�Թϲ�����

With all the focus on Justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement last week, it was easy to miss the court’s major decision on free speech and abortion that was announced the same day as the U.S. Supreme Court’s travel ban decision. Yet this case, National Institutes of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, is one of the most important of the court’s past term. It foreshadows what the court’s conservative jurisprudence is going to be like, no matter who President Donald Trump nominates Monday for Kennedy’s seat. Justice Clarence Thomas is on a libertarian mission to use the First Amendment to chip away at all kinds of ordinary legal regulations —  and the other conservatives seem to be on board. (Noah Feldman, 7/5)

Judge Amy Coney Barrett could be President Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court—a prospect that thrills many conservatives. A former Antonin Scalia clerk and Notre Dame professor, Judge Barrett, 46, seems an ideal choice. Yet her religious beliefs could lead to a contentious confirmation process. Would it be a risk to pick her? Last year President Trump nominated Ms. Barrett for a seat on the Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Several Democratic senators pondered whether an “orthodox Catholic” would have dual loyalties. “The dogma lives loudly within you,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein said during Ms. Barrett’s hearing. “That’s of concern.” Video of Mrs. Feinstein’s religious test quickly spread, provoking outrage from thousands of Americans. Yet a New York Times news story suggested she and her colleagues hadn’t gone far enough: The nominee’s “membership in a small, tightly knit Christian group called People of Praise never came up at the hearing, and might have led to even more intense questioning.” (Adam O’Neal, 7/5)

Congressional opponents of the Affordable Care Act and reproductive health — with support from the White House — spent the majority of last year attempting to repeal the act and cut off people’s access to Planned Parenthood. Yet when members of Congress went home last year for the July 4 recess, women spoke out and rallied against the Obamacare repeal efforts. Through letters, calls, and rallies, they made it clear to their elected officials that the ACA was the greatest health advancement for women in a generation and Planned Parenthood is an essential source of care. Because of the incredible public backlash, attempts to roll back the act failed. Now, as we are once again in the midst of the July 4 break, the administration has been quietly issuing rules — and could even pick a Supreme Court justice — to sabotage the ACA in ways that will erode access to health coverage and reproductive health care, and the same congressional opponents from last year are supporting these efforts. (Jamille Fields and Stephanie Glover, 7/6)

“I’m like a dog chasing cars, I wouldn’t know what to do if I caught one.” That famous line  from the Joker in "The Dark Knight" could well be delivered by dozens of Republican senators this month. For decades, Republican politicians have run on pro-life platforms and promises to reverse Roe v. Wade with a pro-life majority on the Supreme Court. That mantra was picked up most recently by President Donald Trump, who pledged to supporters that overturning Roe v. Wade “will happen, automatically” because he would appoint only pro-life justices to the Supreme Court. The problem for the Republican Party is that Trump could actually succeed with the nominee he announces Monday to replace retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy. Many Republicans say privately it is the last thing they want to happen, given the potential for backlash in House and Senate elections that could turn on thin margins. Polls put public support for Roe v. Wade as high as 70 percent, with a majority opposing a nominee who wants to reverse it. (Jonathan Turley, 7/6)

Watch what you wish for, Republicans. The imagined implications of Justice Anthony Kennedy’s resignation for the future of legal abortion have brought visions of long-awaited sugar plums to anti-abortion politicians and activists. In 2016, candidate Trump pledged to appoint anti-abortion justices to the Supreme Court, saying that two or three such appointments would mean the end of Roe v. Wade. Next week, we get the name of President Trump’s second pick. Trump’s anti-abortion supporters — including his evangelical advisers, the National Right to Life Committee, Americans United for Life, the Susan B. Anthony List, and most significantly, the Republican Party — are now confident that it is just a matter of time until Roe is overturned. (Carol Sanger, 7/5)

The focus since Justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement announcement has been on the prospect of a new justice joining with the Supreme Court’s current conservative bloc to overrule the court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision recognizing a woman’s constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy. Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, for example, already has declared her opposition on the grounds that “any one of President Trump's list of proposed SCOTUS justices would overturn Roe v. Wade and threaten our fundamental rights.” Sen. Susan Collins, one of two Republicans who supports Roe, told ABC News on Sunday that she would not support a nominee who would overturn it. (Harry Litman, July 5)

How will Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski vote? The two U.S. senators, from Maine and Alaska, respectively, are the swing votes — moderate Republicans, women, and pro-choice — who will be under a spotlight as President Trump nominates someone to succeed Justice Anthony M. Kennedy on the Supreme Court. Liberal and conservative groups are mobilizing to lobby these and others who might stray from their party’s line. At stake is Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that protects a woman’s right to have an abortion. While campaigning for the presidency, Trump promised to nominate “pro-life” judges who would overturn or limit that ruling. Will Collins and Murkowski vote to confirm a nominee who would do that? (Michele L. Swers, 7/6)