The Trump Administration’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) finalized a rule in May 2019 that permits health care workers with “any articulable connection” to a procedure to opt-out. Most worryingly, it allows providers to refuse to refer patients out for procedures like abortion or gender affirmation surgery.
This week, a Texas judge removed protections for transgender people in health insurance markets, and a Florida judge granted a preliminary injunction against a law that placed an economic burden on those with felony records when registering to vote. Meanwhile, the nation mourned the loss of Representative Elijah Cummings, a celebrated civil rights leader and Chairman of the House Oversight and Reform Committee.
On October 7th, the Supreme Court began its term with the oral argument for Kahler v. Kansas, a case which asks whether a state violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments if it essentially abolishes the insanity defense. The test for due process is traditionally historical, so both Kahler and Kansas focused their briefs on the question of whether the insanity defense is so deeply rooted in history that its elimination would constitute a violation of due process. At oral argument, a few of the Justices probed the difficulties associated with evaluating historical claims.
In response to mounting concerns about inequity in the criminal legal system, the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing (“Commission”) has proposed
Once the court begins taking away rights from a class of people, the line of what is tolerable often keeps receding.
Written by Alexandra Butler and Annie Wilt In one fell swoop, California lawmakers have disrupted archaic and discriminatory NCAA policies.
This is a guest post by Kari Hong* and Philip L. Torrey.** Many are surprised to learn that crime-based deportations[1]
Welcome to This Week in Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. This week, the impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump has developed
The National Registry of Exonerations has registered over 2,500 exonerations of people wrongfully convicted in the United States. Many different
Religious dietary constraints should not be viewed as an additional or optional financial inconvenience for state correctional departments, but must be understood as a necessary consequence of our country’s zealous insistence on mass incarceration. Departments of Correction should resist the urge to implement policies that they know will actively discourage adherents of minority faiths from free exercise. To do so is to fly in the face of our Founders’ recognition that religion is an intrinsic part of the human experience and essential to equality in a democratic society.
The lame-duck power grab in North Carolina in 2016 isn’t just a political move – it’s unconstitutional. It has disproportionately affected the most vulnerable and created a dangerous precedent for other states.
