Students from Liberty University pray in front of the U.S. Supreme Court during oral arguments in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization abortion case on Dec. 1, 2021. / Katie Yoder/CNA
Washington D.C., Dec 1, 2021 / 15:40 pm (CNA).
The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments about the constitutionality of Mississippi’s 15-week state abortion ban Wednesday, a high-stakes test of the settledness of legalized abortion in a deeply unsettled nation still sharply divided over the right to life.
The case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, is viewed by many Catholic leaders and pro-life groups as the best chance yet to overturn the court’s landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which has barred restrictive early-term abortion laws like Mississippi’s for the past 48 years.
Over that time, some 62 million abortions have taken place in the United States, statistics show, a grim toll the Catholic Church sees as both a grave evil and a catastrophic political failure.
Conversely, a decision that strikes down Mississippi’s 2018 law, called the Gestational Age Act, which prohibits abortions after the 15th week of gestation, would represent a devastating setback for the pro-life movement. For many years it has pinned its hopes of overturning Roe on the goal of securing a supermajority of conservative justices on the nation’s highest court, as is the case now.
With thousands of people keeping a vocal but peaceful vigil outside the Supreme Court on a bright, brisk morning in Washington, D.C., the nine justices took up the intensely anticipated case in a proceeding that lasted nearly two hours.
Among the demonstrators were four women shown in a viral video posted online swallowing pills behind a large sign that reads, “WE ARE TAKING ABORTION PILLS FOREVER,” a reference to the prescription drugs mifepristone and misoprostol that when used in combination will induce a miscarriage.
Mississippi is asking the court to do more than simply uphold the state’s abortion law; it wants the court to overturn both Roe and a later ruling that affirmed it nearly 20 years later, the 1992 case Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
Both Roe and Casey “have no basis in the Constitution,” Scott G. Stewart, the state’s solicitor general, said in his opening argument.
“They have no home in our history or traditions. They’ve damaged the democratic process. They poison the law. They’ve choked off compromise for 50 years,” he said.
In Roe, the court ruled that states could not ban abortion before viability, which the court determined to be 24 to 28 weeks into pregnancy. Casey, viewed as the “Dobbs” of its day, found that while states could regulate pre-viability abortions, they could not enforce an “undue burden.” The Casey court defined that term to mean “a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus.”
Stewart said the two cases have “kept this court at the center of a political battle that it can never resolve.”
“Nowhere else does this court recognize a right to end a human life,” he said.
A question of ‘settled’ law
Legal scholars see the court’s reluctance to overturn past rulings, even highly controversial ones, as Mississippi’s greatest hurdle in Dobbs.
As anticipated, that legal principle, known as stare decisis, loomed large Wednesday, dominating the litigants’ oral arguments and the justices’ questions. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the newest addition to the court’s 6-3 conservative majority, said that stare decisis is “obviously the core of this case.”
The term comes from the Latin phrase, Stare decisis at non quieta movere, which means “to stand by things decided and not disturb settled points.”
Stewart, the Mississippi solicitor general, argued that legalized abortion remains an unsettled debate in the United States nearly a half-century after Roe. He argued that the issue should be left to democratically elected state legislatures, not the courts.
“The Constitution places its trust in the people. On hard issue after hard issue, the people make this country work,” he said.
“Abortion is a hard issue. It demands the best from all of us, not a judgment by just a few of us when an issue affects everyone. And when the Constitution does not take sides on it, it belongs to the people.”
In its court brief, Mississippi cites stare decisis as the reason Roe and Casey should be overturned.
“Roe and Casey are egregiously wrong. The conclusion that abortion is a constitutional right has no basis in text, structure, history, or tradition,” the brief states. Roe itself broke from precedent because it invoked “a general ‘right to privacy’ unmoored from the Constitution,” the state argues.
“Abortion is fundamentally different from any right this Court has ever endorsed. No other right involves, as abortion does, ‘the purposeful termination of a potential life,’” the brief states. “Roe broke from prior cases, Casey failed to rehabilitate it, and both recognize a right that has no basis in the Constitution.”
