Connect with us

U.S. Federal Courts

Draft of Supreme Court opinion that overturns Roe leaked

LGBTQ activists, allies condemned reported decision

Published

on

Protesters gather outside of the United States Supreme Court on May 3. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

In a stunning revelation published Monday evening in Politico, an initial draft majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito disclosed that the U.S. Supreme Court is poised to strike down the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.

According to Politico’s reporting; “The draft opinion is a full-throated, unflinching repudiation of the 1973 decision which guaranteed federal constitutional protections of abortion rights and a subsequent 1992 decision — Planned Parenthood v. Casey — that largely maintained the right. ‘Roe was egregiously wrong from the start,'” Alito writes.

The unprecedented disclosure marks the first time in the modern history of the court that an opinion has leaked while a case is still pending. If issued, the ruling would pave the way for a majority of states to criminalize abortion — a devastating reality for millions of American women and transgender and non-binary people who rely on safe, legal abortion care.

Slate Senior Legal Writer Mark Joseph Stern noted that Alito’s draft opinion explicitly criticizes Lawrence v. Texas (legalizing sodomy) and Obergefell v. Hodges (legalizing same-sex marriage.) He says that, like abortion, these decisions protect phony rights that are not “deeply rooted in history.”

A lawyer contacted by the Washington Blade who asked to speak on background said that the greater issue for the LGBTQ community and Americans in general is that should the court proceed with the draft in present form, which although may seem unlikely, it sends a clear signal that the high court cannot be trusted to protect and preserve the rights of minority citizens.

In the draft Alito writes; “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. It is time to heed the constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.” With the current political climate leaning against LGBTQ Americans as evidenced by passage of a litany of anti-trans laws, ‘don’t say gay’ measures, and book bans, “this points to the immediate need to raise the alarm,” the lawyer continued.

Equality California, the nation’s largest statewide LGBTQ civil rights organization released the following statement from Executive Director Tony Hoang in reaction to Politico’s reporting and the draft opinion:

“Abortion is healthcare. Abortion is essential. Abortion is a fundamental human right.

“There is nothing the Supreme Court can do to change that. There is nothing five or six justices can do to stop people from needing and seeking abortion care. What they can do — and what overturning Roe will do — is cost people their lives and livelihoods. Women. Transgender and non-binary people. Our mothers and sisters and friends and neighbors and colleagues.

“Shame on us if we let this stand. We must organize, mobilize and vote like our lives depend on it. Because they do.”

Reaction to the leaked document from politicians and others came swiftly as word spread of the Politico report.

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, released a statement saying;

“I am horrified by the apparent draft Supreme Court opinion leaked this evening that would overturn the right to abortion guaranteed by Roe v. Wade. For the sake of women across the country, this should not be the Supreme Court’s final opinion when it comes to abortion rights.

“We have been fighting this battle for too long. I refuse to go backwards. I refuse to let my new granddaughter have to fight for the rights generations have fought for and won, rights that she should be guaranteed.

“For anyone who needs access to care, our state will welcome you with open arms. New York will always be a place where abortion rights are protected and where abortion is safe and accessible. Just as the Statue of Liberty lifts her lamp tall in our harbor, New York will never stop fighting for what’s right — unafraid and undeterred.”

Politico did point out that deliberations on controversial cases have in the past been fluid. Justices can and sometimes do change their votes as draft opinions circulate and major decisions can be subject to multiple drafts and vote-trading, sometimes until just days before a decision is unveiled. The court’s holding will not be final until it is published, likely in the next two months.

The court is expected to rule on the case before its term is up in late June or early July.

The Blade spoke with Shannon Minter, the legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) who said;

“That someone leaked this opinion — violating the court’s most sacrosanct rule of confidentiality — speaks volumes about how extreme and dangerous much of the court’s jurisprudence has become. We don’t know if this will be the final decision, but it is shocking to read this assault on an established fundamental right. A court that would issue an opinion like this — if it does — is a court that has abandoned any pretense of protecting individual freedom.

It would be harder for the court to hold that there is no fundamental right to marry or to sexual privacy, as any such decision would apply to both gay and straight people, but it would be foolhardy to predict how extreme this court may become. LGBTQ people should recognize that we are once again in the crosshairs and that all of our hard-won protections are under serious threat.

We have become too accustomed to counting on the courts for protection, and we must realize the days when we could safely do so are past. Our hope lies in joining forces with others who are fighting to protect democracy and the rule of law and to prevent our country from sliding into the same authoritarianism that is rising across the globe.”  

In Sacramento Monday evening, California Gov. Gavin Newsom issued a statement:

“This draft opinion is an appalling attack on the rights of women across this country and if it stands, it will destroy lives and put countless women in danger. It will be the end of fundamental constitutional rights that American women have had for nearly 50 years.

“This is not an isolated incident, and it is not the end. We have a Supreme Court that does not value the rights of women, and a political minority that will stop at nothing to take those rights away. This won’t stop with choice and the right to privacy. They are undermining progress, and erasing the civil protections and rights so many have fought for over the last half century.

“I’m furious that my own daughters and sons could grow up in an America that is less free than the one they were born into. We have to wake up. We have to fight like hell. We will not be silenced.”

California state Sen. Scott Wiener noted; “California unequivocally stands for the right to an abortion, no matter what the right-wing zealots on the Supreme Court say. We will fight hard to expand abortion access, here and in other states.”

U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin, (D-Wisc.), who is openly lesbian, tweeted her disgust at the leaked draft.

Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences. And far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue, Roe and Casey have enflamed debate and deepened division.”

