(NEW YORK) — Russian President Vladimir Putin’s “special military operation” into neighboring Ukraine began on Feb. 24, with Russian forces invading from Belarus, to the north, and Russia, to the east. Ukrainian troops have offered “stiff resistance,” according to U.S. officials.
The Russian military last month launched a full-scale ground offensive in eastern Ukraine’s disputed Donbas region, attempting to capture the strategic port city of Mariupol and to secure a coastal corridor to the Moscow-annexed Crimean Peninsula.
Here’s how the news is developing. All times Eastern:
May 04, 5:19 am
EU leader proposes import ban on Russian oil
The European Union’s top official called on the 27-nation bloc on Wednesday to gradually ban oil imports from Russia as part of a sixth set of sanctions against Moscow for its war in Ukraine.
Addressing the European Parliament in Strasbourg, eastern France, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen proposed that member nations “phase out” imports of Russian crude oil within six months and refined oil products from Russia by the end of the year. She also recommended sanctions targeting Russia’s biggest bank and major broadcasters.
“We will make sure that we phase out Russian oil in an orderly fashion, in a way that allows us and our partners to secure alternative supply routes and minimizes the impact on global markets,” von der Leyen said. “Thus, we maximise pressure on Russia, while at the same time minimising collateral damage to us and our partners around the globe. Because to help Ukraine, our own economy has to remain strong.”
The proposals must be unanimously approved to take effect. Von der Leyen admitted that getting all 27 member countries to agree on oil sanctions “will not be easy.” Hungary and Slovakia, both of which are highly dependent on Russian energy, have already demanded exemptions.
“Some member states are strongly dependent on Russian oil. But we simply have to work on it,” she said. “We now propose a ban on Russian oil. This will be a complete import ban on all Russian oil, seaborne and pipeline, crude and refined.”
(NEW YORK) — A former Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor accused of sexual harassment withdrew his candidacy for a position at New York University Langone Health, after news of his potential hiring received backlash from the NYU community.
Dr. David Sabatini, a biologist, resigned from MIT last month after a review found he violated its workplace policy on consensual relationships and recommended his tenure be revoked. Sabatini allegedly failed to disclose a sexual relationship he had with “a person over whom he held a career-influencing role” and didn’t take any steps to “relinquish his mentoring and career-influencing roles,” according to a letter by MIT President L. Rafael Reif.
The committee conducting the review also had “significant concerns regarding his unprofessional behavior toward some lab members,” the letter added.
Sabatini has denied allegations of sexual harassment and has said the relationship at the center of the investigation was consensual. He has sued his accuser, as well as others, for defamation. His accuser has also countersued.
Sabatini said he was withdrawing his name from consideration, but maintained that he will “eventually be vindicated.”
“False, distorted, and preposterous allegations about me have intensified in the press and on social media in the wake of reports last week that New York University Langone Health was considering hiring me. I understand the enormous pressure this has placed on NYU Langone Health and do not want to distract from its important mission. I have therefore decided to withdraw my name from consideration for a faculty position there,” Sabatini said in a statement to ABC News on Tuesday.
He added, “I deeply respect NYU Langone Health’s mission and appreciate the support from individuals who took the time to learn the facts. I remain steadfast in believing that the truth will ultimately emerge and that I will eventually be vindicated and able to return to my research.”
NYU Langone Health, the university’s academic medical center that includes the school of medicine, said in a statement Tuesday that both Sabatini and the NYU Grossman School of Medicine “reached the conclusion that it will not be possible for him to become a member of our faculty.”
“Our overarching mission at NYU Grossman School of Medicine is advancing science and medicine to save lives. That is what compelled us to give careful reflection to hiring Dr. Sabatini after he initially reached out to us,” NYU Langone Health said.
It added, “In the course of our due diligence, we heard voices of support from many dozens of Dr. Sabatini’s colleagues, lab alumni, and peers who described their first-hand experiences working with him. But we also heard clearly the deep concern from our own faculty, staff, and trainees. Our thorough review and deliberate approach was essential for us to make an independent evaluation consistent with our institutional priorities.”