But Julie Rikelman, litigation director of the Center for Reproductive Rights, sharply disagreed.
“Casey and Roe were correct,” Rikelman, who represented Jackson Women’s Health, Mississippi’s last remaining abortion provider, told the justices.
She added that there is an “an especially high bar here” as the Supreme Court rejected “every possible reason” for overturning Roe when it decided Casey nearly 30 years ago.
“Mississippi’s ban on abortion two months before viability is flatly unconstitutional under decades of precedent. Mississippi asks for the court to dismantle this precedent and allow states to force women to remain pregnant and give birth against their will,” she said.
“Two generations have now relied on this right,” Rikelman continued. “And one out of every four women makes the decision to end a pregnancy.”
A third attorney arguing before the court Wednesday, U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar, representing the Biden administration in opposition to Mississippi’s abortion law, couched the Dobbs case in similar terms. She said overturning Roe and Casey would be “an unprecedented contraction of individual rights and a stark departure from principles of stare decisis.”
Credibility concerns
Liberal justices Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan argued that overturning Roe and Casey would undermine the court’s integrity by signaling that its decisions were influenced by political pressure.
“Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the constitution and its reading are just political acts?” Sotomayor said. “I don’t see how it is possible.”
Conservative Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, however, pushed back against that reasoning. He noted that “some of the most consequential and important” decisions in the Supreme Court’s history overturned prior rulings. He cited such cases as the historic civil rights case Brown v. Board of Education, which struck down legalized segregation, and Miranda v. Arizona, which required police to inform suspects they have a right to remain silent.
“If the court had done that in those cases (and adhered to precedent), this country would be a much different place,” Kavanaugh said. Why then, he asked Rikelman, shouldn’t the court do the same in Dobbs, if it were to deem that Roe and Casey were wrongly decided?
“Because the view that a previous precedent is wrong, your honor, has never been enough for this court to overrule, and it certainly shouldn’t be enough here, when there’s 50 years of precedent,” Rikelman responded. The court needs a “special justification” to take such a step, she argued, saying that Mississippi has failed to provide any.
Said Rikelman: “It makes the same exact arguments the court already considered and rejected in its stare decisis analysis in Casey.”
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., a conservative, took up a similar line of questioning with Prelogar, the U.S. solicitor general.
“Is it your argument that a case can never be overruled simply because it was egregiously wrong?” he asked.
“I think that at the very least, the state would have to come forward with some kind of materially changed circumstance or some kind of materially new argument, and Mississippi hasn’t done so in this case,” Prelogar responded.
“Really?” Alito replied. “So suppose Plessy versus Ferguson (an 1896 decision that affirmed the constitutionality of racial segregation laws) was re-argued in 1897, so nothing had changed. Would it not be sufficient to say that was an egregiously wrong decision on the day it was handed down and now it should be overruled?”
“I think it should have been overruled, but I think that the factual premise was wrong in the moment it was decided, and the court realized that and clarified that when it overruled in Brown,” Prelogar said.
“So there are circumstances in which a decision may be overruled, properly overruled, when it must be overruled simply because it was egregiously wrong at the moment it was decided?” Alito asked.
When Prelogar didn’t directly answer the question, Alito pressed again.
“Can a decision be overruled simply because it was erroneously wrong, even if nothing has changed between the time of that decision and the time when the court is called upon to consider whether it should be overruled?” he asked. “Yes or no? Can you give me a yes or no answer on that?”
“This court, no, has never overruled in that situation just based on a conclusion that the decision was wrong. It has always applied the stare decisis factors and likewise found that they warrant overruling in that instance,” Prelogar said.
Roberts cites China, North Korea
While the main focus of Wednesday’s proceeding related to stare decisis, there was also discussion of the viability standard established by Roe.
“I’d like to focus on the 15-week ban because that’s not a dramatic departure from viability,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said in an exchange with Rikelman.
