It appears likely that the Supreme Court will uphold the Mississippi law banning abortions at 15 weeks’ gestation, long before the limits of possibility set forth by previous precedent.
The act – which makes no exceptions for rape or incest – was passed in 2018 but was immediately blocked by two federal courts that found it contrary to Roe.
Judge Carlton Reeves of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi overruled the bill and said the state legislature had chosen to pass something “that they know is unconstitutional in endorsing a drag campaign.” decades, motivated by national interest groups, to petition the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade.” Reeves also concluded that “the legislature’s stated interest in the Women’s health is pure action.”
A federal appeals court also blocked the law, noting that it contradicted Roe, which had been “affirmed and reconfirmed.”
But with a conservative 6-3 majority, only court libertarians and lawyers fighting the rule of law will make the case to stay intact.
Roberts floating on the ground
Chief Justice John Roberts was quick to take a neutral stance that would support the Mississippi law but not completely end abortion rights nationwide.
He appears to be suggesting that the court could raise the viability limit to 15 weeks in the Mississippi law and leave another day for whether the judges have to overturn Roe. “Why is 15 weeks not enough time?” to decide whether to have an abortion, he said. As for abortion rights advocates, they’ve long said there’s no way to uphold the law without gutting Roe – even if the judges don’t say it outright.
It’s unclear if any of the judges were interested in Roberts’ ideas.
If the court overturns Roe, people in large swaths of the South and Midwest will be left without abortions. Poor women who cannot travel or do not have the necessary working time will be most affected.
Trump nominations are sometimes hard to read
For her part, Justice Brett Kavanaugh – who does not always reveal his true feelings when arguing orally – has explicitly noted that if the Court over-hands the Role, the matter will return to the states and the “majority” of them can continue to “freely permit abortion.”
At another point, he told a pro-abortion lawyer that she was making a “strong argument” but then switched gears. He said if the issue was balanced between “the interests of the pregnant woman and the interests of the fetus”, it could be better handled by the courts or state legislatures. He said that opponents of abortion argue that the courts should be “seriously neutral.”
Liberals stress the importance of precedent
All three libertarians – Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan – sometimes look almost in pain during oral arguments.
Sotomayor struggled most in defending precedent, especially at the start of an argument when Mississippi’s attorney general was on the podium.
At one point, she noted that “15 judges” over 50 years voted to reassert the rule that is workable in court precedent. The only thing that has changed, she argues, is the composition of the court.
“Can this institution survive the stench this creates in the public perception that the Constitution and its reading are purely political?” Sotomayor asked.
Meanwhile, Texas’ 6-week ban still applies
While it was the first time the judges discussed Mississippi law while all sitting on the bench, they talked about abortion for weeks behind the scenes.
That’s because on September 1, they allowed Texas’ abortion law to go into effect, banning sixth-week abortions. Since then, they have held quick debates on the case, but they have yet to comment. It’s even possible that they already knew how the case would turn out.
A ruling may not be made until next summer.
.
