Politics

(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court on Wednesday was expected to decide whether to wade into a legal challenge to the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of the abortion pill, a case that could restrict access to the drug mifepristone nationwide — even in states where abortion is legal.

If the Supreme Court agrees to take up a Texas judge’s ruling that threatened to pull the drug from the market, it would be the second time in less than a year that the high court will deal with limits to abortion access, potentially paving the way for another blockbuster ruling this summer that could dramatically change how drugs are approved in the U.S.

“It is not a stretch to say that a judge can wake up in the morning and decide that they want to take a certain medication off the market,” including vaccines or anti-depressants, if the lower court rulings stand, said Josh Sharfstein, former principal deputy commissioner at the FDA.

The case has deeply divided the country, with Republican governors and lawmakers lining up behind the conservative plaintiffs in the case.

“Fundamentally, chemical abortion drugs pose serious health and safety risks to women and girls,” states a brief filed with the Supreme Court, signed by nearly 150 Republican lawmakers including Senate Minority Whip John Thune of South Dakota, Senate Republican Conference Chairman John Barrasso of Wyoming, and House Majority Leader Steve Scalise of Louisiana.

On the other side are Democratic governors, lawmakers and the nation’s largest medical associations, as well as hundreds of pharmaceutical executives and companies. They note mifepristone has been widely available for 23 years — used by an estimated five million women and accounting for more than half of all abortions in the US.

“There is a greater risk of complications or mortality for procedures like wisdom-tooth removals, tonsillectomies, colonoscopies, and plastic surgeries, than by any abortion method (medication or procedural),” the American Medical Association and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, wrote in a court brief.

FDA Administrator Bob Califf was scheduled to testify before a Senate panel Wednesday, where he was expected to field questions about the drug’s safety.

Mifepristone is the sole drug approved by the FDA to end early pregnancies, typically given along with second drug misoprostol that helps empty the uterus.

Since the drug’s 2000 approval, the FDA later expanded access, greenlighting a generic version of the drug and allowing it to be given up to 10 weeks of pregnancy instead of seven and provided via telehealth and the mail.

The drug’s rise in popularity and widespread accessibility has made it a target of the anti-abortion rights movement. Last fall, the conservative legal group Alliance Defending Freedom sued the FDA, insisting that federal regulators ignored critical safety concerns during the drug’s 23 years on the market.

Earlier this month, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the FDA to roll back its rules on the drug — only allowing the drug to be given to patients up to seven weeks of pregnancy instead of 10 after three in-person doctor visits and prohibiting it from being mailed.

The Biden administration appealed, and Justice Samuel Alito issued an administrative five-day stay of the ruling — keeping the FDA’s current rules on the drug in place through the end of the day Wednesday until the high court has a chance to consider how to address the case.

If the Supreme Court decides to weigh in, it is expected the justices also would decide Wednesday whether to keep the 5th Circuit ruling on hold — preserving the status quo — while the legal challenge plays out.

Depending upon what the Supreme Court decides, access to the abortion pill could potentially be severely restricted or even eliminated, including in states where abortion is legal — at least until the case has a chance to wind its way through the legal process.

Complicating the issue is an opposing ruling by a federal judge in Washington who ordered the FDA to keep the drug on the market under its current rules. Danco Labs, which makes the brand-name version of the drug Mifeprex, said the dueling rulings if left unaddressed would create “regulatory chaos.”

The company also warns that if left in place, the 5th Circuit ruling would result in all doses of mifepristone being “misbranded” because the labeling would no longer comply with the approval standard.

Adjusting the drug’s labeling “could take months,” they say, resulting in a stop of production.

The 5th Circuit ruling also would invalidate the 2019 FDA approval of the generic version of the drug — an estimated two-thirds of the market.

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Two key members of the far-right Proud Boys group testified Tuesday hoping to prove their innocence in the seditious conspiracy case against them for the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, while admitting some of their actions were wrong.

Zachary Rehl and Dominic Pezzola both acknowledged their wrongdoing when they breached the Capitol building on Jan. 6, 2021, during the riot.

“I basically trespassed through all the breaches,” Pezzola testified, describing how he pushed his way through multiple police lines before entering the building.

Pezzola, who also goes by the nickname “Spaz,” admitted to using a police officer’s riot shield to smash a Capitol building window and then trespassing in the building for more than 20 minutes.

Asked by his attorney why he decided to take the stand, Pezzola said, “to take responsibility” for what he did on Jan. 6 and explain that his co-defendants were not involved in many of his actions.

