Courts and Judges

Supreme Court Keeps Trump’s Mail-In Ballot Restrictions Blocked Ahead of Midterms

PUBLISHED 8/25/2026 by | UPDATED 9/15/2026 at 9:30 A.M. PT

Late on Monday, the Supreme Court rejected the Trump administration’s emergency request to enforce new U.S. Postal Service restrictions on mail-in ballots, leaving in place a lower-court injunction blocking the rule ahead of the midterm elections. In an unsigned order, the Court said the government was “unlikely to succeed on the merits” and had not justified emergency relief.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh concurred, writing that election officials did not have enough time to implement the rule before November.

Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented. The underlying legal challenge will continue, but the restrictions will remain blocked for the 2026 elections.

Legal analyst and professor Steve Vladeck called the ruling “heartening” since it means “a majority of the Court was unwilling to abide President Trump’s transparent effort to make it harder for a large number of lawfully registered voters to actually cast their ballots in the 2026 general election. But it continues to be deeply sobering that it came to all of this in the first place.”

Election officials and voting rights experts, like Voto Latino executive director Beatriz Lopez, have this advice and takeaway for voters: “To every voter wondering if your vote by mail is safe: It is. Make sure you’re registered, request your ballot, fill it out, and return it early.”

After Dobbs, the ERA Offers a New Path to Abortion Rights

PUBLISHED 8/25/2026 by

For 250 years, women have been fighting for inclusion in the nation’s founding promise of equality. The Equal Rights Amendment would finally guarantee that equality under the U.S. Constitution—and could give Congress and the courts powerful new tools to address discrimination in education, employment, healthcare and safety. It could also provide a constitutional basis for challenging abortion bans and restrictions as forms of sex discrimination.

But feminists do not have to wait for federal recognition of the ERA to put equality guarantees to work. State constitutions are already providing a path forward.

In Nevada, advocates successfully challenged the state’s ban on Medicaid funding for abortion under its Equal Rights Amendment; in Pennsylvania, courts have opened the door to treating restrictions on abortion funding as sex discrimination; and in Colorado, feminist lawyers are arguing that parental-notification requirements impose unequal burdens on young women while placing no comparable restrictions on young men.

At a moment when abortion rights no longer have federal constitutional protection, state ERAs offer feminists another constitutional path—not only to challenge abortion restrictions, but to confront the stereotypes and unequal burdens beneath them. Building strong interpretations of equality at the state level can protect women now while laying the groundwork for the expansive vision of sex equality a federal ERA could one day deliver nationwide.

(This essay is part of FEMINIST 250: Democracy’s Feminist Future, a special series examining the next chapter of American democracy through a feminist lens. As the nation marks its 250th anniversary, the series taps the thought leaders of today to debut game-changing ideas for the next 250 years.)

Mifepristone, Mail-In Voting and the Midterms Are All on the Line

PUBLISHED 8/22/2026 by

Trump has officially nominated Dr. Heidi Overton as the FDA commissioner. Overton previously called the abortion pill “telebortion,” and called on Congress to strictly regulate it.

With the FDA currently reevaluating its approval of mifepristone and its regulations permitting providers to mail the medication, Overton’s nomination represents yet another challenge to mifepristone’s widespread usage—accounting for over two-thirds of all abortions, including in states with bans. Not to mention the fact that Overton also recently appeared next to Trump during a press conference in which he spouted dangerous misinformation about childhood vaccines.

Asking for a friend: Will the physician in the Senate who holds a key vote on the Health Committee cave again?

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court might be on summer break—but its shadow docket is still up and running. And nothing is certain before this Supreme Court, which has committed itself to expanding Trump’s executive powers.

Thanks to SCOTUS and state legislators’ rollback of many fundamental rights, state supreme court races have been receiving increased attention, and attracted significant outside spending.

Keeping Our Eyes on the Prize: Building a Future Beyond Roe

PUBLISHED 8/21/2026 by

Nearly 50 years after Roe came, it went.

The Dobbs decision brought a devastating reversal—but it simultaneously ushered in a moment akin to 1972 … the opportunity to reimagine bodily autonomy and build something better.