News that Sabatini may be hired by NYU was first reported on science.org, which also reports that Sabatini has been forced out of or fired from three leading institutions for sexual harassment or for violating workplace or consensual sexual relationship policies.
Members of the NYU community, including its union for graduate workers, a group for women in STEM and a group of STEM researchers planning on forming a union, organized a protest against Sabatini’s hiring last week.
A petition against Sabatini’s hiring had gathered more than 400 signatures as of Tuesday. As long as Sabatini was being considered for a position, signatories pledged to not give or attend any talks, seminars, conferences or symposia hosted by NYU Langone Health. They also vowed not to teach any courses at NYU Langone or collaborate with any labs at NYU Langone.
(TULSA COUNTY, Okla.) — A judge in Oklahoma ruled Monday that a Tulsa Race Massacre reparations lawsuit may proceed. The decision by Tulsa County Judge Caroline Wall was welcome news to 107-year-old Viola Ford Fletcher and two other survivors of the 1921 massacre.
Fletcher is the oldest living survivor of the destruction that ensued when white mobs attacked the prominent Greenwood District of Tulsa, Oklahoma. Incensed crowds flooded the streets of what is often referred to as Black Wall Street, killing the prosperous neighborhood’s Black residents and demolishing their homes over two days.
Fletcher said she and her family never returned to Tulsa after they fled the night of May 31, 1921. Her home had been ravaged by fire, leaving her and hundreds of others without any of their possessions and livelihoods.
“There wasn’t anything to come back to,” she told ABC News.
She recalls the sounds of shooting and people screaming as she walked past neighbors lying dead in the street. Those memories have stayed with her, sometimes waking her up at night.
“We still have fear,” she said.
She and her co-plaintiffs, Lessie Benningfield Randle, also 107, and Hughes Van Ellis, 101, were all young children at the time. Fletcher will celebrate her 108th birthday on May 10.
The plaintiffs are suing for a victims’ compensation fund, pushing for “whatever it takes to replace our loss,” according to Fletcher.
Judge Wall partially denied Tulsa’s motion to dismiss the public nuisance civil court lawsuit on Monday. Oklahoma’s public nuisance statute allows authorities to be sued for what attorneys say is their role in endangering the safety of Greenwood’s residents and their property. The plaintiffs must show that the “comfort, repose, health, or safety” of Greenwood’s residents was harmed, and that Tulsa officials failed to perform their duties to protect Greenwood and its residents from that harm.
However, some officials are hesitant to pay monetary reparations to the victims and their families seeking restitution.
“I am not opposed to cash payments to descendants and the victims. It’s where the money comes from that for me is important,” Tulsa Mayor G.T. Bynum, who led the effort to help find missing Tulsa victims, said to ABC News, before adding that he is ”opposed to levying a tax on this generation of Tulsans who are at no fault.”
The Mayor’s office declined to comment on the judge’s ruling as the lawsuit is under litigation.
Driesen Heath, a Tulsa-born reparations researcher and advocate, spoke with ABC News about the need for reparations to be paid to the massacre’s survivors.
“The city of Tulsa and the state of Oklahoma have documented culpability in the massacre and they need to repay in all forms that are necessary, the harms that they have perpetrated and facilitated,” Heath said.
Heath said the consequences of these harms are still affecting families 100 years later, causing some intergenerational pain while others accrue intergenerational wealth.
“People make arguments about not wanting to pay for the sins of their forefathers and their ancestors, but they want to benefit from those sins continually,” she said.
If won, the lawsuit could mean hundreds of millions of dollars awarded to victims, accounting for financial losses that Damario Solomon-Simmons, an attorney for the survivors, said “would have made a tremendous difference” in the lives of those affected.
“I have children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. And I really want this for my younger generation, something that I wasn’t able to do for them,” Fletcher said.
Over a century later, this lawsuit may be the last known living survivors’ last chance to see justice served for the racist decimation of their community that left over 300 people dead, hundreds more injured, and countless more marked by the devastation.
