High Court Rules in Dispute Over Immigrant Teen's Abortion

National Legal News

The Supreme Court ruled Monday in a case about a pregnant immigrant teen who obtained an abortion with the help of the ACLU, siding

with the Trump administration and wiping away a lower court decision for the teen but rejecting a suggestion her lawyers should be

disciplined.

The decision is about the teen's individual case and doesn't disrupt ongoing class action litigation about the ability of immigrant teens in

government custody to obtain abortions. The justices ruled in an unsigned opinion that vacating a lower court decision in favor of the

teen, who had been in government custody after entering the country illegally, was the proper course because the case became moot

after she obtained an abortion.

Government lawyers had complained to the Supreme Court that attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union didn't alert them that the

teen's abortion would take place earlier than expected. The administration said that deprived its lawyers of the chance to ask the

Supreme Court to block the procedure, at least temporarily. The Trump administration told the court that discipline might be warranted

against the teen's attorneys. The ACLU said its lawyers did nothing wrong.

The Supreme Court said it took the government's allegations "seriously" but the court declined to wade into the finger-pointing between

the sides.

"Especially in fast-paced, emergency proceedings like those at issue here, it is critical that lawyers and courts alike be able to rely on

one another's representations. On the other hand, lawyers also have ethical obligations to their clients and not all communications

breakdowns constitute misconduct," the justices wrote in a 5-page opinion, adding that the court "need not delve into the factual

disputes raised by the parties" in order to vacate the decision for the teen.

The teen at the center of the case entered the U.S. illegally in September as a 17-year-old and was taken to a federally funded shelter

in Texas for minors who enter the country without their parents. The unnamed teen, referred to as Jane Doe, learned while in custody

that she was pregnant and sought an abortion. A state court gave her permission, but federal officials — citing a policy of refusing to

facilitate abortions for pregnant minors in its shelters — refused to transport her or temporarily release her so that others could take her

for the procedure.

The ACLU helped the teen sue the Trump administration, and after a federal appeals court sided with her, the government was preparing

to ask the Supreme Court to step in and block the procedure, at least temporarily.

But the teen, allowed out of the shelter by court order, had an abortion first, about 12 hours after a court gave her the go-ahead. In

response, the Trump administration, in a highly unusual filing with the Supreme Court, cried foul. The ACLU has defended its attorneys'

actions, saying government lawyers made assumptions about the timing of the teen's abortion.

Related listings

  • Gamers in court for first time after Kansas 'swatting' death

    Gamers in court for first time after Kansas 'swatting' death

    National Legal News 06/15/2018

    Two online gamers whose alleged dispute over a $1.50 Call of Duty WWII video game bet ultimately led police to fatally shoot a Kansas man not involved in the argument will make their first appearances in court Wednesday in a case of "swatting" that h...

  • Court gives Spanish princess' husband 5 days to go to prison

    Court gives Spanish princess' husband 5 days to go to prison

    National Legal News 06/14/2018

    Judicial authorities on Wednesday told the brother-in-law of Spain's King Felipe VI that he must report to a prison within five days in order to serve five years and 10 months for fraud and tax evasion, among other crimes.Inaki Urdangarin, a former O...

  • Supreme Court won't get involved in Wrigley Field dispute

    Supreme Court won't get involved in Wrigley Field dispute

    National Legal News 06/11/2018

    The Supreme Court is leaving in place a court decision dismissing a lawsuit filed against the Chicago Cubs by the owners of rooftop clubs adjacent to Wrigley Field.Skybox on Sheffield and Lakeview Baseball Club sued the Cubs in 2015, arguing in part ...

Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC

A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party

Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party

However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.