“It is the standard that the vast majority of other countries have. When you get to the viability standard (set at 24 to 28 weeks) we share that standard with the People’s Republic of China and North Korea,” he said.
In response, Rikelman said Roberts’ statement was “not correct,” arguing that “the majority of countries that permit legal access to abortion allow access right up until viability, even if they have nominal lines earlier.” She elaborated that while European countries may have 12- or 18-week limits, they allow exceptions for “broad social reasons, health reasons, socioeconomic reasons.”
A 2021 analysis by the Charlotte Lozier Institute found that 47 out of 50 European nations limit elective abortion prior to 15 weeks. Eight European nations, including Great Britain and Finland, do not allow elective abortion and instead require a specific medical or socioeconomic reason before permitting an abortion, the institute said.
The court may not announce a decision in the Dobbs case for several months. It may come at the end of its current term, in late June or early July, when major decisions are often announced.
[…]
To the bishops of Colorado: The People have spoken. Those who violated Federal law by invading our country, need to leave NOW. You bishops need to respect the will of the people and not interfere with what is NOT in your purview.
We Catholics DO support immigrants coming to the USA but we will NOT support people violating our laws to come here.
In addition, the bishops of the USA have forfeited their moral position in the Church with their sexual abuse of minors and other vulnerable persons and also covering up the abuse by other clerics. It’s time for the bishops to do public penance before they can ever recover the right to lecture others.
Absolutely. Well said.
Excellent points!
The validity of one’s office is not dependent on his morality.
In what world do you live in? Progressive bishops have absolutely forfeited their credibility. There is no authentic office without a moral and spiritual foundation behind it. Once again, your commitment to leftist ideologies is compromising your judgment.
God doesn’t recognize our man-made southern border. God does recognize how we treat people.
GERALD: Christ also said to his disciples: “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s.”
It’s not a good idea to speak for God; Christ did that already.
God certainly does recognize borders. Read the Bible.
I read the Bible. Christ instructs us to love each other as He loves us.
Indeed. We should follow the Vatican loving (sarcasm) example. No open borders.
“Vatican Promises Stiff Penalties for Illegal Aliens Crossing its Border”
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2025/01/16/vatican-promises-stiff-penalties-for-illegal-aliens-crossing-its-border/
There are legal avenues for immigration. We cannot take care of the entire world that wants to come here and our own, safely and effectively and at the rate they are pooring in. Absolutely unsustainable. Get real. Prices for goods and housing gave skyrocketed since Biden’s open borders. My friend is being evicted come the first of the month because his full-time job can’t pay the rent plus other bills. That’s who I care about. He has bought an ice tent . It’s tough here in Denver. 40k illegals have contributed to the rising rents here. Would you want to live in an ice tent in February?
God might not, but a sovereign government and its rightful citizens can and must recognize and defend our national borders. We should treat illegal aliens for what they are – individuals who are in violation of the law. The government’s first responsibility is to its citizens, not to law breakers.
Granted our Southern border has a dodgy creation history but to be fair so did Spain’s acquisition of land.
I don’t know how the title to my home and land are recognized by God but I’m pretty sure in this temporal world they belong to me legally and lawfully.
Yes, we will be held accountable for how we treat each other but scripture also instructs us to respect those in authority. I believe we can do both at the same time.
Unfortunately God does recognize nations, borders, races, tribes, families (subsidiary) even though He calls all men of all nations to come unto Him, to know Jesus is to know peace, peace among all men of good will.
Your comment is completely correct but lacks insight and balance. Conflating civil laws with assumptions of family separation is illogical. Given the crisis orchestrated, a dramatic response is required. Our church should use it’s own resources to do the work you speak of. Too easy to claim moral superiority and use government funds to do what you feel best for the underprivileged. When the GOOD bishops refuse government funding and use their own money and prayers they will be rewarded for speaking the truth in love.
So, Gerald. Does God recognize the fentanyl that pours in across the southern border and kills our people by the thousands?
How about the children who are trafficked or the mentally disturbed who will end up homeless?
