Good morning, and happy Tuesday.
The federal court decision that made abortion legal across the U.S. is about to be overturned, according to a draft opinion obtained by Politico.From the story: The draft opinion is a full-throated, unflinching repudiation of the 1973 decision which guaranteed federal constitutional protections of abortion rights and a subsequent 1992 decision – Planned Parenthood v. Casey – that largely maintained the right. “Roe was egregiously wrong from the start,” Justice Samuel Alito writes. “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” he writes in the document, labeled as the “Opinion of the Court.” “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.” A person familiar with the court’s deliberations said that four of the other Republican-appointed justices – Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett – had voted with Alito in the conference held among the justices after hearing oral arguments in December, and that line-up remains unchanged as of this week. The three Democratic-appointed justices – Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan – are working on one or more dissents, according to the person. How Chief Justice John Roberts will ultimately vote, and whether he will join an already written opinion or draft his own, is unclear.
In Minnesota, Democrats were quick to respond. “Not on my watch,” tweeted Gov. Tim Walz. “All of the leading Republican candidates for governor have pledged to ban abortion in Minnesota if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade this summer. I won't,” Walz tweeted from his campaign account. “This is bullsh**,” tweeted Sen. Tina Smith (without the asterisks). In a statement Smith elaborated: “When I worked at Planned Parenthood in Minnesota, I saw firsthand how women had the capacity to make the right decisions for themselves. How dare Justice Alito and other Supreme Court justices think they know better.” On CNN, Sen. Amy Klobuchar was asked to respond to clips of recent Supreme Court nominees suggesting at their confirmation hearings that Roe was settled law. “They arguably use this to convince certain senators to vote for them, I think that is a major problem,” Klobuchar said. “They said it was the law of the land. They are talking about the fact that it's been affirmed time and time again. And that's why I think a lot of people are shocked. I will tell you that I'm not shocked because you could see this in the way the questioning went.”
Republicans were generally quieter. A couple of the GOP candidates for governor took to Twitter. “It took Tim Walz days to respond to the riots but just a couple minutes to fire off a “not on my watch” tweet about abortion. It’s time to return real leadership to Minnesota!” Scott Jensen said. Jensen told me in a recent interview that if he were governor he would try to ban abortion in Minnesota if the court overturns Roe. Another candidate, Neil Shah also responded to Walz. “On my watch,” Shah tweeted.
For more background on what would happen in Minnesota if the court rules as the draft suggests, see this story from 2018: Nothing would change immediately, in large part because of a different court case: Doe v. Gomez. In 1995 the Minnesota Supreme Court heard a case brought by "Jane Doe," who was a stand-in for "all women in Minnesota." Doe challenged a law that excluded abortion coverage from the state's health care plans for low-income people. The court ultimately ruled in favor of Doe, writing that "the discriminatory distribution of the government benefits can discourage the exercise of fundamental liberties just as effectively as can an outright denial of those rights through criminal and regulatory sanctions." Minnesota's Supreme Court went a step further than the federal courts, requiring the state to pay for abortions for low-income women who receive state assistance. That means, even if Roe v. Wade is overturned at the national level, Doe v. Gomez still establishes abortion as a constitutional right in Minnesota. The only way it can be undone in Minnesota would be through an amendment to the constitution or a decision by the court to overturn its own precedent, which is rare.
In some other news, MPR’s Brian Bakst reports: Walz held a ceremonial signing event Monday morning with lawmakers from both parties and groups that pushed hard for each part of the compromise on pandemic worker bonuses and unemployment. “The legislative process can be frustrating. It's not meant to be fast. And it's not meant to run over things. It's meant to be deliberate,” Walz said. “This group of legislators, leaders and advocates up here found a way to reach a compromise that served our frontline workers, our small businesses, and continue to deal with the COVID pandemic. That is no small thing.” Businesses that forked over more money to fortify the unemployment account should get rebates and credits this summer. DEED Commissioner Steve Grove said his agency hopes to alert businesses how much they’ll be getting back within the next two weeks. The pandemic bonus checks will probably also go out in 10-12 weeks. Around 667,000 people from health workers to child care staff to grocery store employees could get a $750 check. Mary Turner, president of the Minnesota Nurses Association, said the awards might not be a financial windfall but they are a valued measure of appreciation. “It may not seem like a lot. But I'll tell you what, that's going to be that 750 to the median income of Minnesota – that equals a month's rent, that equals groceries,” Turner said. “That's money that can be put back into their savings accounts. So it is important.”
And Walz said the one-time tax rebate checks he proposed are an essential ingredient to a potential end-of-session tax deal. Neither the House nor the Senate included the tax rebate plan recommended by the DFL governor. He wants to send payments of $500 to individual filers and $1,000 to joint filers. An estimated 2.9 million checks would go to households with annual income below $273,000. Walz said he’ll fight to have them included in any tax-cut deal. “I would argue that relief to all Minnesotans is necessary,” Walz said. I think it's the most fiscally prudent way to make sure we don't create a deficit situation in years out. Minnesotans are overwhelmingly supportive of it. And I'm willing to compromise, but I'm not going to compromise on a top priority of mine.” Senate Republicans are pursuing permanent income tax rate cuts. House DFLers are lined up behind targeted tax credits for families with young children and property tax relief programs.
State Sen. Carrie Ruud, R-Breezy Point, announced Monday she will not seek reelection. Ruud was paired in a new district with fellow Republican Justin Eichorn, R-Grand Rapids, who won the GOP endorsement.
The Minnesota Senate voted Monday to prohibit the planning for a new passenger rail service between the Twin Cities and Duluth, which is known as the Northern Lights Express.MPR’s Tim Pugmire reports senators amended the transportation section of a larger supplemental budget and policy bill with the prohibition language. It would prevent the state transportation commissioner and the Metropolitan Council from spending any money on the project. Sen. David Osmek, R-Mound, was the author of the amendment. He said the proposed passenger train is not the type of transportation that Minnesota needs. “The Northern Lights passenger rail system is a bad idea that is a 19th century solution to transportation in Minnesota,” Osmek said. “It’s like asking us to spend money on buggy whips.” Sen. Jennifer McEwen, DFL-Duluth, argued that the passenger rail project is strongly supported in her city. McEwen said it would bring an economic boost. “Not only are my constituents really excited about this project and really excited to have passenger rail service, but regionally and all along the route we’re excited to have this passenger rail service,” McEwen said. | 