Dylan Hollingsworth/Bloomberg via Getty Images, FILE
(OKLAHOMA CITY, Okla.) — Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt signed an abortion bill Tuesday that is modeled after a controversial Texas law.
The bill, formally known as S.B. 1503, creates the “Oklahoma Heartbeat Act,” which bans abortions after cardiac activity or a fetal heartbeat can be detected, which typically occurs around six weeks — before a woman often knows she is pregnant.
There are exceptions when the mother’s life is danger but not for rape or incest.
The bill also allows any private citizen to sue someone who performs an abortion, intends to perform an abortion, or helps a woman get an abortion after a fetal heartbeat can be detected. These citizens could be awarded at least $10,000 for every abortion performed.
A civil lawsuit, however, cannot be brought against a woman who receives an abortion. Additionally, someone who impregnated a woman through rape or incest would not be allowed to sue.
“I am proud to sign SB 1503, the Oklahoma Heartbeat Act into law,” Stitt tweeted Tuesday after signing the bill. “I want Oklahoma to be the most pro-life state in the country because I represent all four million Oklahomans who overwhelmingly want to protect the unborn.”
Oklahoma’s bill is the second copycat of the Texas legislation after Idaho passed the first bill in March.
Because of the bill’s emergency clause, it goes into immediate effect after being signed by the governor.
A few weeks ago, Stitt signed another abortion bill that would make it a felony to perform abortions except when the mother’s life is in danger.
“We want Oklahoma to be the most pro-life state in the country,” Stitt said at the time. “We want to outlaw abortion in the state of Oklahoma.”
This bill doesn’t go into effect until the summer and will likely be facing legal challenges.
Abortion rights advocates said this is why Republicans in Oklahoma have been passing several abortion bills — in the hopes that one sticks.
Several groups, including the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the Center for Reproductive Rights and Oklahoma Call for Reproductive Justice, have already filed a joint lawsuit to block S.B. 1503.
“These abortion bans will push abortion access out of reach for many communities who already face often insurmountable barriers to health care, including Black and brown communities, low-income communities, and people who live in rural areas,” Tamya Cox-Touré, co-chair of Oklahoma Call for Reproductive Justice, said in a statement. “These are the same communities who are most impacted by the maternal health crisis occurring in our country and in our state. The lawmakers who passed these bans do not care about access to healthcare, and we can’t allow this law to take effect.”
The signing comes as several Republican-led states — including Arizona, Kentucky and Wyoming — have been passing abortion legislation ahead of a Supreme Court decision that could decide the future of Roe v. Wade.
The court is expected to hand down a decision about a 15-week ban in Mississippi in June. If the ban is declared constitutional, it could lead to Roe v. Wade being overturned or severely gutted.
(WASHINGTON) — The first multistate contest of the 2022 midterm season kicks off Tuesday with primary races in Ohio and Indiana.
Ohio’s Senate race marks the first major test of former President Donald Trump’s endorsement power at the polls.
Here’s how the races are developing today. All times Eastern. Check back for updates.
May 03, 5:30 pm
What to watch for in Ohio
Tuesday’s Ohio Senate primary is among the first litmus tests of many this midterm season to gauge how much influence former President Donald Trump holds over the Republican Party. Almost all of the candidates — except for Matt Dolan — align with the former president, so even if “Hillbilly Elegy” author J.D. Vance doesn’t win, the GOP nominee could well be a Trump-aligned Republican who endorses falsehoods about the 2020 election.
Another race seen as a test of Trump’s kingmaking power is in Ohio’s 7th Congressional District, where the former president endorsed challenger and former aide Max Miller.
President Joe Biden, meanwhile, chose to hand out only his second primary endorsement of the cycle in Ohio to Rep. Shontel Brown in her rematch against progressive powerhouse Nina Turner, a close ally of Sen. Bernie Sanders, in a race that has pit establishment Democrats against progressives.
Gov. Mike DeWine, who is seeking a second term, is expected to survive a Trump-inspired, though not endorsed, challenge to his COVID governance and establishment leanings.