Should I assume you’re in favor of this?
Thousands of American businessmen welcome these migrants with open arms because they work hard for a low wage. Thousands of American businessmen are getting rich using these illegals. It’s all about money.
So, Gerald, why then do you seem to condone the open borders which our president is proceeding to close?
Of course we welcome hardworkers. A work ethic is a very good thing and should be rewarded but we can’t continue to keep our workforce afloat through criminal trafficking cartels.
There should be a way to work on our visa and immigration policies so more decent people can come here to work legally and without profiting organized crime.
Does God recognize the wall that surrounds the Vatican City State and which the Pope guards jealously enough to reinforce the penalties against those who encroach on Vatican territory? If Pontiff Francis gets to establish his borders against unwanted intruders, why not the USA? I smell hypocrites galore in our Roman Catholic Church.
The moral treatment of people includes sane policies of regulating human migration, sane policies controlling sex trafficking, sane policies of stopping harmful drugs from entering the nation, and ending the exploitation of desperate people, and not taking refuge in sentimentality, the exact opposite of which is brought about by open borders.
@Gerald: “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s”
That would include protecting people like Laiken Riley and people like the woman lit on fire on a subway in NY and all the families who lost loved ones to fentanyl. Help the migrant yes but using a little wisdom by having a secure border with a comprehensive immigration policy. I don’t think God wants us to check our brains at the door.
Comprehensive policy – 1. allows people to understand with confidence even certainty at times, how best to mobilize, 2. requires broad-based inputs as well as specialist and 3. needs preparation and good personnel bringing through the policies in various areas in ways that also withstand scrutiny.
Some of it is bare-bones brainstorming: how many doctors do you want, how many labourers, how many train engineers, how many gross numbers per year, etc.
The existing legal and bureaucratic regime will most likely not reach to anything like this and more likely will get in the way of anything and everything at will.
And how they treat us. We used to believe in the Golden Rule.
Render unto Ceaser what is Ceaser’s. Render unto GOD what is GOD’s.
Ceaser / US government has the right to establish the conditions on how a non-citizen enters the country. Breaking the laws, does not give you the right to stay in a country you blanketly have no respect for. Being here, expecting all your living expenses paid for by the legal citizens is theft. While the bishops and governors look the other way, we taxpayers do not have the budget for increasing expenses.
Impressive statement, exemplifying the balance it encourages.
Colorado bishops are not acting out of the bounds of justice on the immigration issue. Many of the migrants passed through the border in context of cooperation by the Biden administration’s policy of offering a form of permission including the CBP One app. Also with a policy of refusal to close the border, the offer of financial, and other support upon arrival.
We are responsible to persons, the unity of families who crossed the border because of a wrongful policy in force at the time. Such migrants are themselves not entirely culpable and deserve a more compassionate response to their situation. Unfortunately, we are in effect morally obliged to make reparation for the sins of the Biden administration.
We are under no obligation to illegal aliens. We are not responsible to them or for them. They are not entitled to assistance or support of any kind. Illegal aliens are here ILLEGALLY. They have broken the law. The only responsibility we have is to deport them immediately.
Careful there, the food you put in your mouth or the milk you drink may have been handled by an illegal.
Americans will not/can not do a lot of work that migrants are glad to.
I’m not for illegal immigration but they do a lot of our ag work.
Granted. But that doesn’t mean they should be here illegally.
Demonstrably untrue. Americans did ALL of those jobs until the last 3 or so decades. They will do them NOW if paid enough per hour. The excess number of illegals willing to work for sub-par wages is exactly the reason wages have stagnated for decades. What business owner in his right mind would pay a worker $25 an hour if they can get away with $12?