Pezzola and Rehl, along with three other Proud Boys leaders, are charged with seditious conspiracy against the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding and actual obstruction of the 2020 election certification, as well as assaulting, resisting or impeding officers and destruction of government property.

Pezzola faces an additional charge of robbery for allegedly stealing the riot shield he used to smash the window. He denied the allegation on Tuesday, saying he got the shield from someone else.

Federal prosecutors seeking to discredit Rehl, president of the group’s Philadelphia chapter, presented video evidence that they suggested showed Rehl macing police at the Capitol on Jan. 6.

Over the course of his own testimony, Rehl repeatedly said under oath that he did not assault officers. He is not charged with assaulting officers with a chemical spray.

Asked directly by Assistant U.S. Attorney Erik Kenerson if he was “spraying at police officers,” Rehl responded: “Not that I recall.”

Kenerson showed the jury multiple camera angles of a person wearing what he suggested was identical attire to Rehl moving through the crowd. Rehl said he could not confirm the person was him. Images of the person were obscured and low resolution as Kenerson moved frame by frame through the sequence.

“It’s a really grainy video,” Rehl said, adding at one point that he could not “confirm or deny” the person was him.

Rehl has been testifying over the past week in the seditious conspiracy case against him. The jury trial has dragged on for months with a variety of tedious procedural hurdles since jury selection began in December.

Responding to questions from his attorney Carmen Hernandez last week, Rehl cast the Proud Boys as a rowdy social club — a stark contrast from prosecutors’ characterization of the group as a far-right militia intent on overthrowing the U.S. government.

“Yeah, we’d party … we’d go get lit,” Rehl said in reference to social gatherings the group had after attending a protest.

The parties at times were unrelated to any protests, Rehl said, referring to the group’s occasional travel to Las Vegas.

“We go out there and we just get trashed all weekend,” Rehl said. “We get drunk. We gamble. We meet other guys from other chapters. It’s a great time.”

To close out his testimony, Rehl apologized to members of the jury, “if you believe I did anything wrong that day.” He acknowledged he should not have entered the Capitol building and said it was a mistake to have smoked a cigarette in the building.

“It was a terrible day,” Rehl said. “A lot of bad stuff happened.”

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The Air Force on Tuesday said it has begun its own investigation into how a young airman allegedly was able to access possibly hundreds of highly classified documents he’s accused of posting on the internet.

Top officials also announced that the unit 21-year-old Airman 1st Class Teixeira was assigned to — Otis Air National Guard Base in Cape Cod, Massachusetts — has been removed from its intelligence mission and its work is now being done by other units.

“I’ve tasked our inspector general to go look at the unit and anything associated with this leak that could have gone wrong from the point of view of implementing our policies — to see what things allowed this to happen,” Secretary of the Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall told a Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee.

An Air Force statement explained that the IG’s review would “investigate overall compliance with policy, procedures, and standards, including the unit environment and compliance at the 102nd Intelligence Wing related to the release of national security information.”

“The 102nd Intelligence Wing is not currently performing its assigned intelligence mission,” said Ann Stefanek, an Air Force spokesperson. “The mission has been temporarily reassigned to other organizations within the Air Force.”

“There is a full court press going on about this,” Kendall told senators. “We’re all disturbed by it and we’re working very very hard to get to the bottom of it and take corrective action.”

Members of the congressional panel expressed disbelief that Teixeira allegedly had been able to leak information on to the Discord website for months without being detected.

“How could this guardsman take this information and distribute it electronically for weeks, if not months, and nobody knew about it?” said the subcommittee’s chairman, Democratic Sen. Jon Tester of Montana.

“It appears that this was going on for many months without the airman allegedly being caught. And when he was caught, it was because of investigative journalism, not the controls within the Air Force,” said GOP Sen. Susan Collins of Maine. “That is equally disturbing.”

Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. C.Q. Brown told the committee that the Air Force has procedures in place to protect classified information but “obviously in this case this process fell apart.”

Brown provided the first indications that while Teixeira had a highly classified TS-SCI (Top Secret – Sensitive Compartmented Information) clearance he did not have a “need to know” access to the documents as part of his job as a IT specialist.

“The aspect of this particular airman, for his particular job he had access to information, but he didn’t necessarily have need to know for some of the information,” said Brown.

“Because of his duties he had access to some aspects based on his job as a cyber administrator. He took advantage of that access,” said Brown.

Brown also said the Air Force would put in place a service-wide review of security procedures to take place over the next 30 days within each Air Force unit.

