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 ...

Illinois Work Injury Lawyers – Krol, Bongiorno & Given, LTD.

Accidents in the workplace are often caused by unsafe work conditions arising from ignoring safety rules, overlooking maintenance or other negligence of those in management. While we are one of the largest firms in Illinois dedicated solely to the representation of injured workers, we pride ourselves on the personal, one-on-one approach we deliver to each client.

Work accidents can cause serious injuries and sometimes permanent damage. Some extremely serious work injuries can permanently hinder a person’s ability to get around and continue their daily duties. Factors that affect one’s quality of life such as place of work, relationships with friends and family, and social standing can all be taken away quickly by a work injury. Although, you may not be able to recover all of your losses, you may be entitled to compensation as a result of your work injury. Krol, Bongiorno & Given, LTD. provides informed advocacy in all kinds of workers’ compensation claims, including:

• Injuries to the back and neck, including severe spinal cord injuries
• Serious head injuries
• Heart problems resulting from workplace activities
• Injuries to the knees, elbows, shoulders and other joints
• Injuries caused by repetitive movements

For Illinois Workers’ Compensation claims, you will ALWAYS cheat yourself if you do not hire an experienced attorney. When you hire Krol, Bongiorno & Given, Ltd, you will have someone to guide you through the process, and when it is time to settle, we will add value to your case IN EXCESS of our fee. In the last few years, employers and insurance carriers have sought to advance the argument that when you settle a case without an attorney, your already low settlement should be further reduced by 20% so that you do not get a “windfall.” Representing yourself in Illinois is a lose-lose proposition.