(NewsWeek)
The Supreme Court overturned a 40-year-old precedent on Monday in a split 5-4 ruling that legal experts said did not bode well for the future of other well established cases like Roe v. Wade.
“Today’s decision is deeply disturbing because it makes clear that five justices on the Court are not faithful to the principle of stare decisis and are willing to abandon precedent when necessary to reach a desired outcome in a case,” Kristen Clarke, the president of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, told Newsweek.
“This raises grave questions about the Court’s willingness to respect other important precedents, like Roe v. Wade," Clarke continued. "Across the county we are witnessing a carefully coordinated attack on Roe v. Wade, with abortion proponents bent on reopening the ruling before a newly configured Supreme Court."
In the past year, at least 15 states have introduced legislation to seriously limit abortion access. Last week, Georgia Governor Brian Kemp signed one of the most restrictive anti-abortion bills in the country, which bans the procedure after a fetal heartbeat is detected. A fetal heartbeat can be detected as early as six weeks, before many women know they are pregnant. The law faces several court challenges; advocacy groups say that Republican-led state legislatures only move forward with these kinds of bills in the hope of getting them in front of the Supreme Court, which has a conservative majority due to Donald Trump's two nominations.
On Monday, the five conservative justices broke with the long-standing 1979 decision in Nevada v. Hall permitting a sovereign state to be sued in another state’s courts without consent. Justice Clarence Thomas, who wrote the majority opinion, argued that the original ruling went against state immunity outlined in the Constitution.
Comments