https://www.profitableratecpm.com/f4ffsdxe?key=39b1ebce72f3758345b2155c98e6709c
This article is part of the TPM Café, the TPM opinion and news analysis site. It was originally published on Balls and Strikes.
Late last month, Texas federal district court Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk moved a long-running suit seeking to restrict access to the abortion drug mifepristone to another federal district court, this one in Missouri. This high-stakes dispute should have been dismissed entirely after the Supreme Court rejected it in June 2024. Instead, Kacsmaryk, a judge appointed by Trump during his first term in the White House, assigned the case to another Trump judge who was confirmed earlier this year.
Like most Republican candidates, for example, he refuses to say that the Supreme Court “decided correctly.” Griswold v. Connecticutthat protects the right to use birth control, or Obergefell v. Hodgesthat protects the right to marriage equality, or Lawrence v. Texaswhich protects the right to sexual privacy. When New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker pressed him on the subject, Stevens wrote simply that he would “faithfully” follow such precedents — a phrase that has become conservative code for agreeing to apply precedent but also hoping the Supreme Court overturns it.
Similarly, Durbin asked Stevens if a list of 13 landmark cases, including Brown v. School Board with Affectionate, GriswoldAnd Oberfellwere correctly decided. Stevens said he agreed those first two were, but wrote that it would be “inappropriate” for him to express an opinion on the others. It was also “inappropriate,” Stevens said, to rule on whether the constitutional right to privacy protects the right to resort to in vitro fertilization, which he called “an abstract question of law that might arise in the future.”
We don’t yet know how Stevens will handle the mifepristone litigation. But at the very least, his skepticism of other Supreme Court decisions protecting individual rights does not bode well for those who want to keep medication abortion legal and accessible. And at an even more fundamental level, the problem is that this case now has a patina of legitimacy, in that a Missouri judge is hearing a lawsuit brought by the Missouri attorney general, as opposed to a Texas judge hearing a lawsuit brought by anti-abortion plaintiffs looking for the friendliest hearing possible. Now, abortion opponents have increased their chances that the Court will take the mifepristone challenge seriously — thanks in part to Democrats’ failure to fill district court seats when they had the chance.
Previously, Stevens worked in the Missouri attorney general’s office when Schmitt, now a U.S. senator, held that position; At the time of his appointment to the federal bench, Stevens was working as a state appeals court judge. In other words, he doesn’t have the real culture war of Kacsmaryk, who won his seat by writing speeches against abortion and marriage equality, working for a Christian law firm, and serving on the board of an anti-abortion maternity hospital. But Stevens’ responses to senators on the Judiciary Committee reveal a commitment to the conservative project of rewriting precedent to strip people of their rights.
Like most Republican candidates, for example, he refuses to say that the Supreme Court “decided correctly.” Griswold v. Connecticutthat protects the right to use birth control, or Obergefell v. Hodgesthat protects the right to marriage equality, or Lawrence v. Texaswhich protects the right to sexual privacy. When New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker pressed him on the subject, Stevens wrote simply that he would “faithfully” follow such precedents — a phrase that has become conservative code for agreeing to apply precedent but also hoping the Supreme Court overturns it.
Similarly, Durbin asked Stevens if a list of 13 landmark cases, including Brown v. School Board with Affectionate, GriswoldAnd Oberfellwere correctly decided. Stevens said he agreed those first two were, but wrote that it would be “inappropriate” for him to express an opinion on the others. It was also “inappropriate,” Stevens said, to rule on whether the constitutional right to privacy protects the right to resort to in vitro fertilization, which he called “an abstract question of law that might arise in the future.”
We don’t yet know how Stevens will handle the mifepristone litigation. But at the very least, his skepticism of other Supreme Court decisions protecting individual rights does not bode well for those who want to keep medication abortion legal and accessible. And at an even more fundamental level, the problem is that this case now has a patina of legitimacy, in that a Missouri judge is hearing a lawsuit brought by the Missouri attorney general, as opposed to a Texas judge hearing a lawsuit brought by anti-abortion plaintiffs looking for the friendliest hearing possible. Now, abortion opponents have increased their chances that the Court will take the mifepristone challenge seriously — thanks in part to Democrats’ failure to fill district court seats when they had the chance.
Kacsmaryk granted the attorneys general’s request to join the litigation in the final days of the Biden administration. In May, the Trump Justice Department, perhaps concerned that out-of-state attorneys general would have no better claim to action in Texas than doctors, asked Kacsmaryk to either dismiss the case or transfer it to an appropriate venue, and that’s how she ended up in Stevens’ courtroom just months after the Senate confirmed him.
