The Dictatorship
Texas AG Ken Paxton just broke a fragile abortion truce between states
A fragile truce between the states on abortion just collapsed: Last week, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a lawsuit against a doctor in New York for mailing pills into the state. The physician, Margaret Daly Carpenter, is part of a group called the Abortion Coalition for Telemedicinewhich represents doctors who mail abortion medications — in this case, mifepristone and misoprostol — to states where the procedure is banned. ACT refers to these clients as “shield providers” because they rely on the protections afforded by so-called shield lawswhich are on the books in 23 states and the District of Columbia to protect providers and other possible defendants from out-of-state legal consequences. Texas’ suit is the first to challenge these shield laws, and it’s likely to raise unprecedented legal questions in the new year.
The genesis of shield laws dates from shortly before the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, after Missouri considered (but ultimately didn’t pass) a bill that would project its abortion ban outside state lines. That inspired a pre-emptive strike from lawyers supportive of abortion rights, who drafted shield laws to prevent criminal and civil consequences for residents who helped out-of-state abortion-seekers.
With this lawsuit, we enter uncharted territory.
The most ambitious — and most consequential — form of assistance involved doctors in jurisdictions where abortion is protected mailing abortion pills into states where abortion is banned. This strategy has had obvious practical advantages: It makes medication available to patients who live in remote areas or lack the resources to easily travel out of state. The shield network also makes pills available far more quickly than would be the case if doctors were based offshore. Shield doctors can organize in a range of states to mail tens of thousands of pills into states where abortion is a crime. And there has been no challenge to shield provisions in federal court — until now.
With this lawsuit, we enter uncharted territory. Texas has accused Carpenter of practicing medicine without a license and violating a state law limiting the availability of abortion pills, with civil penalties for the latter starting at $100,000. If Texas’ lawsuit goes forward, it seems likely, Texas will win in its own state courts. A Texas court will have to decide which state’s law applies, given that the physician was based in one state and the patient and the abortion in another. Standard telehealth law tends to focus on the location of the patient. And Texas will argue that it has the right to apply its laws because of where the abortion — the injury in Texas’ view — took place. That means Texas could win a civil judgment against Carpenter even if she never travels to the state.
The real question might be whether New York will enforce a judgment against Carpenter despite what its shield law and state constitution say about reproductive rights. Texas will argue that New York has no choice because of the Full Faith and Credit Clausewhich generally requires states to honor valid, final judgments and decisions of other states. But the clause has exceptions. For example, states don’t have to carry out the penal policies of other states — a term that encompasses not just criminal laws but other laws that have the purpose of punishing “an offense against the public justice of the state.” While state courts have rarely applied this exception, Texas’ laws — especially civil penalties on abortion pills — look pretty penal: Their goal is not to help an injured patient but to enforce Texas’ concept of justice. New York courts may simply refuse to honor whatever ruling a Texas court reaches. Would Texas then try to garnish money from accounts in banks with in-state branches? Could Carpenter easily frustrate that ambition by moving her assets to a different bank?
The answers to these questions are that no one knows.
Further complicating matters is the fact that Carpenter could sue Texas right back under New York’s shield law, which authorizes so-called clawback lawsuits against anyone who brings a suit that counts as “unlawful interference with protected rights.” If she does, the state will argue it has sovereign immunity from any lawsuit that Carpenter brings under the 11th Amendment, which limits when states can be sued in federal court. And Texas will say it definitely has the power to go after Carpenter because she chose to have contact with the state when she mailed pills to patients within its borders.
What is certain is that the Supreme Court will ultimately have to decide these legal questions. Many of them land in enough of a legal gray area that predicting the outcome with any certainty is challenging, especially with conservative judges who are likely to sympathize with Texas’ view of reproductive rights.
These lawsuits will tee up even messier questions.
Here’s another certainty: Whatever happens in this case will be just the tip of the iceberg. If Texas and other anti-abortion jurisdictions can target doctors who mail pills into their states, it will be harder to target providers who serve out-of-state patients who travel to places where abortion is legal. And then there are in-between scenarios — for example, if a patient receives a pill in one state and ingests it another. None of that even touches on whether states like Texas can go after someone for providing information that facilitates abortion travel or a corporation for subsidizing abortion-related travel of employees in ban states.
And though Texas can claim sovereign immunity, that won’t be true of other plaintiffs, like the former partners of abortion patientswho can also bring suit against out-of-state defendants. These lawsuits will tee up even messier questions. States may even race to be the first to reach a final judgment they can then push their neighbors to recognize.