-ABC News’ Political Director Rick Klein
May 03, 5:18 pm
What to watch for in Indiana
Some races in Indiana — such as the state’s 1st Congressional District where a slew of Republican challengers are vying to win the seat held by incumbent Democratic Rep. Frank Mrvan — are seen as possible bellwethers for whether Republicans manage can flip districts in Democratic strongholds.
Indiana’s 9th Congressional District — the only vacant congressional seat in the state — is also in play when it comes to which party will control the House of Representatives after the midterms.
Along with Ohio, the state is an early indicator of the power of former President Donald Trump’s endorsement, as Trump carried the state in 2020. Trump has backed six incumbent members of the House of Representatives in the state, including Rep. Greg Pence, former Vice President Mike Pence’s brother.
Polls close in Indiana at 7 p.m. ET, though there is some variation because the state falls within two time zones.
May 03, 4:28 pm
Supreme Court bombshell lands as Ohio tests Trump and Biden
Voters head to the polls in Ohio on Tuesday on the heels of a shocking leak of a Supreme Court draft opinion suggesting the court’s conservative majority may overturn nearly 50 years of abortion rights in America.
The endorsement power of former President Donald Trump — who promised to appoint Supreme Court justices who would overturn Roe — faces a major test in the race of retiring Republican Sen. Rob Portman in Ohio. While almost all the GOP candidates have centered their campaigns around being a Trump conservative, “never-Trumper” turned Trump ally J.D. Vance scored his coveted endorsement, upending the race.
On the Democratic side, the contest in Ohio’s 11th Congressional District between Rep. Shontel Brown and Nina Turner has pitted establishment Democrats against progressives. Biden endorsed Brown over Turner last week in his second primary endorsement of the election cycle, but progressives including Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders have backed Turner.
A new ABC News/Washington Post polling out Tuesday shows that 60% of Republicans and GOP-leaning independents want the GOP to follow Trump’s leadership — about where that’s been since he left office. By contrast, only about 53% of Democrats and independents who lean that way want to follow Biden’s leadership, with younger Democrats most solidly favoring a new direction.
Michael Siluk/UCG/Universal Images Group via Getty Images
(NEW YORK) — At least 19 states plan to offer legal refuge to transgender youth and their families displaced by anti-LGBTQ legislation that criminalizes the families and physicians of trans children.
“When trans kids’ lives are on the line, playing defense doesn’t cut it. It’s time to play offense,” said Annise Parker, president and CEO of LGBTQ advocacy group Victory Institute.
She went on, “We are using the collective power of LGBTQ state legislators all across the nation to launch a counter-offensive that aims to protect trans kids and parents while also demonstrating that there is a positive agenda for trans people that lawmakers can support.”
Lawmakers in states like Texas, Louisiana, Arizona and Alabama have proposed bills criminalizing gender-affirming transgender care.
In a February opinion, Texas state attorney General Ken Paxton called gender-affirming care “abuse.”
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott followed Paxton’s opinion by directing the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services to investigate such care as child abuse.
These investigations have been halted after a family sued the state alongside the American Civil Liberties Union and Lambda Legal.
Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey has also issued several anti-LGBTQ policies, including a ban on transgender youth health care that physicians said was riddled with misinformation.
He signed SB 184, the Vulnerable Child Protection Act, which states that anyone who provides gender-affirming care — including puberty blockers, hormone therapy or physical gender-affirming surgeries — to an individual under age 18 could be convicted of a felony, face up to 10 years in prison and be fined $15,000.
To combat such efforts, a bill from California state Sen. Scott Wiener aims to make California a legal safe haven for parents who may have their transgender children taken away from them or be criminally prosecuted for providing care for their children.
“Starting with our legislation in California, we are building a coordinated national legislative campaign by LGBTQ lawmakers to provide refuge for trans kids and their families,” said Wiener. “We’re making it crystal clear: we will not let trans kids be belittled, used as political pawns and denied gender-affirming care.”
He has joined forces with LGBTQ advocacy groups from all over the country, including Victory Institute and Equality California.
“Parents should not live in fear of being hunted down by the government for loving and supporting their child,” said Tony Hoang, executive director of LGBTQ advocacy group Equality California.