Previously, Stevens worked in the Missouri attorney general’s office when Schmitt, now a U.S. senator, held that position; At the time of his appointment to the federal bench, Stevens was working as a state appeals court judge. In other words, he doesn’t have the real culture war of Kacsmaryk, who won his seat by writing speeches against abortion and marriage equality, working for a Christian law firm, and serving on the board of an anti-abortion maternity hospital. But Stevens’ responses to senators on the Judiciary Committee reveal a commitment to the conservative project of rewriting precedent to strip people of their rights.
Like most Republican candidates, for example, he refuses to say that the Supreme Court “decided correctly.” Griswold v. Connecticutthat protects the right to use birth control, or Obergefell v. Hodgesthat protects the right to marriage equality, or Lawrence v. Texaswhich protects the right to sexual privacy. When New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker pressed him on the subject, Stevens wrote simply that he would “faithfully” follow such precedents — a phrase that has become conservative code for agreeing to apply precedent but also hoping the Supreme Court overturns it.
Similarly, Durbin asked Stevens if a list of 13 landmark cases, including Brown v. School Board with Affectionate, GriswoldAnd Oberfellwere correctly decided. Stevens said he agreed those first two were, but wrote that it would be “inappropriate” for him to express an opinion on the others. It was also “inappropriate,” Stevens said, to rule on whether the constitutional right to privacy protects the right to resort to in vitro fertilization, which he called “an abstract question of law that might arise in the future.”
We don’t yet know how Stevens will handle the mifepristone litigation. But at the very least, his skepticism of other Supreme Court decisions protecting individual rights does not bode well for those who want to keep medication abortion legal and accessible. And at an even more fundamental level, the problem is that this case now has a patina of legitimacy, in that a Missouri judge is hearing a lawsuit brought by the Missouri attorney general, as opposed to a Texas judge hearing a lawsuit brought by anti-abortion plaintiffs looking for the friendliest hearing possible. Now, abortion opponents have increased their chances that the Court will take the mifepristone challenge seriously — thanks in part to Democrats’ failure to fill district court seats when they had the chance.
While Kacsmaryk and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals largely complied with their charade, the three attorneys general attempted to join the party with a slightly more plausible theory of standing, arguing that the FDA’s actions hindered states’ ability to enforce their own abortion laws. After the Supreme Court ruled that the doctors lacked standing to sue, the attorneys general amended their complaint in October 2024, adding the vile argument that telehealth mifepristone prescriptions harmed states because those prescriptions allowed more teens to end unwanted pregnancies. In their eyes, state governments must be able to force births to avoid “potentially losing a seat in Congress or qualifying for less federal funding if their populations are” reduced. These proposed changes would have a huge impact on the availability of abortion care, as one in four abortions in the United States were performed with pills via telehealth as of late last year. Any federal restrictions on mifepristone would apply nationally, even in states that have adopted constitutional protections for abortion access.
Kacsmaryk granted the attorneys general’s request to join the litigation in the final days of the Biden administration. In May, the Trump Justice Department, perhaps concerned that out-of-state attorneys general would have no better claim to action in Texas than doctors, asked Kacsmaryk to either dismiss the case or transfer it to an appropriate venue, and that’s how she ended up in Stevens’ courtroom just months after the Senate confirmed him.
Previously, Stevens worked in the Missouri attorney general’s office when Schmitt, now a U.S. senator, held that position; At the time of his appointment to the federal bench, Stevens was working as a state appeals court judge. In other words, he doesn’t have the real culture war of Kacsmaryk, who won his seat by writing speeches against abortion and marriage equality, working for a Christian law firm, and serving on the board of an anti-abortion maternity hospital. But Stevens’ responses to senators on the Judiciary Committee reveal a commitment to the conservative project of rewriting precedent to strip people of their rights.
Like most Republican candidates, for example, he refuses to say that the Supreme Court “decided correctly.” Griswold v. Connecticutthat protects the right to use birth control, or Obergefell v. Hodgesthat protects the right to marriage equality, or Lawrence v. Texaswhich protects the right to sexual privacy. When New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker pressed him on the subject, Stevens wrote simply that he would “faithfully” follow such precedents — a phrase that has become conservative code for agreeing to apply precedent but also hoping the Supreme Court overturns it.