In concurring with the overturning of Roe v. Wade, Justice Brett Kavanaugh quoted Justice Antonin Scalia’s complaint that “Roe fanned into life an issue that has inflamed our national politics in general.” The man who appointed Kavanaugh to the court agreed: With Roe gone, Donald Trump said“we have abortion where everyone wanted it from a legal standpoint.” It will soon be quaint to think of the demise of Roe as Trump and the conservative justices do: as a kind of settlement that would simplify and de-escalate conflicts about abortion. Texas’ lawsuit makes it clear that with Roe gone, things are about to get much more complicated — and much worse.
Mary Ziegler is a law professor at the University of California, Davis, School of Law and the author of “Roe: The History of a National Obsession.”
Welcome back, Deadline: Legal Newsletter readers. The Supreme Court these days is generally in the business of helping executions go forward. But on Thursday night, the court did something notable: It told Alabama no.
Even then, the court wasn’t unanimous. Justices Clarence ThomasSamuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented from the refusal to let the nitrogen gas execution of Jeffery Lee proceed.
What prompted the rare rejection? In line with the typical shadow docket practice, the court didn’t explain itself. Nor did the dissenters, who merely noted their disagreement.
But a deeper look at the case helps us understand why a majority of the court was unwilling to help the state this time.
A Trump-appointed judge had permanently blocked Alabama from killing Lee using the nitrogen method, due to the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. In her ruling Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Emily Marks made it clear that she wasn’t stopping officials from executing Lee for the 1998 murders of Jimmy Ellis and Elaine Thompson. Rather, she was only barring the nitrogen method while leaving the state free to use others, such as a firing squad.
Yet the state still pressed to execute Lee with nitrogen on Thursday. The next roadblock it hit was a divided appellate panel, which declined to lift Marks’ injunction. Trump-appointed Judge Robert Luck dissented, stressing the high bar the justices have set for Eighth Amendment claims and accusing Lee of delaying his claim until the last minute. Luck noted that Lee’s victims didn’t get to choose how they died.
The appellate dissent reflects the Supreme Court majority’s view on capital punishment. So, when Alabama filed an emergency application to the justices on Thursday, it felt like the setting of a familiar scene: A lower court halts an execution, only for the high court majority to let it move forward. We have seen this movie before.
Plus, the court previously permitted nitrogen gas executions in Alabama. In the case of Anthony Boyd last yearJustice Sonia Sotomayor lamented the majority’s refusal to extend him what she called “the barest form of mercy,” which she said would have been letting him die by firing squad, which “would kill him in seconds, rather than by a torturous suffocation lasting up to 4 minutes.” She issued a similar dissent the year before in the case of Kenneth Smithwhich she concluded “with deep sadness, but commitment to the Eighth Amendment’s protection against cruel and unusual punishment.”
Lee’s case was different, as his lawyers and a key outside advocate explained to the justices. His lawyers said it was “unlike every previous method of execution challenge that this Court has considered.” They said that unlike prior cases where lower courts issued temporary stays for inmates, this one had a permanent injunction that followed “a full three-day bench trial on the merits — the first such trial anywhere on the constitutionality of nitrogen asphyxiation.”
That key outside advocate was Georgetown University law professor Steve Vladeck, a Supreme Court expert who filed an amicus brief. He said Alabama was trying to do something procedurally that it shouldn’t be allowed to do. “After all,” Vladeck wrote, “allowing Alabama to execute Mr. Lee through a grant of emergency relief would necessarily frustrate this Court’s ability to conduct plenary review of the district court’s final, permanent injunction.”
To be clear, the justices can still reverse Marks’ ruling in a future round of litigation. Or, as the judge noted, the state can execute him by other means. The question on Thursday night was whether the court would make the case moot by letting Alabama execute Lee before the state’s appeal could be fully vetted in an orderly fashion. With that in mind, it would almost be unremarkable that the court rejected the state’s emergency application, if it weren’t for the fact that the justices had previously intervened to help governments conduct executions over lower courts’ objections.
Perhaps the most remarkable thing is that three justices voted to let Lee’s execution go forward as planned, its unconstitutionality notwithstanding. Of course, while none of the justices explained their views, we can presume that the three dissenters are prepared to disagree with the lower courts’ constitutional analysis if and when the case comes back to the high court.