He continued, “As a native Texan, I’m ashamed of Gov. Abbott’s hateful attacks against trans kids and their families. But as a Californian, I’m so proud of our state for serving as a beacon of hope and a place of refuge for those children and their parents.”
New York, Minnesota, Colorado, Connecticut, New Mexico and more have followed suit, introducing similar protections for trans people who come from out of state.
According to the Human Rights Campaign, there have been more than 300 bills targeting the LGBTQ community nationwide in 2022.
Aaron Katersky, Mark Crudele, and Meredith Deliso, ABC News
(NEW YORK) — A faulty fan caused the glitch that prevented cameras at a Brooklyn subway station from transmitting during a mass shooting on a rush-hour train last month, according to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority.
The cameras were working until “less than 24 hours” before the April 12 shooting on the N train as it approached the 36th Street station in Brooklyn’s Sunset Park neighborhood, MTA Chair Janno Lieber wrote in a letter to congressional representatives obtained by ABC News.
In the days before the incident, technicians worked to replace the fan unit for an issue that initially wasn’t impacting the transmission of the cameras’ feed, according to Lieber.
“Technicians replaced the fan unit on the morning of April 8, but the network diagnostics still indicated a problem,” Lieber wrote in the letter, dated May 2. “MTA technicians made a series of repairs in an effort to correct the issue, and on the morning of Monday April 11, as technicians were installing new communication hardware, the camera failed.”
Lieber characterized the cause of the outage as a “failure of hardware and software” at the communications room that governs the station’s cameras that prevented them from transmitting their feed. The outage also impacted the cameras at the 25th Street and 45th Street subway stations.
“Technicians were working in the communications room on the next morning, April 12, when the attack took place,” the chair wrote. “NYPD directed them to leave the communications room as the investigation began.”
The cameras were back online by 12:30 p.m. on April 13, according to Lieber.
Dozens of people were injured, including 10 by gunfire, in the shooting. Police arrested a suspect more than 24 hours after the incident.
The NYPD, which had initially said the cameras were out at the three stations due to a “technical issue,” called claims that the lack of operating cameras delayed the manhunt “unfair and misleading.”
“The MTA cameras in other parts of the system were essential elements in determining his movements before and after the shootings,” John Miller, deputy commissioner of intelligence and counterterrorism for the NYPD, said in a statement in the wake of the attack.
In his letter, Lieber also said the MTA’s subway camera system played a “critical role in the manhunt.”
The alleged gunman, 62-year-old Frank James, faces a terror-related count. Last week, defense attorneys charged in a court filing that federal agents improperly questioned him. In response, the federal government said it was authorized and within its rights in its interactions with James.
(WASHINGTON) — Comments on abortion rights made by the recent conservative additions to the Supreme Court during their Senate confirmation hearings are under fresh scrutiny after a leaked draft Supreme Court opinion appeared to indicate the panel’s conservative majority of justices is ready to overturn Roe v. Wade.
The Supreme Court confirmed that the draft, published Monday by Politico, is authentic. But it stressed that it is neither a decision by the court nor a final position of any justices in the case.
The case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, involves Mississippi’s ban on abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy — well before the fetal viability standard established by Roe in 1973 and a subsequent 1992 decision, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, that legalized abortion across the U.S.
“Roe was egregiously wrong from the start,” Justice Samuel Alito, the opinion’s apparent author, wrote in the copy of the draft, dated Feb. 10.
An unnamed source familiar with the deliberations told Politico that Justices Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — the latter three who are conservative justices added to the bench during the Trump administration — all initially supported a ruling siding with Mississippi and “that line-up remains unchanged as of this week.”
The document posted online suggests a majority of justices is likely to side with Mississippi — breaking with precedent — but how broad the ultimate ruling will be remains unclear. It also is unclear how the justices will ultimately vote on the case.
During their respective Senate confirmation hearings after being nominated to the Supreme Court by former President Donald Trump, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh acknowledged the precedent set by Roe, while Barrett told senators she believed the decision was not a “super-precedent.”
