Friends,

This month, the Supreme Court is expected to weigh in on some of the most politically charged—and consequential—issues of our time.

Traditionally, the Supreme Court releases opinions each Monday in June (though it may extend into July). But unlike other courts, it doesn’t announce which decisions will be released in advance. Typically, the more controversial or high-profile the case, the later the decision is released.

This week’s Off the Sidelines Spotlight offers a primer on three such cases, focusing on DACA and immigration, abortion access, and the president’s tax returns and financial records. 

I hope you will take the time to learn more about each of these cases and the impact their decisions will have. And, as always, if you have questions or suggestions for future Off the Sidelines Spotlights, you can reply to this email.

Thank you,
Stefanie


Is the DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) program legal? | Trump v. Regents of the University of California et al

An Obama administration program, DACA protects some undocumented immigrants who were brought to the United States as chidren, identify as Americans and may have no connection to their country of origin, from deportation and grants them work authorization.

Under current immigration law, DACA recipients (sometimes called DREAMers) have no way to gain legal residency in United States, even if they have no memory of living anywhere else.

Since enacted by executive order in 2012, over 825,000 people have been approved for the program, and its widely considered to be a successful safeguard in the absence of real immgration reform.

In 2017, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that he was terminating the DACA program, a fulfillment of one of Trump’s campaign promises. However, several lawsuits were filed against the termination of the program, and two federal appeals courts have ruled against the administration, allowing previous DACA recipients to renew their deferred action.

In the most extreme case, the court could rule that DACA protections MUST be stripped immediately. However, expect a more nuanced response. The court could, for example, allow DACA recipients to remain protected for the duration of their two-year grants, but not allow future applications or renewals.

Assuming the court’s ruling gives the Trump administration some flexibility, it’s not entirely clear how it will proceed. Trump has, at various times, expressed sympathy for DACA recipients—but we know better than to take Trump at his word. And according to the Center for American Progress: “Notwithstanding such a ruling, the administration will likely not have to throw DACA recipients out of the workforce and put them, their families, and communities in jeopardy.” 

The first major abortion case since Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh were confirmed to the Supreme Court | June Medical Services v. Gee

At the heart of the case is a 2014 Louisiana law that would have required abortion providers to have “admitting privileges” at a local hospital within 30 miles of where they provide their abortion care. 

This is what’s called a “TRAP” law (Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers), and is a blatant attempt to target abortion clinics and deny access to abortion. Here’s why: Admitting privileges are not needed to ensure patient access to emergency care. If, on the rare occasion that a patient requires emergency care during or after an abortion, federal law requires hospitals to admit any and all patients that present themselves in need of care.

However, hospitals can deny admitting privileges to doctors for any reason at all—including religious or ideological differences. The Louisiana law effectively gives hospitals veto power over whether an abortion provider can continue to provide care in the area.

With the most conservative Supreme Court in decades, there’s a real chance that the conservative majority will uphold Louisiana’s TRAP law and make Roe irrelevant.

That could spell the beginning of the end for Roe v. Wade. Should the court uphold the Louisiana law, it would open the door for more states to enact highly restrictive TRAP laws that make it nearly impossible for patients to access abortion in their states. 

Can Trump block the release of his financial records? | Trump v. Mazars; Trump v. Deutschebank, Trump v. Vance

The Supreme Court is examining three cases involving subpoenas of Trump’s tax returns and other financial records—two issued by congressional committees, and one issued by a New York grand jury. 

Trump has blocked the financial institutions subpoenaed from turning over any documents related to his finances. His argument, in essence, is that he has near complete presidential immunity, and that only Congress can hold him accountable through impeachment.

The Supreme Court has to answer three key questions: 1) Does Congress have the power to subpoena a president outside of an impeachment inquiry? 2) If a state can subpoena a sitting president in the course of a criminal investigation; and 3) Is this simply a “political question”? In which case, the Supreme Court would play no role.

This is complicated stuff: Both NPR and The New York Times have excellent break-downs on the intricacies of the cases. 

Even in the Supreme Court rules against Trump in both sets of cases, don’t expect immediate access to a trove of Trump’s financial statements:

If the court rules in favor of Congress, the records subpoenaed would in all likelihood be made public before the 2020 election.