Next week, the justices are set to issue another round of opinions from cases argued this term, as we creep toward the end of June, when some of the court’s most contentious decisions have historically come.
Have any questions or comments for me? Pleasesubmit them through this formfor a chance to be featured in the Deadline: Legal Blog and newsletter.
Jordan Rubin is the Deadline: Legal Blog writer. He was a prosecutor for the New York County District Attorney’s Office in Manhattan and is the author of “Bizarro,” a book about the secret war on synthetic drugs. Before he joined MS NOW, he was a legal reporter for Bloomberg Law.
Ex-reality TV star and MAGA-backed Los Angeles mayoral candidate Spencer Pratt angrily conceded the race Friday in a combative video in which he derided, and appeared to threaten, the women who finished ahead of him.
Nearly four days after The Associated Press projected Councilmember Nithya Raman will advance to the November general election to face incumbent Mayor Karen BassPratt announced that “the campaign portion of my mission to save Los Angeles is coming to a close, and I’m moving on to the next, more interesting phase.”
With 99% of ballots counted as of Friday, the AP put Pratt in third place, with just more than a quarter of the vote — 3.5 percentage points behind Raman and nearly 9 points behind Bass.
Pratt initially stood in second as returns came in on primary night, but his lead over Raman steadily narrowed as mail-in ballots were counted. By Sunday, she had overtaken him by less than 1 percentage point.
President Donald Trump and other MAGA supporters suggested Pratt’s apparent reversal of fortune proved fraud, but elections experts say it is California’s voting systemcoupled with the city’s small Republican voter base, that explain his third-place finish.
What, exactly, Pratt’s next chapter in civic life will consist of is unclear. But if his Friday announcement is any indication — he called Bass and Raman “dumb and dumber” and “corrupt communists” — it will include continued attacks on his former opponents. And contrary to Pratt’s pledge that he would leave the city if he lost, he suggested he will instead stay put in LA.
“A lot of dim-witted jerks thought I was in this for a grift, that I was going to roll up and leave town if I didn’t get into City Hall,” Pratt said in the video. “Hey, morons, I didn’t get in this for political power. I got in this to expose this corrupt machine, and nothing has changed.”
Addressing Bass and Raman, Pratt added: “I will be lighting you up every single day, and now I don’t have to worry about offending BLN viewers. I don’t have campaign laws hamstringing me now. It’s war.”
Filled with expletives and images of fires, violence and homeless encampments, Pratt’s video channels the same angry populism he ran on. His Republican supporters —including Benny JohnsonTrump administration official Richard Grenell and the chair of the LA County GOP — cheered his final message as a candidate.
Best known for his role as Heidi Montag’s bad boyfriend on MTV’s “The Hills,” Pratt launched his surprise mayoral campaign in January, a year after his family home burned down in the Pacific Palisades fire. While his platform initially focused heavily on what he and his supporters characterized as the failures that led to the damage caused by the fires, Pratt expanded his campaign to focus on forcing homeless people off the streets, cleaning up alleged “fraud” in the city’s finances and saving abused dogs on Skid Row.
With his massive online following and social media savvy, Pratt catapulted himself from long-shot candidate to one who earned Trump’s support and managed to outraise both Bass and Raman.
In the video, Pratt also said he possesses “some recordings of one of your exalted candidates doing and saying something that would make her resign in shame.”
A spokesperson for Raman’s campaign declined to comment to MS NOW on Pratt’s message. Spokespeople for the Bass campaign did not immediately respond to MS NOW’s request for comment.
Julianne McShane is a breaking news reporter for MS NOW who also covers the politics of abortion and reproductive rights. You can send her tips from a non-work device on Signal at jmcshane.19 or follow her on X or Bluesky.
Albanian Prime Minister Edi Rama on Friday pledged to move forward with negotiations on a controversial luxury coastal resort linked to Ivanka Trump and her husband, Jared Kushnerthat is set for construction on the country’s only island.
The deal has sparked protests in Albaniawith some calling for Rama’s resignation. But in an interview Friday with MS NOW, the prime minister waved off such criticism as “ideological bulls—.”
He told MS NOW that “negotiations” for the property were still ongoing and dismissed concerns of any conflict of interest, insisting talks began before President Donald Trump returned to the White House last year and that Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, was not acting on behalf of the U.S. government.
“When Jared Kushner and Ivanka came here and we started work together, it was not clear if Trump would go to jail or go to the White House,” he said, appearing to refer to Donald Trump’s legal battles ahead of the 2024 election.