And now, in 2026, we have begun to see glimmers of such vision emerge in the law by way of more expansive court rulings and bolder legislation.

What the Lindsay Clancy Trial Reveals About America’s Failure to Support Mothers in Crisis

PUBLISHED 8/21/2026 by

News of Lindsay Clancy’s triple-murder trial is flooding the Internet, and with it, conversations about postpartum depression. In January 2023, Lindsay Clancy killed her 5-year-old, 3-year-old and 8-month-old children before attempting suicide, which left her paralyzed from the waist down. The facts of their deaths are not up for debate in this Plymouth trial, but whether or not the severe postpartum psychosis, clinical depression and bipolar disorder Clancy was experiencing meant she was criminally insane. 

Clancy’s mother-in-law explained Clancy was “begging for help” right before she killed her children. In December, just weeks before, she told her mother and then-husband Patrick (the couple are now divorced) that “she had thoughts of harming the children.”

The case has laid bare the failures of a U.S. mental healthcare system that did not protect Clancy or her children, and still leaves countless new mothers without adequate care.

While Clancy stands trial, people are mourning the loss of Hayden Panettiere, a child star who had long struggled with postpartum depression following the 2014 birth of her daughter, Kaya, and experienced domestic violence from her ex-boyfriend Brian Hickerson. This week, news outlets revisited Panettiere’s allegation that Neutrogena (one of her long-time partners) attempted to end her contract after she spoke honestly about her postpartum depression.

From North Carolina to Wisconsin, State Supreme Courts Are Political Battlegrounds

PUBLISHED 8/19/2026 by

Across the U.S., recent federal rollbacks of rights have led to a rising awareness of the importance of state courts. These once under-the-radar races are increasingly attracting attention within and beyond state borders—and bringing in significant outside spending. Each state has its own constitution and high court to interpret it, giving state courts enormous influence over individual rights.

That influence has become especially clear since Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022, as advocates have increasingly turned to state courts for protections on abortion rights, voting rights, redistricting and other civil liberties. The most recent cycle of judicial elections was the most expensive ever.

Now, 32 states are holding state supreme court elections in 2026, with 63 of the nation’s 344 state supreme court seats up for election. The outcomes could alter the ideological makeup of courts in states currently in play and lay the groundwork for future shifts in control.

This November, money, turnout and heightened attention to once-obscure judicial races will collide across the country—and help determine the reach of fundamental rights for years to come.

In the pivotal electoral battleground state of North Carolina, Justice Anita Earls’ campaign to hold onto her state Supreme Court seat has been called “one of the most important races in the state” by the North Carolina AFL-CIO, and “one of the most-watched statewide races in this year’s midterm elections,” per Axios. Earls is currently the only Black justice on the North Carolina Supreme Court. Before beginning her tenure in 2019, she was a civil rights attorney focused on voting rights, education, employment, criminal law and First Amendment issues.

Another Blow to Women’s Equality at Work: The Trump Administration Is Trying to Weaken a Key Workplace Discrimination Protection

PUBLISHED 8/6/2026 by

The Trump administration is attempting to weaken one of the nation’s most important workplace discrimination protections—a legal standard that has, for decades, allowed workers to challenge hiring and promotion policies that unfairly exclude qualified people, even when those policies appear neutral on their face.

A new opinion from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), issued in June, argues these longstanding interpretations of Title VII’s “disparate-impact” standard are unconstitutional, and contends certain Equal Employment Opportunity Commission guidance improperly allows employers to be held liable based on discriminatory effects rather than intent. The opinion is meant to guide executive branch enforcement.

Civil rights advocates are pushing back, arguing the new OLC opinion misstates decades of Supreme Court precedent and congressional action.

Below is a joint explainer—issued by the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC), Democracy Forward, the Legal Defense Fund (LDF), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Asian Americans Advancing Justice (AAJC), Equal Rights Advocates, and LatinoJustice PRLDEF—originally published as “The Office of Legal Counsel’s Opinion on the ‘Constitutionality of Disparate-Impact Liability Under Title VII’: What You Need to Know.”