Justice Samuel Alito in an initial draft majority opinion

Politico received a copy of the draft opinion from a person familiar with the court’s proceedings in the Mississippi case along with other details supporting the authenticity of the document. The draft opinion runs 98 pages, including a 31-page appendix of historical state abortion laws. The document is replete with citations to previous court decisions, books and other authorities, and includes 118 footnotes. The appearances and timing of this draft are consistent with court practice.

Link to full Politico article and the draft document here: https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-abortion-draft-opinion-00029473

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Maryland

4th Circuit dismisses lawsuit against Montgomery County schools’ pronoun policy

Substitute teacher Kimberly Polk challenged regulation in 2024

Published

on

(Photo by Sergei Gnatuk via Bigstock)

A federal appeals court has ruled Montgomery County Public Schools did not violate a substitute teacher’s constitutional rights when it required her to use students’ preferred pronouns in the classroom.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision it released on Jan. 28 ruled against Kimberly Polk.

The policy states that “all students have the right to be referred to by their identified name and/or pronoun.”

“School staff members should address students by the name and pronoun corresponding to the gender identity that is consistently asserted at school,” it reads. “Students are not required to change their permanent student records as described in the next section (e.g., obtain a court-ordered name and/or new birth certificate) as a prerequisite to being addressed by the name and pronoun that corresponds to their identified name. To the extent possible, and consistent with these guidelines, school personnel will make efforts to maintain the confidentiality of the student’s transgender status.”

The Washington Post reported Polk, who became a substitute teacher in Montgomery County in 2021, in November 2022 requested a “religious accommodation, claiming that the policy went against her ‘sincerely held religious beliefs,’ which are ‘based on her understanding of her Christian religion and the Holy Bible.’”

U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman in January 2025 dismissed Polk’s lawsuit that she filed in federal court in Beltsville. Polk appealed the decision to the 4th Circuit.

Continue Reading

U.S. Federal Courts

Federal judge in Md. rules against White House passport policy

Lambda Legal represents transgender, nonbinary people in lawsuit

Published

on

(Bigstock photo)

A federal judge in Maryland on Tuesday ruled in favor of six transgender people who are challenging the Trump-Vance administration’s passport policy.

President Donald Trump once he took office signed an executive order that banned the State Department from issuing passports with “X” gender markers. A memo the Washington Blade obtained directed State Department personnel to “suspend any application where the applicant is seeking to change their sex marker from that defined in the executive order
pending further guidance.”

The Trump-Vance administration only recognizes two genders: male and female.

The lawsuit that Lambda Legal filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland in Baltimore in April alleges the policy “has caused and is causing grave and immediate harm to transgender people like plaintiffs, in violation of their constitutional rights to equal protection.”

Seven trans people — Zander Schlacter, Jill Tran, Lia Hepler-Mackey, David Doe, Robert Roe, Peter Poe, and Kris Koe — filed the lawsuit.

Roe is a U.S. Foreign Service Officer who currently lives in Europe. Lambda Legal, who represents him and the six other plaintiffs, notes Chief Judge George L. Russell III dismissed Roe’s case because the State Department has yet to deny him “an accurate passport.”

“Like every other court that has considered this executive order, the court finds its stated purpose does not serve an important governmental interest that is exceedingly persuasive; further, the discriminatory means employed are not substantially related to the achievement of those objectives,” said Russell in his ruling.

Lambda Legal Counsel Carl Charles described Russell’s decision as “a crucial victory for our clients and transgender people nationwide who have been trapped by this administration’s cruel and discriminatory policy.”

“The court recognized that forcing inaccurate identity documents on transgender Americans causes immediate and irreparable harm,” said Charles in a press release. “Our clients can now travel with dignity and safety while we continue fighting to overturn this discriminatory policy entirely.”  

The American Civil Liberties Union earlier this year filed a separate lawsuit against the passport directive on behalf of seven trans and nonbinary people.

A federal judge in Boston in April issued a preliminary junction against it. A three-judge panel on the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last week ruled against the Trump-Vance administration’s motion to delay the move.

Continue Reading

U.S. Federal Courts

AGs sue White House over push to restrict gender-affirming care in blue states

14 states, DC joined the lawsuit filed Friday

Published

on

U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

A group of 15 Democratic attorneys general and Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro (D) have accused the Trump-Vance administration of unlawfully pressuring health providers to withhold access to gender-affirming medicine for minors in places where these treatments remain legal.

In a complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Friday, the attorneys general outlined multiple ways in which, they claim, the administration has overstepped its authority to restrict care that is protected under state law, such as by threatening providers with meritless lawsuits and federal investigations.

On the first day of his second term, President Donald Trump directed the Justice Department to pursue enforcement actions to proscribe medically necessary gender related interventions, which were characterized in his executive order as “chemical and surgical mutilation.”

Thereafter, the DOJ has issued subpoenas, demanded private patient data, and suggested that criminal charges might be coming — actions that have no legal basis, and instead constitute efforts to strong-arm Democratic states into alignment with the administration’s position on gender-affirming care for minors, according to the complaint.

As a result of these pressures, the attorneys general argue, providers have reduced or eliminated services while patients have reported cancelled appointments and uncertainty over whether they can continue receiving treatment.

Their lawsuit asks the court to block the administration’s actions and halt the enforcement of the executive order along with another that prohibits the federal government from recognizing transgender people or acknowledging that gender identity does not always correspond with one’s sex at birth.

The 15 attorneys general are from Massachusetts, California, New York, Connecticut, Illinois, Delaware, D.C., Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin.

Continue Reading

Popular