

Kennedy “is not a scientist and is entirely political. It’s hard to watch someone with such an important role in this country, who is in charge of some of the most vulnerable people in this country, have a complete lack of respect for the things we hold dear,” said Dr. Kristin Lyerly, a Wisconsin OB-GYN who also practices across the state border in rural Minnesota.

Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, plans to pour millions of dollars into House and Senate races in the 2026 midterms, in hopes of securing a “trifecta of pro-life administration, House and Senate.”

That’s a complete reversal from what voters have said they want: Since Roe was reversed in 2022, voters in every state with an abortion protection measure on its ballot have overwhelmingly passed it, enshrining the right to abortion into their state constitution—even in deep red states like Kansas, Kentucky and Ohio. 

Keeping Score: No Kings Protest Turnout Makes History; SCOTUS Threatens Voting Rights; Gen Z Women Are Most Liberal in U.S.

PUBLISHED 10/28/2025 by

In every issue of Ms., we track research on our progress in the fight for equality, catalogue can’t-miss quotes from feminist voices and keep tabs on the feminist movement’s many milestones. We’re Keeping Score online, too—in this biweekly roundup.

This week:
—No Kings Day marks the largest single-day protest in American history.
—The ongoing government shutdown could soon disrupt SNAP benefits, another unprecedented moment in U.S. history. “We have never seen our government turn on its people this way,” said Abby Leibman, president and CEO of MAZON.
—House Democrats rebuke Pete Hegseth’s hostility towards women in the military.
—Speaker Mike Johnson refuses to swear in newly elected Democrat, Rep. Adelita Grijalva.
—Return-to-office policies are pushing women out of the workforce.
—Remembering legendary trans activist Miss Major Griffin-Gracy.
—The Supreme Court heard arguments challenging the Voting Rights Act.

… and more.

Why the Pennsylvania Supreme Court Matters—and How to Make Your Voice Heard in the Ongoing Election

PUBLISHED 10/22/2025 by

The Nov. 4 Pennsylvania Supreme Court will determine Pennsylvanians’ access to education, protections for workers in the workplace, LGBTQ+ civil rights and gender equality, among other key issues.

Retaining the current justices on the state’s supreme court is crucial, especially after recent fights in the state over the 2030 census. The redistricting from the census could mean that states like Pennsylvania may have one less congressional seat. As of now, Pennsylvania has stable abortion access, but flipping the court could disrupt access to Pennsylvanians.

​​What’s at Stake in Louisiana v. Callais—and Why it Matters for Women

PUBLISHED 10/17/2025 by

For nearly 60 years, the Voting Rights Act has been the foundation of representative democracy in the United States, ensuring that all communities—regardless of race or background—have a fair chance to elect leaders who reflect their experiences and priorities. Today, that foundation is being tested. The Supreme Court’s consideration of Louisiana v. Callais challenges Section 2 of the VRA, a crucial safeguard against discriminatory maps and election practices that dilute the voices of communities of color.

When these protections are strong, women of color are more likely not only to participate in elections but to win them—bringing new perspectives, policies and leadership into government. Weakening Section 2 would have ripple effects far beyond redistricting: It would silence voices that have been historically excluded from power, particularly those of women whose civic leadership has long strengthened our democracy.

As RepresentWomen’s research shows, Louisiana already lags behind much of the country in women’s political representation. Rolling back Section 2 would not only harm communities of color—it would jeopardize fragile gains toward gender parity and threaten the progress that brings our democracy closer to true representation.