As for the Bishops, funny they have plenty to say to Americans who object to their nation being invaded, but appear to have nothing to say to the law breakers who sneak over our boarders, often using stolen identities. Then going on public welfare at an immense cost to their “host” country which then struggles to care for its own native born poor. They burden our hospitals and our schools. Eventually , these excessively needy illegals will bring the entire country to the same indigent level as the countries they fled. It is also not true that all of them are here seeking honest work. Far too many have proved to be violent criminals, sex traffickers, drug pushers, gang members, etc. No thanks. I stand with Trump. Send them back. Our nation provides billions in foreign aid. They are not allowed to come here and destroy our country as well.
It’s gonna be an issue; you can’t just shut down our food supply because honest, hard working people are caught on a technicality.
This is one article from newsweek and there are many on the internet:
With Nearly Half of U.S. Farmworkers Undocumented, Ending Illegal Immigration Could Devastate Economy
Published Apr 21, 2021 at 12:38 PM EDT
Updated Apr 23, 2021 at 10:47 AM EDT
How much do you want your food to go up? – I’m telling you most Americans will not/cannot pick strawberries, apples or do any farm manual labor if it were $30 per hour. How much do migrants make picking strawberries in CA an hour – a lot — how many Americans are applying to pick strawberries – not a lot I’ll bet.
LJ, I would agree that US citizens *should* be able do those low paying agricultural jobs but it’s not going to happen any time soon.
Some years ago our state enlisted convicts to pick vegetables when there was a shortage of seasonal workers and it was a disaster. The workers from Latin America spend through the rows leaving the convicts behind in the dust. Inmates appreciate being outside in the fresh air and having opportunities to earn money. It wasn’t slave labor or the chain gang but they were pretty bad at picking onions. Maybe with practice they could keep up.Who knows?
Some countries enlist high school students to pick crops.
It’s fine to have seasonal foreign workers but they need to come here lawfully. And we could probavly automate more harvesting of crops also.
“honest, hard working people are caught on a technicality. ”
The “technicality” is entering a country illegally, thus breaking the law. Their very first action reveals their contempt for the laws of the United States: “If I want to do something, the law doesn’t matter.” That isn’t honest, whatever about hard working.
Who said Nazism was dead?
There is another reason Americans are partly responsible for the reason so many immigrants need to leave their countries in South America. It’s all the money Americans have spent on illegal drugs going all the way back to the 60’s which line the pockets of the cartels building them up and, in a sense, supporting criminal activities. I saw an interview with a very famous rock star who said in her lifetime she spent perhaps a million dollars on cocaine. I wonder if she ever gave it any thought to the blood that is now on her hands.
I want to express my gratitude to CWR and its editor for publishing this article, one showing how carefully balanced and morally responsible our bishops can be (and typically are, without always receiving credit where credit is due). It is important that all bishops and pastors urge the faithful to not only support the government in proper goals but also in how they arrive in achieving them. It is of course morally correct to shut down illegal immigration but NOT in a manner that more cruel than necessary (heartache is inevitable but treating them like animals is not) or with an antipathy that is violates the law of charity. Recognize and deal firmly with the evils but do not give in to fearmongering (as if we were being invaded by a race of orcs) nor to excess (e.g., any kind of deportation process that is so hasty that families that had been together are separated by our own officials without bringing them together again before sending them off).
Don’t presume that you have a monopoly on compassion. You judge others harshly and prematurely. What you write smacks of an elitism unworthy of any Christian. Yours is not the only way to go about solving a problem that was created by others.
A defensive nerve has been touched that you need to take to spiritual direction as a close reading my my text not warrant your presumption. However, what I have said does apply to you personally if you knowingly support our currrent president unconditionally even though at times he has been unnecessarily cruel on this particular issue, as testified to by his own White House officials (some of whom left because they refused to break laws for him). Most recently, our President shut down a family reunification program tasked with finding children separated by our own government (due to haste, bureaucratic bungling, whatever the cause) from their parents before they are deported. He is also not a thoughtful Chrisitian as he has always opposed comprehensive immigration reform, focusing only on the punitive side even when other measures provide both border security and while respecting the human dignity of those that need to be sent back or get to the back of the line. He has never entertained a legal, controlled guest worker program (even ones proposed by conservative Republican leaders) and has sabotaged DACA relief even when most conservatives wanted a soluton that is both just and merciful. Beware of nativism and tribalism. Be a patriot, not a nationalist. One is a virtue, the other disposition is one of the favorite playthings of the devil for splintering Christian unity (for 500 years and going strong). As to “my” solution that you speak of, I’m trying to hew to the USCCB consensus (which is NOT remotely the same as Pope Francis’ naive approach challenged by many Eastern European cardinals); I doubt you have a better one, at least if it means supporting any politician whose ideas ignore the bishops’ rational and compasssionate guidelines. Take care, brother, if you are selling your soul to a populist nationalist approach that is more driven by anxiety and contempt than careful consideration and articulation of Catholic social doctrine (which is not some post-conciliar invention).