Similarly, Durbin asked Stevens if a list of 13 landmark cases, including Brown v. School Board with Affectionate, GriswoldAnd Oberfellwere correctly decided. Stevens said he agreed those first two were, but wrote that it would be “inappropriate” for him to express an opinion on the others. It was also “inappropriate,” Stevens said, to rule on whether the constitutional right to privacy protects the right to resort to in vitro fertilization, which he called “an abstract question of law that might arise in the future.”
We don’t yet know how Stevens will handle the mifepristone litigation. But at the very least, his skepticism of other Supreme Court decisions protecting individual rights does not bode well for those who want to keep medication abortion legal and accessible. And at an even more fundamental level, the problem is that this case now has a patina of legitimacy, in that a Missouri judge is hearing a lawsuit brought by the Missouri attorney general, as opposed to a Texas judge hearing a lawsuit brought by anti-abortion plaintiffs looking for the friendliest hearing possible. Now, abortion opponents have increased their chances that the Court will take the mifepristone challenge seriously — thanks in part to Democrats’ failure to fill district court seats when they had the chance.
Stevens only occupies this seat, which became vacant during the Biden administration, because Illinois Democratic senator and then-Senate Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin chose to maintain the “blue slip” custom, which gives senators de facto veto power over nominees to their states’ district courts. Biden agreed with that policy or refused to fight Durbin on it, limiting his ability to appoint judges in states with at least one Republican senator — and, in Missouri, ceding those seats to Trump and Republican senators Josh Hawley and Eric Schmitt. This case began in 2022, when a group of anti-abortion doctors sued the Food and Drug Administration, demanding that the agency revoke its approval of mifepristone, which is usually the first-line drug. delivered in a medical abortion. Their lawyers from the Alliance Defending Freedom — a group that includes Hawley’s wife, Erin — filed suit in Kacsmaryk’s court, even though the doctors had no real ties to Amarillo, Texas, much less any legitimate allegations that they suffered legal harm.
While Kacsmaryk and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals largely complied with their charade, the three attorneys general attempted to join the party with a slightly more plausible theory of standing, arguing that the FDA’s actions hindered states’ ability to enforce their own abortion laws. After the Supreme Court ruled that the doctors lacked standing to sue, the attorneys general amended their complaint in October 2024, adding the vile argument that telehealth mifepristone prescriptions harmed states because those prescriptions allowed more teens to end unwanted pregnancies. In their eyes, state governments must be able to force births to avoid “potentially losing a seat in Congress or qualifying for less federal funding if their populations are” reduced. These proposed changes would have a huge impact on the availability of abortion care, as one in four abortions in the United States were performed with pills via telehealth as of late last year. Any federal restrictions on mifepristone would apply nationally, even in states that have adopted constitutional protections for abortion access.
Kacsmaryk granted the attorneys general’s request to join the litigation in the final days of the Biden administration. In May, the Trump Justice Department, perhaps concerned that out-of-state attorneys general would have no better claim to action in Texas than doctors, asked Kacsmaryk to either dismiss the case or transfer it to an appropriate venue, and that’s how she ended up in Stevens’ courtroom just months after the Senate confirmed him.
Previously, Stevens worked in the Missouri attorney general’s office when Schmitt, now a U.S. senator, held that position; At the time of his appointment to the federal bench, Stevens was working as a state appeals court judge. In other words, he doesn’t have the real culture war of Kacsmaryk, who won his seat by writing speeches against abortion and marriage equality, working for a Christian law firm, and serving on the board of an anti-abortion maternity hospital. But Stevens’ responses to senators on the Judiciary Committee reveal a commitment to the conservative project of rewriting precedent to strip people of their rights.
Like most Republican candidates, for example, he refuses to say that the Supreme Court “decided correctly.” Griswold v. Connecticutthat protects the right to use birth control, or Obergefell v. Hodgesthat protects the right to marriage equality, or Lawrence v. Texaswhich protects the right to sexual privacy. When New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker pressed him on the subject, Stevens wrote simply that he would “faithfully” follow such precedents — a phrase that has become conservative code for agreeing to apply precedent but also hoping the Supreme Court overturns it.
Similarly, Durbin asked Stevens if a list of 13 landmark cases, including Brown v. School Board with Affectionate, GriswoldAnd Oberfellwere correctly decided. Stevens said he agreed those first two were, but wrote that it would be “inappropriate” for him to express an opinion on the others. It was also “inappropriate,” Stevens said, to rule on whether the constitutional right to privacy protects the right to resort to in vitro fertilization, which he called “an abstract question of law that might arise in the future.”