Justice Neil Gorsuch
During confirmation hearings in March 2017, Democrats pressed Gorsuch for his views on abortion using his writing in a book he authored on euthanasia, in which he wrote that “the intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong.”
“How could you square that statement with legal abortion?” Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., asked.
“The Supreme Court of the United States has held that Roe v. Wade, that a fetus is not a person for purposes of the 14th Amendment. And the book explains that,” Gorsuch replied.
“Do you accept that?” Durbin asked.
“That’s the law of the land, I accept the law of the land, senator. Yes,” Gorsuch replied.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh
During his Senate confirmation hearings in September 2018, Democrats pushed Kavanaugh on his position on Roe in light of a reported 2003 email he wrote as a lawyer in the Bush White House challenging that the landmark decision was the “settled law of the land.”
“As a general proposition I understand the importance of the precedent set forth in Roe v. Wade,” Kavanaugh told senators.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., asked Kavanaugh, “What would you say your position is today on a woman’s right to choose?”
“As a judge, it is an important precedent of the Supreme Court,” Kavanaugh replied. “By ‘it,’ I mean Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, been affirmed many times. Casey is precedent on precedent.”
Additionally, Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, has said Kavanaugh repeatedly suggested to her privately that he considered Roe to be “settled law.” She criticized both Kavanaugh and Gorsuch on Tuesday for the apparent flip-flop.
“If this leaked draft opinion is the final decision and this reporting is accurate, it would be completely inconsistent with what Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh said in their hearings and in our meetings in my office,” Collins, R-Maine, said in a statement Tuesday morning. “Obviously, we won’t know each Justice’s decision and reasoning until the Supreme Court officially announces its opinion in this case.”
Justice Amy Coney Barrett
During her confirmation hearings in October 2020, Barrett was careful in her comments but told senators she believed the decision on Roe v. Wade was not a “super-precedent” when asked directly by Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn.
She said she did not find the case to be “so well-settled that no political actors and no people seriously push for their overruling.”
“I’m answering a lot of questions about Roe, which I think indicates that Roe doesn’t fall in that category,” she said. “And scholars across the spectrum say that doesn’t mean that Roe should be overruled. But descriptively, it does mean that it’s not a case that everyone has accepted and doesn’t call for its overruling.”
As a law school professor, Barrett signed a 2006 newspaper ad calling for the overturning of the law’s “barbaric legacy.” She was questioned about that as well during her confirmation hearings.
“I signed that almost 15 years ago in my personal capacity still as a private citizen, and now I am a public official,” Barrett told Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo.
“I signed it on the way out of church,” she told Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. “It was consistent with the views of my church and simply said we support the right to life from conception to natural death.”
In response to Republicans’ questions about her faith and its influence on her work, Barrett — who has described herself as a “faithful Catholic” — told senators that her “personal, moral religious views” won’t impact her judicial decision-making.
“I have done that in my time on the 7th Circuit. If I stay there, I’ll continue to do that,” Barrett said. “If I’m confirmed to the Supreme Court, I will do that still.”
In prior comments, Barrett has said she didn’t think the right to abortion would change and it was unlikely Roe would be overturned by a conservative Supreme Court.
“I think some of the restrictions would change,” she said during a 2016 event at Jacksonville University’s Public Policy Institute.
“I think the question is how much freedom the court is willing to let states have in regulating abortion,” she continued.
ABC News’ Devin Dwyer and Benjamin Siegel contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — A draft of the SCOTUS decision on the Mississippi case that challenges Roe v. Wade was leaked Monday night, first reported by Politico. According to the copy of the draft opinion for the majority, a majority of justices appear to have voted to effectively overturn the 1973 landmark abortion precedent set in Roe v. Wade.
“Certainly, it’s not a totally leakproof institution, but there has never been a leak even remotely like this,” said ABC News Supreme Court contributor Kate Shaw on ABC News’ podcast “Start Here.” “I don’t think in the history of the Supreme Court, which is the history of the country – it is totally uncharted.”
The 98-page opinion leaked by Politico was written by Justice Samuel Alito, one of the most conservative members of the court.