yes, you cannot shake an illegal’s hand before Communion then beat the out of them while arresting them in the parking lot, but you can arrest them if that’s your job.
I have not seen anyone suggest that “beating” them is ok. That feels like yet another untrue leftist accusation which will be repeated over and over until enough uninformed minions believe it.
I’m speaking from a Catholic Christian perspective – these people have souls.
Well, if they have souls and a functioning conscience, they should not be breaking the law by entering the country illegally, since that would be considered a sin.
Of course they have souls knowall. I hear you. We can secure our border without needlessly demeaning others. I wish I could hear more balance about that from people. It’s a shame. Most folks who come here would be assets if they’d just come in the right way.
I am sure that over the next four years we are going to see CWR posting CNA articles by bishops on Trump’s immigration policy. That does not make it any less frustrating. ( Frustrating articles, not frustrating that CWR posts them).
The bishops say that nations are entitled to strong borders, which seems to mean that we can try to stop illegals from crossing, but if they do manage to cross we cannot send them back. Not a very honest position.
President Trump signed a list of pro-life executive orders after the March For Life yesterday, after already freeing the pro-life demonstrators from jail. It would be nice if the bishops would issue a comprehensive statement on that.
And, maybe mentioning that these reversed pro-abortion executive orders issued by Biden.
I would guess that most people have words or phrases that they get tired of hearing. I am tired of the bishops saying “welcome the stranger” when what they mean is don’t send illegals back to their country of origen. We do welcome the stranger. We welcome on average one million legal strangers (immigrants) every year.
The bishops did mention unaccompanied children and drugs coming across the border, but it seems that these are just mentioned in passing.
As the bishops always mention, they want “comprehensive immigration reform” without ever stating what particular “reforms” they want. What they seem to want is citizenship for the illegals, or, in the language of their 2024 voting guide, “unauthorized newcomers.”
I believe it is going to be a long four years of these types of statements from the bishops.
“Drug smuggling and human trafficking are on the rise because of the open border policy”
The reason for Freemason Biden’s policy.
“Mass deportation is not the solution to our present situation in the United States, especially when it may separate parents and children,” the bishops said.
But children won’t be separated from their parents. Entire families will be deported together, as they should be. Problem solved!
From a legal standpoint I would say you have to use your discretion. That is the general law anyway. Make a list. I’ll give an example. This is not exhaustive.
Many came in authentic pursuit of a more humane life and used the openings made available to them. They can be full of good will and don’t necessarily vote Democrat ultimately.
A large portion of some measure want to be in the “Democrat system” and be hinge points for the rest of their lives and they tend to be mixed in with “radicals”.
“Radicals” -narcotics contacts, Pink Tide, terrorism cells, criminals active for hire, other subversive elements.
There will inevitably be some past criminals genuinely hoping for a new beginning, but likely this is a very small group.
When there are minors and dependents involved in “bad” and “risk” groups you still should act with delicacy. An area for diplomatic measures and new relations/funding with regional neighbours.
‘ ….. Covering the news is a labor-intensive enterprise, and the number of media actually attempting to do it—especially in the national and international sectors—has always been comparatively small and is getting smaller all the time. Newsrooms have shrunk. Foreign and domestic bureaus have closed right and left as an economy measure. In the news business now, fewer and fewer are trying to do more and more with less and less.
