News

(BISMARCK, N.D.) — The North Dakota Supreme Court declared Thursday that the state’s abortion ban is unconstitutional and will not be enforced.

After the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade during the summer, a trigger ban was set to go into effect that would make it a felony to perform an abortion with only exceptions for rape, incest or if the mother’s life is in danger.

A lower court blocked the ban over the summer after North Dakota’s only abortion provider, the Red River Women’s Clinic, argued the right to an abortion was guaranteed under the state’s constitution.

In the majority opinion, written by Chief Justice Jon J. Jensen, the state Supreme Court found the ban infringed on fundamental rights including “the right of enjoying and defending life and pursuing and obtaining safety.”

“While the regulation of abortion is within the authority of the legislature under the North Dakota Constitution, RRWC has demonstrated likely success on the merits that there is a fundamental right to an abortion in the limited instances of life-saving and health-preserving circumstances, and the statute is not narrowly tailored to satisfy strict scrutiny,” Jensen wrote.

With the state Supreme Court decision, it means the current 21-week limit on abortions will remain in place.

“Today, the court rightfully stopped one of the most extreme laws in the country from taking effect and depriving North Dakotans of their reproductive freedom,” said Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights — which had filed the suit in North Dakota on behalf of abortion providers — in a statement.

“Under the state constitution, North Dakotans are promised the rights to life, liberty, safety, and happiness, all of which protect the right to abortion,” the statement continued. “In state after state, people have made clear that they want this right protected, yet state officials continue to ignore the will of their citizens. We will continue to work tirelessly to protect North Dakotans and the fundamental human rights of all people.”

Following the Supreme Court’s decision, RRWC moved from Fargo to Moorhead, Minnesota — a mile-and-a-half away – amid the legal battle.

Tammi Kromenaker, director of RRWC, applauded the decision but said there were no plans to return to North Dakota.

“The court made the right decision and sided with the people of North Dakota today,” she said in a statement. “Those seeking abortion care know what’s best for themselves and their families and should be able to access such essential services if and when they need it.”

She continued, “While I’m heartbroken that we have been forced to close our doors here in Fargo, we will continue to serve the region at our new clinic in Moorhead, Minnesota.”

North Dakota Attorney General Drew Wrigley, who had been asking the Court to reinstate the ban, criticized the ruling in a statement.

“Today’s North Dakota Supreme Court decision does not bar the people of North Dakota from regulating abortion through the enactments by their elected representatives in our state legislature,” he said. “Thankfully, our legislature has spent the past two months working on legislation that recrafts North Dakota’s abortion laws and they will now have the opportunity to enact the will of North Dakotans aware of the latest North Dakota Supreme Court pronouncement.”

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Special counsel Jack Smith is pushing to question an attorney for former President Donald Trump about an alleged phone call the two held as investigators were building evidence about Trump’s potential obstruction of the government’s efforts to retrieve classified materials that he had retained after leaving the White House, sources familiar with the matter tell ABC News.

Smith in recent weeks has pressed for a federal judge in Washington, D.C., to pierce attorney-client privilege and force Trump attorney Evan Corcoran to testify, according to those sources, about a June 24, 2022, phone call that investigators believe Corcoran held with Trump.

The alleged call would have been on the same day that investigators subpoenaed the Trump Organization for surveillance footage from Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort as the government grew suspicious that Trump continued to hold onto classified materials even after one of his attorneys asserted in a sworn statement that he had complied with a subpoena requesting any remaining documents in his possession.

It’s not immediately clear how Smith’s investigators learned of the call, or why they have zeroed in on it as part of their investigation into potential obstruction by Trump and his legal team.

Investigators have also sought to compel the testimony of another attorney for the former president, Jennifer Little, who has also sought to assert attorney-client privilege, as part of the investigation into the Mar-a-Lago documents, sources tell ABC News. Little has been representing Trump in the Fulton County, Georgia, probe into efforts by Trump and his allies to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election in that state. She did not immediately respond to ABC News’ request for comment.

A spokesperson for the special counsel declined to comment when contacted by ABC News. An attorney for Corcoran did not respond to a request for comment.

“President Trump has done nothing wrong,” a spokesperson for Trump told ABC News in a statement. “Radical Democrats continue to weaponize the justice system against President Trump, including in their attempts to demolish our Constitution by stripping away President Trump’s right to counsel, because they know that he will win back the White House, as he leads both Republicans and Democrats by wide margins. President Trump will not be deterred and will always continue to fight for the American people.”