“The focus of the standdown will be to reassess our security posture and procedures, validate the need to know for each person’s access, and emphasize to all Airmen and Guardians the responsibility we are entrusted with to safeguard this information and to enforce and improve our security requirements,” said the Air Force statement.

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday appeared to agree on the need to clarify a long-standing rule for when U.S. employers must accommodate the religious practices of employees but stopped short of suggesting a former U.S. Postal Service letter carrier deserves his job back.

The case, which could have an impact on workplaces across America, involves Gerald Groff, an evangelical Christian, who was disciplined by USPS for skipping Sunday shifts to observe the Sabbath rather than deliver packages for Amazon as assigned. He later resigned.

“Employees should not be forced to choose between their faith and their job,” Groff’s attorney Aaron Streett told the justices.

The Postal Service has said Groff’s absences created a significant burden on his coworkers and business operations — especially during the peak holiday delivery season at his rural Pennsylvania post office — harming morale and driving several staff to resign or relocate.

“The lower courts correctly found ‘undue hardship’ on these facts,” said Biden administration Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, who was defending the agency’s policy. “Petitioner’s job specifically required him to work on Sundays.

“His absences created direct concrete burdens on other carriers who had to stay on their shifts longer to get the mail delivered,” she said.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1965 prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of religion unless an employer can show that “reasonably accommodating” the employee would create “undue hardship” on their business.

The Supreme Court interpreted that standard 46 years ago in the case TWA v. Hardison to mean anything more than a “de minimis cost” on business operations. It’s a very low bar that religious freedom advocates say discriminates against people of faith.

A majority of justices suggested during oral arguments that the court’s precedent should be tightened — raising the requirement for employers to accommodate religious observance while balancing the business’s need to make money.

Several justices indicated that Groff’s case should be sent back to lower courts for reconsideration under the clarified standard. It was not clear, however, whether a majority of justices believed USPS was obligated to accommodate his absences on Sundays.

Justice Brett Kavanagh repeatedly said the court should utilize “substantial additional costs” — found in a footnote of the 1977 Hardison decision — as the definition of what would exceed a “de minimis cost” to employers.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett suggested that changes in morale or staffing that might follow from a religious accommodation — though difficult to quantify — would also need to be considered.

“You might have many religious people in a workplace seeking the same accommodation for Sundays off, ” she said, “and morale could be very important.”

Prelogar argued that the justices should make clear that any time an employer would be forced to regularly pay a “premium wage” (overtime) or regularly operate shorthanded as a result of religious accommodation would qualify as an “undue hardship.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor was perhaps least sympathetic to Groff’s arguments, suggesting the court should defer to the letter of the law and leave it to lower courts to continue interpreting the standard on their own.

“What’s clear to me… is there is no [clarity] we can give because it’s all contextual,” she said. “The best we can do is do what Congress told us to do.”

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson also appeared hesitant to embrace sweeping changes to the status quo, noting that Congress could long ago have clarified federal anti-discrimination law if it wanted to but did not.

Several of the Court’s conservatives also flashed uneasiness with going too far in their decision. Kavanaugh appeared uncomfortable with a ruling that would broadly expand religious freedom at the expense of an employer’s bottom line.

“One thing about this case that I think makes it a little more difficult is that there can be religious interests on both sides,” Kavanaugh said.

“I’m looking for common ground here,” declared Justice Neil Gorsuch, who pointed out that both the government and Groff appeared to agree that the rules needed to be updated.

“Some courts have taken the ‘de minimis’ language and run with it,” Gorsuch said. Perhaps we should “clarify ‘de minimis’ and remand back to the lower court and be done with it.”

Piped in Justice Elena Kagan: “I’m happy we’re all kumbayahing together!”

Prelogar deadpanned, “My arguments don’t always go that way.”

The court is expected to rule in the case by the end of June.

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(BISMARCK, N.D.) — Lawmakers in North Dakota advanced an abortion bill Monday that seeks to ban the procedure with few exceptions.

The state House passed SB 2150 with a vote of 76-14, mostly along party lines, which makes performing or aiding an abortion a class C felony, which is punishable by up to five years in prison and/or a fine of $10,000.

According to the language in the bill, the pregnant woman would not be charged.

The only exceptions are if the mother’s health or life are in danger and in cases of rape or incest, but only up until six weeks’ gestation, before many women know they’re pregnant.

Additionally, the state’s Department of Health & Human Services will be required to publish material on services that can assist a woman through pregnancy, color photographs documenting the development of a fetus, material on the “long-term risks” of an abortion and the possibility of reversing an abortion.