We don’t yet know how Stevens will handle the mifepristone litigation. But at the very least, his skepticism of other Supreme Court decisions protecting individual rights does not bode well for those who want to keep medication abortion legal and accessible. And at an even more fundamental level, the problem is that this case now has a patina of legitimacy, in that a Missouri judge is hearing a lawsuit brought by the Missouri attorney general, as opposed to a Texas judge hearing a lawsuit brought by anti-abortion plaintiffs looking for the friendliest hearing possible. Now, abortion opponents have increased their chances that the Court will take the mifepristone challenge seriously — thanks in part to Democrats’ failure to fill district court seats when they had the chance.
That the plaintiffs here — the Republican attorneys general of Missouri, Kansas and Idaho — nominated a Trump judge is no surprise. The Eastern District randomly assigned the case to Stevens, but because seven of the district’s nine judges are Trump appointees and an eighth was appointed by President George W. Bush, their chances of getting a Republican judge were still pretty good.
Stevens only occupies this seat, which became vacant during the Biden administration, because Illinois Democratic senator and then-Senate Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin chose to maintain the “blue slip” custom, which gives senators de facto veto power over nominees to their states’ district courts. Biden agreed with that policy or refused to fight Durbin on it, limiting his ability to appoint judges in states with at least one Republican senator — and, in Missouri, ceding those seats to Trump and Republican senators Josh Hawley and Eric Schmitt. This case began in 2022, when a group of anti-abortion doctors sued the Food and Drug Administration, demanding that the agency revoke its approval of mifepristone, which is usually the first-line drug. delivered in a medical abortion. Their lawyers from the Alliance Defending Freedom — a group that includes Hawley’s wife, Erin — filed suit in Kacsmaryk’s court, even though the doctors had no real ties to Amarillo, Texas, much less any legitimate allegations that they suffered legal harm.
While Kacsmaryk and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals largely complied with their charade, the three attorneys general attempted to join the party with a slightly more plausible theory of standing, arguing that the FDA’s actions hindered states’ ability to enforce their own abortion laws. After the Supreme Court ruled that the doctors lacked standing to sue, the attorneys general amended their complaint in October 2024, adding the vile argument that telehealth mifepristone prescriptions harmed states because those prescriptions allowed more teens to end unwanted pregnancies. In their eyes, state governments must be able to force births to avoid “potentially losing a seat in Congress or qualifying for less federal funding if their populations are” reduced. These proposed changes would have a huge impact on the availability of abortion care, as one in four abortions in the United States were performed with pills via telehealth as of late last year. Any federal restrictions on mifepristone would apply nationally, even in states that have adopted constitutional protections for abortion access.
Kacsmaryk granted the attorneys general’s request to join the litigation in the final days of the Biden administration. In May, the Trump Justice Department, perhaps concerned that out-of-state attorneys general would have no better claim to action in Texas than doctors, asked Kacsmaryk to either dismiss the case or transfer it to an appropriate venue, and that’s how she ended up in Stevens’ courtroom just months after the Senate confirmed him.
Previously, Stevens worked in the Missouri attorney general’s office when Schmitt, now a U.S. senator, held that position; At the time of his appointment to the federal bench, Stevens was working as a state appeals court judge. In other words, he doesn’t have the real culture war of Kacsmaryk, who won his seat by writing speeches against abortion and marriage equality, working for a Christian law firm, and serving on the board of an anti-abortion maternity hospital. But Stevens’ responses to senators on the Judiciary Committee reveal a commitment to the conservative project of rewriting precedent to strip people of their rights.
Like most Republican candidates, for example, he refuses to say that the Supreme Court “decided correctly.” Griswold v. Connecticutthat protects the right to use birth control, or Obergefell v. Hodgesthat protects the right to marriage equality, or Lawrence v. Texaswhich protects the right to sexual privacy. When New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker pressed him on the subject, Stevens wrote simply that he would “faithfully” follow such precedents — a phrase that has become conservative code for agreeing to apply precedent but also hoping the Supreme Court overturns it.
We don’t yet know how Stevens will handle the mifepristone litigation. But at the very least, his skepticism of other Supreme Court decisions protecting individual rights does not bode well for those who want to keep medication abortion legal and accessible. And at an even more fundamental level, the problem is that this case now has a patina of legitimacy, in that a Missouri judge is hearing a lawsuit brought by the Missouri attorney general, as opposed to a Texas judge hearing a lawsuit brought by anti-abortion plaintiffs looking for the friendliest hearing possible. Now, abortion opponents have increased their chances that the Court will take the mifepristone challenge seriously — thanks in part to Democrats’ failure to fill district court seats when they had the chance.