Trump has blasted the DOJ’s documents probe as being politically motivated, calling it “an assault on a political opponent at a level never seen before in our Country.”

In a previous appearance before a D.C. grand jury, Corcoran declined to answer any questions regarding communications he had with Trump as his attorney, sources told ABC News.

Sources said that Corcoran also declined to answer questions regarding his efforts to locate potentially classified documents at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort following a May subpoena sent by the government for any documents that remained in Trump’s possession, as well as Corcoran’s role in drafting a document signed on June 3 by another Trump attorney, Christina Bobb, asserting that to the best of her knowledge a “diligent search” of the premises had been conducted and that all documents in response to the subpoena had been handed over.

Corcoran asserted attorney-client privilege at his testimony as a basis for declining to answer questions about whether Trump or any others in his office were aware of Bobb’s certification, or the reasons for any edits made to the certification document, sources said.

After the government built evidence through witnesses and other means following that signed statement, the FBI conducted a court-authorized search of Mar-a-Lago on Aug. 8, 2022, according to public court records. During the search, investigators found roughly 100 documents with classification markings — including some in Trump’s personal office and in a closet in his residence.

Prosecutors are trying to convince a judge to compel Corcoran’s testimony under the “crime-fraud exception,” which allows attorney-client privilege to be pierced in cases where there is sufficient evidence that legal services have been rendered in furtherance of a crime.

According to public court records, during a June 2022 visit by DOJ officials to Mar-a-Lago, Corcoran handed over 38 documents with classification markings inside a sealed envelope that he said had been found during a review of boxes held inside a storage room at the estate. Corcoran told investigators he “had been advised” that all Trump’s remaining records from the White House remained in that storage room, but Corcoran restricted them from reviewing any of the boxes.

According to sources, after the August search the government found at least 76 of the roughly 100 classified documents inside that same storage room, leading investigators to believe some had been transferred there after the FBI’s search of the property.

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(MINNEAPOLIS, Minn.) — A Minnesota Republican said he opposed a bill to guarantee meals for all students because he had “yet to meet a person in Minnesota who is hungry.”

State Sen. Steve Drazkowski made the comments Tuesday as he argued against HF 5, a proposal to dedicate roughly $400 million of taxpayer money to feeding the state’s children.

Drazkowski, elected to the state Senate last year, pushed to use the money instead to boost proficiency levels in reading and math.

“Hunger is a relative term,” he added. “I had a cereal bar for breakfast. I guess I’m hungry now.”

The bill’s author, Democratic-Farmer-Labor Sen. Heather Gustafson, said that in fact, nearly 275,000 Minnesota K-12 students are on free and reduced meals. Roughly one in six are “food insecure,” meaning they don’t know when their next meal will be available, she added, citing state figures.

“I’m a mom. I have four kids. There are a lot of years that we couldn’t afford much. I would have appreciated a policy like that,” she said.

“Being hungry makes learning almost impossible,” she added.

Drazkowski framed the bill as a form of “socialism” that would open the door to an array of expenses he deemed unnecessary.

“[Students] will be coming to buy their socks, buy their pants, buy their shirts, their hats, maybe their winter clothing. Who knows what’s next?” he said.

“We should be using this nearly half a billion dollars of the taxpayers’ money to make sure we have reading proficiency happening in our schools again, math proficiency happening, science proficiency happening, and that the kids are learning,” he said. “That is what our schools are for. That is what parents pay tax money for. That is what our constitution provides them: to teach them, not to feed them.”

Gustafson argued that the proposed increase accounts for “less than one percent of the state’s education budget.”

Citing her own experience working in classrooms, she said, “As a teacher, I’ve had countless students come into my classroom. They’re looking for food, not just for themselves but for their siblings as well.”

The bill passed the state senate by a vote of 38-26.

Drazkowski’s office did not immediately return requests from ABC News for comment.

Gov. Tim Walz said he would sign the legislation into law.

“As a former teacher, I know firsthand that kids can’t learn on an empty stomach. When universal school meals reaches my desk — a historic, bipartisan bill — I’ll be proud to sign it into law,” Walz tweeted.

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The Senate on Thursday, in a procedural move, cleared the way for a final vote on repealing decades-old war powers measures that authorized two wars with Iraq — first under former President George H. W. Bush in the Gulf War, and then by his son, former President George W. Bush — with supporters fearing that the outdated authorizations could be misused by a future president.

In a strong bipartisan showing, the Senate voted 67-27 in a test vote to repeal the authorizations.

It’s now all but certain to pass the Senate in a final vote next week, but it’s less clear is how a Republican-controlled House will handle the legislation.