The project, backed by Kushner’s investment firm, Affinity Partnerswill cost an estimated $1.6 billion. It involves the construction of dozens of hotels, apartments and villas along the country’s western coast. A larger development is planned for the Narta Lagoon area, home to a wildlife reserve, and a smaller resort is set to be built on the uninhabited island of Sazan, a former communist-era military base.
Ivanka Trump said she and her husband first came across the location by accident while on a trip in 2021. “We were on a friend’s boat, and we stopped for a swim,” she told podcaster David Senra last month. “Effectively, that’s how we found it. We swam to the island. We went on a hike, barefoot all the way up to the top, and we were just captivated.”
In response to the construction, protests have broken out in the country’s capital, Tirana, where tens of thousands of residents have marched through the streets proclaiming, “Albania is not for sale.” Many demonstrators have carried cut-outs of flamingos, a species whose habitats they say will be destroyed if the project goes through.
Rama stressed that the deal included other parties besides Kushner’s firm. He said the “incredible team of investors” was “not coming to Albania to destroy” but “coming to build” and suggested his country was being used as a pawn to attack the Trump administration.
“Don’t come here to fight with Trump. It’s not your fight,” he said. “You want me to believe that suddenly the American media, the American influencers, the American world is caring about some flamingos in Albania?”
Earlier this month, Albania’s anti-corruption agency opened a probe into how the investment firm was granted the right to the land, which was previously designated a protected area.
Redi Muçi, a member of parliament from the left-wing party Lëvizja Bashkë (Movement Together), said the agreement between the Kushner-backed firm and the Albanian government “looks like political and financial corruption” because “there is no competition.”
“It’s very fashionable to use all these words,” Rama said when he was asked about accusations of widespread corruption in his country.
While the protests were sparked by the Kushner-backed project, they have expanded into broader anti-government demonstrations, with many calling for Rama’s resignation.
During his interview with MS NOW, the prime minister said he would not resign and suggested, without evidence, that a “majority” of the population “wants the project.” He also said an “investment of such magnitude in tourism” would bring “a lot of income for everyone” in the country.
Construction of the development could also complicate Albania’s effort to join the European Union. On Tuesday, EU spokesperson Guillaume Mercier reminded the country, which is one of the poorest in Europe, that its entry into the coalition depends on adherence to its laws, including those on the environment.
“Albania should refrain from action that could undermine the fulfillment of the closing benchmark, and we expect the Albanian authorities to act without delay,” spokesman Guillaume Mercier said.
Rama told MS NOW he was not concerned that the construction would impact his country’s chances of joining the EU.
In the U.S., news of the resort reignited ethical concerns around Kushner’s business dealings and possible conflicts of interest. While he holds no formal government role — and is frequently referred to as simply a “volunteer” by the Trump White House — Kushner has been a key figure in the administration’s foreign policy efforts, participating in negotiations between Israel and Hamasand more recently, in the Iran was.
He’s done so while attempting to raise billions of dollars from governments in the region for his private equity fund. After the first Trump administration ended, Kushner secured $2 billion in investment from the Saudi government, along with hundreds of millions more from other Gulf nations, including the United Arab Emirates and Qatar.
Critics have suggested foreign leaders may be using the president’s son-in-law to curry favor with Trump. Kushner and the White House have previously claimed he is abiding by all applicable ethics laws.
Ines de La Cuetara is a London-based reporter for MS NOW.
Allison Detzel is an editor/producer for MS NOW. She was previously a segment producer for “AYMAN” and “The Mehdi Hasan Show.”
- FIFA’s encounter with North America’s messy democracy
- US to reach $41T debt ceiling as soon as late winter, forecasters predict
- Macron dreams of burnishing his legacy via French World Cup glory
- US to reach $41T debt ceiling as soon as late winter, forecasters predict
- Meet the Clean Air Act pardon crusaders
- Iranian ambassador at World Cup: ‘Iran and the U.S. can be very good friends’
- Trump’s name purged from Kennedy Center
- US to reach $41T debt ceiling as soon as late winter, forecasters predict
- Health department staffers aren’t buying RFK Jr.’s peace offerings
- Europe’s top sports official talks Panini stickers and World Cup picks
-
Politics1 year agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
Politics1 year agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
Uncategorized2 years ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
The Josh Fourrier Show2 years agoDOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?
-
Politics1 year agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
The Dictatorship9 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words