…..
Speaking at meeting in Rome, Helen Osman, the top communication official of the U.S. bishops’ conference, says that “to understand the culture of the United States and how the Church can present the faith within that culture, it is important to realize that the adoption of digital communications is fundamentally changing the culture.” Quite so. In the end, moreover, it doesn’t matter greatly whether people get their news on a printed page or a screen. But it does matter that they get it—and that it be timely, accurate, honest, and fair. Religious leaders, just like other leaders in society, need to worry about that. ‘
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2014/05/29/the-mixed-state-of-the-changing-media/
I understand your points, but people’s motives oe desires are not under consideration here. If people want to establish a new life here, there is a legal process for them to do that. Breaking the law is unacceptable, even if people are seeking a better life.
So give a legal process and see who stays.
You’ve inherited a negative situation, make it positive.
A lot of it is already in hands who will hide it, uncover it.
Diamond in the rough full of opportunity shining bright.
There is good reason for setting in new legal processes. The situation is novel and it has different dimensions. Some things to do with borders; some with ICE in non-border States; some with Homeland Security; some with temporary provision of basic social services one way then another then another; some with personnel management and differentiation; some with probationary status and agency accessibility of those under management; etc.
If documented, if undocumented. Qualifying levels. Pre-qualifying levels. I would pass separate laws addressing different things and creating different processing tracks. This or that track could involve elective options for those under management in that area. I stress, separate statutes.
There is also sound LEGAL reason for new laws. The Supreme Court recently revoked the Chevron rule so that it is a whole new field for review of administrative act. This brings up also changing existing personnel. While a certain level of fidelity can be expected from Texas staffing, the bureaucratic and quasi-bureucratic status quo in the hinterland is working with its own vision that is going to fight very hard not to become outdated and to remain relevant and in charge.
Most importantly, without a knowable plain and simple fair and square legal procedural backdrop you already offend rules of natural justice. And you’ll lose in court.
‘ Skidmore Deference Survives: Under Loper, courts must exercise their “independent judgment” in reviewing agency regulations. However, the Court left Skidmore deference in place. Under that doctrine, courts may still defer to an agency’s interpretation of a statute if the interpretation has the “power to persuade.”
A New Form of Deference for Express Delegations of Authority?: It is unclear the extent to which Loper will impact agency regulations promulgated pursuant to express delegations of authority by Congress. The Court explained that, while it is the court’s duty to interpret federal statutes, the best reading of a statute “may well be that the agency is authorized to exercise a degree of discretion.” In those cases, “the role of the reviewing court under the APA is, as always, to independently interpret the statute and effectuate the will of Congress subject to constitutional limits.” Loper explained that courts fulfill their “judicial function” in these cases by: (1) recognizing “constitutional delegations” of authority; (2) fixing the boundaries of the delegated authority; and (3) “ensuring the agency has engaged in reasoned decision-making within those boundaries.” The Court did not explain, however, if this is a different test than the judiciary’s duty to “say what the law is,” and if it is, when it should be applied.
Opens Door to Challenges: We anticipate a significant uptick in new lawsuits challenging agency regulations across sectors. It remains unclear, however, how courts will apply Loper in the context of particular statutory schemes and without more specific guidance from the Supreme Court. ‘
https://www.whitecase.com/insight-alert/us-supreme-court-strikes-down-chevron-doctrine-what-you-need-know
Psalm 106:33 They so embittered his spirit that rash words crossed his lips. 34 They did not destroy the peoples as the Lord had commanded them 35 But mingled with the nations and imitated their ways.
Obama deported 3 million illegals, more than Trump did in his first term. Somehow, that didn’t get the pushback that Trump is getting now.
It’s a sure bet that none of these Colorado Bishops will ever be named a Cardinal while Francis is Pope.
Me again.
Some may want to check out “If bishops want to be heard on immigration . . . “, Catholic Culture, Jan. 24, 2025.