Noting that the U.S. and Iraq are now security partners in the region, lead co-sponsor Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia argued on Wednesday that it is long past time for Congress to reassert its constitutional authority to declare war, saying, “After 20 years, it’s time to repeal this and show again that Congress can exercise that Article I muscle,” referencing the war declaration powers spelled out in the Constitution.

Kaine, whose son is a Marine infantry officer, recalled being angered by what he called a rush to war in Iraq ahead of the 2002 midterm elections, when he was a lieutenant governor, and then later fought to get on the Senate Armed Services Committee and Foreign Relations Committee to repeal the two Iraq “AUMFs” — or authorizations for the use of military force.

“Americans are tired of endless wars,” said Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-NY, Wednesday ahead of the debate.

He argued much the same Thursday, saying, “The nation of Iraq has changed dramatically since 2002, and it’s time the laws on the books catch up with the changes. The Iraq war has itself been long over. This AUMF has outlived its purpose and we can no longer justify keeping it in effect.”

Shortly before the Senate was set to vote, the White House weighed in with President Joe Biden’s support.

“President Biden remains committed to working with the Congress to ensure that outdated authorizations for the use of military force are replaced with a narrow and specific framework more appropriate to protecting Americans from modern terrorist threats,” it said in a statement.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week voted 13-8 to repeal both the 1991 and 2002 Authorizations for the Use of Military Force (AUMF).

Schumer has confirmed that there will be votes on amendments next week before final passage. Kaine said he thought it likely that those would include the two GOP amendments rejected by the committee.

One — by Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas — is at the core of GOP opposition to repeal. Some Republicans have argued that repealing the laws might risk sending a dangerous message in an ever volatile part of the world, particularly with regard to Iran. The top Republican on the committee — Jim Risch of Idaho — has repeatedly maintained that repealing the measures would send a message to Iran that the U.S. lacks resolve.

The Cruz amendment would affirm that the U.S. has the authority to attack Iran, though the committee last week rejected that measure 13-8.

GOP Sen. Todd Young, a lead sponsor of the repeal effort with Kaine and a Navy and Marine Corps veteran, argued that while he, too, shares his colleagues’ concerns about Iran, a future administration should come to Congress and seek a specific approval for military action.

“I believe that the threat from Iran is so significant and so different from the wars since 9/11 or Saddam Hussain’s Iraq, that we must pass a new AUMF should the situation require it,” Young contended when the bill was first introduced. “Those advocating for leaving the 2002 AUMF in place as a means of deterring Iran, when that was in no way the intention of this authorization, would be building on past abuses and advocating for precisely the kind of expansion of war power authorities that ultimately makes Congress and this committee irrelevant.”

And the chairman of the panel, Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey, contended Wednesday that any future administration still has authority to go after ISIS and other Iranian backed groups through the still-viable 2001 AUMF that Congress approved for the war in Afghanistan and to go after al-Qaeda – the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, as well as to pursue the Taliban, ISIS, and affiliated terror groups.

“This will have no impact on defending against any Iranian threat. The president already has the authority under the ’01 AUMF and the constitution for military operations against ISIS or Iranian backed groups that threaten US personnel,” Menendez said Wednesday.

The second GOP-sponsored amendment would have repealed that 2001 use-of-force authorization but was roundly rejected by all committee members but its sponsor, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.

The Biden administration said back in 2021 when the House first voted to repeal the 2002 authorization that it supported the effort.

“The administration supports the repeal of the 2002 AUMF, as the United States has no ongoing military activities that rely solely on the 2002 AUMF as a domestic legal basis, and repeal of the 2002 AUMF would likely have minimal impact on current military operations,” the administration said in a statement of administration policy.

The repeal effort’s fate in the now GOP-controlled House, though, is unclear, despite its sponsors spanning the political spectrum from the far right via Chip Roy of Texas to moderate Democratic Rep. Abigail Spanberger of Virginia.

One senator, a veteran of the Iraq War herself, made a passionate case for repeal Wednesday.

“The documents set the legal framework for military action that are supposed to define the mission for the Americans who are going downrange, but lately, too many in these halls of power in Washington have shrugged off that duty, hiding behind this outrageously outdated document. They’ve been scared of the political risks that come with bringing these wars back into the spotlight. They’ve been staring down election days,” said double amputee Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill.

“Congress has shirked responsibility to our troops. For more than 20 years since passing these AUMF’s those in power have stretched and skewed their original intent. They’ve left our troops without a clearly defined mission,” she said.

ABC News’ Allison Pecorin and Justin Gomez contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.