In a statement on Tuesday, the Supreme Court and Chief Justice John Roberts addressed the leaked opinion. The statement confirms that the leaked document is “authentic,” but it goes on to say that it “does not represent a decision by the Court of the final position of any member on the issues in the case.”
“To the extent this betrayal of the confidences of the Court was intended to undermine the integrity of our operations, it will not succeed. The work of the Court will not be affected in any way,” said Roberts in the release.
He also stated that he has launched an official investigation into the source of the leak.
There are multiple theories circulating as to why the document was leaked. According to Shaw, one theory is that whoever leaked the draft may be trying to “lock” in a five-justice majority and the publicity from the leak will deter anyone from “jumping ship.”
“The publicity will deter them from doing so because they will be worried about sending a message that they were somehow cowed into changing their votes by the public blowback and or the public encouragement,” said Shaw.
Also, some believe that if it’s a conservative leak, the approach was used to soften the ground for the ultimate decision. Some conservatives have already pointed out how little attention Texas’ SB8 has gotten now that it’s been in place for months, ABC News’ Devin Dwyer reported.
Another theory is that the leak came from the liberal side of the court.
“I think the logic there would be something like the court is about to take a truly extraordinary step of rolling back this right upon which Americans have relied for a half century and an institution,” said Shaw. “And thus these long standing norms of secrecy and confidentiality actually don’t have to be respected and can be thrown out the window because extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures.”
Currently, the leaker has not been identified and the motive remains unknown.
Over the past several months, the Supreme Court has been considering the Mississippi case Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health after hearing arguments on December 1. The Mississippi law bans abortions after 15 weeks. The case asks the justices directly to reconsider the precedent set by Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
A handful of states have already set so-called “trigger laws,” which are prohibitions set on abortions that will immediately go into effect if Roe v. Wade is overruled.
“At least half the states in the country will severely curtail or totally outlaw access to abortion,” said Shaw. “Basically immediately.”
According to an updated report from The Guttmacher Institute, 26 states have these trigger laws, some of which include bans on abortion after six or eight weeks of pregnancy, effectively banning all abortions. Several other states without trigger laws would also be expected to move quickly to prohibit abortions if Roe is overruled.
But, echoing Justice Roberts, Shaw said that nothing is set in stone.
“This is not a final opinion. It is not the law. Roe v. Wade has not been overturned yet,” said Shaw. “This appears to be a legitimate document that does reflect where the court is at this moment… But we don’t know exactly what the final opinion in this case will look like.”
(WASHINGTON) — The Trump Organization and Donald Trump’s presidential inaugural committee have agreed to settle a lawsuit brought by Washington, D.C., Attorney General Karl Racine over allegations that Trump and his family misused nonprofit inauguration funds to enrich themselves in early 2017.
The suit claimed that the nonprofit funds raised by the inaugural committee were improperly used for private benefit when the Trump campaign rented $1 million in ballroom space from Trump’s Washington, D.C., hotel during the four days of inaugural festivities.
Trump’s company will repay $750,000 to settle the suit, according to the terms of the settlement.
“After he was elected, one of the first actions Donald Trump took was illegally using his own inauguration to enrich his family,” Racine said in a statement. “We refused to let that corruption stand.”
“Nonprofit funds cannot be used to line the pockets of individuals, no matter how powerful they are,” said Racine. “Now any future presidential inaugural committees are on notice that they will not get away with such egregious actions.”
Trump, in a statement, denied any wrongdoing.
“Given the impending sale of The Trump International Hotel, Washington D.C., and with absolutely no admission of liability or guilt, we have reached a settlement to end all litigation with Democrat Attorney General Racine,” the former president said. “As crime rates are soaring in our Nation’s Capital, it is necessary that the Attorney General focus on those issues rather than a further leg of the greatest Witch-Hunt in political history.”
“This was yet another example of weaponizing Law Enforcement against the Republican Party and, in particular, the former President of the United States,” Trump said in the statement. “So bad for our Country!”
The $750,000 in repaid funds with be redirected to nonprofit organizations.