But if the court rules in favor of New York prosecutors, the documents subpoenaed would NOT be made available right away, due to grand jury secrecy laws.

It’s also possible that the court will send the cases back to lower courts to review under a stricter set of standards. There are a LOT of ways the chips could fall.


Is the DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) program legal? | Trump v. Regents of the University of California et al

Of course, it is absurd to needlessly deport DREAMers and remove them from the only home they've ever known, but it makes even less sense in the current context: More than 200,000 DACA recipients are working on the frontlines of the COVID-19 response. Revoking their work authorizations would not only be inhumane, but disastrous in the midst of a pandemic. Get to know a few of the DACA recipients anxiously awaiting the Supreme Court’s decision:

LISTEN | 'Weight Back On My Shoulders:' Young DACA Doctor Awaits Supreme Court Ruling (KQED)

READ | Coronavirus, unemployment, DACA: A 'Dreamer' graduates into an especially uncertain world (USA Today)

READ | They can help fight coronavirus. Trump wants to deport them (Center for American Progress)

The first major abortion case since Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed to the Supreme Court | June Medical Services v. Gee

More than 75 percent of Americans—and a majority of Republicans—believe that Roe v. Wade should be upheld. While public opinion might be clear, Republicans in Congress and the anti-abortion groups that back him support overturning the decision. In fact, over 200 Congressional Republicans—including 39 Senators—signed onto a brief urging the court to consider overturning Roe when it reviews June Medical Services v. Gee. The stakes couldn’t be higher:

READ | Abortion could be "profoundly" impacted in 15 states depending on upcoming Supreme Court ruling, study shows (CBS News)

READ | ‘Clinics will be forced to close.’ Abortion rights backers fearful of upcoming Supreme Court ruling (NBC News)

LISTEN | Beginning of the end for Roe? Supreme Court weighs Louisiana abortion law (NPR)

Can Trump block the release of his financial records? | Trump v. Mazars; Trump v. Deutschebank, Trump v. Vance

In 1974, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that President Nixon had to turn over tape recordings from the Oval Office to investigators—a decision that marked the beginning of the end of Nixon’s presidency. And the Supreme Court ruled unanimously again, this time in 1997, that President Clinton had to testify in an investigation surrounding sexual misconduct allegations stemming from his time as Arkansas governor—ultimately leading to President Clinton’s impeachment. Once again, questions of presidential power and immunity are at-hand. And, as in 1974 and 1997, the stakes couldn’t be higher:

LISTEN | The constitutional clash on a conference call (“The Daily” from The New York Times)

READ | The Supreme Court case that could destroy the balance of powers (The Atlantic)

WATCH | Trump’s Supreme Court tax case, explained (The Washington Post)


It’s important to remember that the court is slated to issue decisions on a number of other key issues this month: LGBTQ worker protections, the electoral college, the fate of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and religious exemption from discrimination suits. Stay tuned for more on these cases over the coming weeks.

We’ve compiled a few resources if you’d like to learn more:

The Daily Beast breaks down the three key Supreme Court cases focused on LGBTQ rights here.

Demand Justice offers in-depth video briefings on several of these cases here.

For the wonks among us, SCOTUS blog offers in-depth and live analysis of oral arguments before the court as well as upcoming decisions.

CNBC offered its analysis of the likely fate of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau here.

It’s not enough for Democrats to win the White House in 2020. We need to take back the Senate majority from Mitch McConnell, too. It’s the only way to protect our federal courts—including the Supreme Court—from far-right nominees who will dismantle Roe.

The single most important thing you can do to protect women’s reproductive freedoms is to ensure Democrats take back the Senate in 2020.

Make a donation to Off the Sidelines today to elect women like Amy McGrath and Barbara Bollier and take back the Senate!

Paid for by Gillibrand for Senate


Contributions or gifts to Off the Sidelines PAC are not tax-deductible. Off the Sidelines PAC does not accept contributions from federal lobbyists, corporate and/or trade association PACs, or "for profit" business entities, including but not limited to sole proprietorships, partnerships, and LLCs.

We’d hate to see you go, but if you want to stop receiving messages from Kirsten altogether, you can unsubscribe here: unsubscribe: [link removed]