The organizations argue that the opinion does not change federal law. Instead, they emphasize that only Congress can amend Title VII and that courts—not the executive branch—determine how the law is interpreted. Employers, they say, remain legally obligated to comply with existing anti-discrimination protections.

“Across America, workers are struggling to find living-wage jobs to support themselves and their families. Too often, qualified workers are blocked from getting hired and promoted due to employer policies that screen out applicants based on factors unrelated to whether the applicant could do the job, from unnecessary college degree requirements and credit checks to commute-radius limitations and AI resume reviews. The Trump-Vance administration is making this problem worse.

“For decades, under Supreme Court precedent, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), and other legal authority, workers have been able to challenge exclusionary policies like these using a legal tool known as “disparate-impact liability.” That tool has resulted in employers adopting more thoughtful, rigorous standards in evaluating their own selection criteria and advancing their business objectives. The administration is now attacking this tool, encouraging employers to ignore the harms caused by their own policies while denying workers the ability to question whether those policies are justified and fair.

“In its latest move, the Trump-Vance administration’s Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) released an opinion claiming that longstanding U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) guidance on disparate-impact liability under Title VII is unconstitutional. The OLC opinion is wrong on the facts and wrong on the law. Only Congress and the courts have authority to change the law or its impact.”

Todd Blanche Confirmed as Attorney General—Even as Epstein Files Scrutiny Deepens

PUBLISHED 7/29/2026 by | UPDATED 8/21/2026 at 9:49 A.M. PT

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche now appears to have the votes to win Senate confirmation after Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana announced Friday morning that he will support President Donald Trump’s former personal attorney to permanently lead the Justice Department.

Cassidy’s announcement came just hours after Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska said she would oppose Blanche, joining Sen. Susan Collins of Maine and briefly putting his confirmation in serious jeopardy. With Republicans holding a 53-47 Senate majority and Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) absent, Blanche could afford to lose only two Republican votes if Democrats remain united against him. Cassidy’s support appears to give Blanche exactly the margin he needs, barring another Republican defection.

Murkowski said Friday that she did not have confidence Blanche would serve as a check on the Trump administration, pointing to the Justice Department’s handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files, its increasing politicization and the controversial $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization fund” proposed to compensate Trump allies and Jan. 6 defendants.

Cassidy’s decision comes after Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) also agreed to support Blanche following written assurances from the Justice Department that the anti-weaponization fund had been eliminated and that sweeping tax protections included in a settlement involving Trump and his family were limited.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune filed cloture on Blanche’s nomination Wednesday, setting up a path toward a final confirmation vote as senators prepare to leave Washington for the August recess. As of Friday morning, the Senate’s published schedule did not specify a time for the Blanche vote.

A Single Abortion Clinic Closing Rarely Makes Headlines. What Happens When None Are Left?

PUBLISHED 7/8/2026 by

Picture a map of the United States. It’s 2022, and in southern states like Texas and Tennessee, there are clusters of black dots that represent independent clinic closures. These are abortion care black holes: communities where it’s no longer possible to get an abortion at a nearby clinic.

Fast forward to present. It’s 2026, four years after the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, and black dots have multiplied in states across the country. It no longer matters if the state is red or blue, governed by conservatives or progressives. None are immune to the increasing weight of political pressure, financial strain and operational difficulty that are forcing independent clinics to close or stop providing abortion care.

Each of these black dots is a community suffering a healthcare crisis, and they are proliferating across the United States at a rapid rate.

Independent clinics are often the only places to get clinical abortion care, unbiased information and support for pregnancy options. They are where people go to feel safe and respected, whether they are getting an abortion, continuing a pregnancy or getting gender-affirming care. In small towns and rural spaces, these clinics are often the only safe place for many people, especially those who are LGBTQIA+. If clinics close, there is often nowhere else to go.

And once abortion clinics close, it’s not as simple as reopening when they can, if they can. Even if a specific restriction is lifted, severe financial constraints, continued political hostility, threats of violence and legal uncertainty still stand.