The bill will next head to the Senate. If it passes, Gov. Doug Burgum is expected to sign it into law.

It comes just a month after the North Dakota Supreme Court declared a trigger ban that was set to go into effect — which would make it a felony to perform an abortion with only exceptions for rape, incest or if the mother’s life is in danger — as unconstitutional.

“We’re going to send another message to the North Dakota Supreme Court,” said House Majority Leader Mike Lefor, a Republican. “This is what this Legislature wants. We want pro-life in North Dakota.”

While anti-abortion groups, including North Dakota Right to Life, praised the decision, Democratic lawmakers criticized it.

“The 6-week ‘exception’ is before most people know they are pregnant, particularly young victims of sexual violence, and forcing an unwanted pregnancy to continue adds to the trauma,” Rep. Karla Rose Hanson, who voted against the bill, wrote in a tweet.

She pointed out that in 2014, about two-thirds of voters in North Dakota rejected a ballot measure that would have amended the state constitution to declare an “inalienable right to life” for humans at any stage of development, essentially banning abortion.

“Proponents of the bill said this ‘cleans up’ & ‘clarifies’ existing abortion law, but in reality the trigger ban has been enjoined, so this bill puts new restrictions into law,” she added.

Katie Christensen, state director of external affairs for Planned Parenthood North Dakota Action Fund, also decried the passing of the bill.

“It’s heartbreaking and frustrating to watch a near total abortion ban pass the North Dakota House after the Supreme Court recognized the right to life saving and health preserving abortions,” she said in a statement. “Abortion is essential health care, and North Dakotans deserve to make decisions about their bodies and futures.”

Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last summer, at least 14 states have ceased nearly all abortion services.

Florida will be the 15th state once a new six-week abortion ban is implemented — but only if the state’s current 15-week ban is upheld as legal challenges play out in court.

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Border Patrol apprehensions in the Southwest increased last month, as warming spring temperatures allowed migrants to more easily make their way to the U.S., according to Customs and Border Protection.

Migrant encounters by Border Patrol agents increased 25% from February to March, according to CBP, marking the lowest February to March rate of increase since President Joe Biden took office.

Historic Border Patrol data shows that increases in migration from February to March have been common across administrations — an indication of the seasonal trends.

“The January border enforcement measures continue to hold strong even against the typical migration patterns seen as we enter the warmer months,” a senior administration official told ABC News. “This month’s encounters are down 23% from last year, and the month-over-month change is the lowest seasonal increase seen in two years.”

The data released Monday shows that nationwide, authorities apprehended or detained migrants more than 250,000 times. Significant increases were reported by CBP in southern Florida, where some migrants land boats illegally, as well as along the northern border.

The Biden administration is under intense pressure to keep migrant apprehensions as low as possible. Some Republicans have seized on the record high levels of unauthorized migration seen last year, claiming it proves the border is not secure under Biden’s watch.

The number of apprehensions can also serve as an indicator of success for the administration’s recent dual-track approach of restricting asylum for some while opening alternative legal pathways for those applying for entry from outside the U.S.

The number of times Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans were apprehended decreased by 72% since early January, according to CBP data, when the administration announced it would send many unauthorized migrants from those countries back to Mexico.

Under a court ruling, the Biden administration continues to implement a controversial public health order issued by the Trump administration’s Centers for Disease Control and Prevention at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. The order requires border authorities to expel large numbers of migrants rapidly from the border, usually in a matter of hours.

In January, the Mexican government agreed to accept the rapid return of Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans. Administration officials at the time said they intend to carry out these plans even if Title 42 ends. Immigration experts have said removing non-Mexicans to Mexico under standard immigration processes and outside of the emergency pandemic order would require full cooperation from Mexican authorities.

There may be fewer people from those four countries reaching the Southwest — but they’re still migrating, according to one country’s data. Panama recorded more Venezuelans crossing the notorious Darien Gap this March than compared to last year. Although not as high as the fall, those numbers have climbed back up — an indication that many are being forced to stay in Mexico now or go elsewhere along the way.

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(AUSTIN, Texas) — A bill described as “anti-vaccine” is moving through the Texas legislature and could give lawmakers the power to make decisions about vaccines in schools rather than doctors or administrators.

SB 1024, which was recently passed by a Senate committee — and will soon be voted on by the Texas Senate and the House — could limit schools and local health departments from being able to require or recommend immunizations.

While the proposed legislation mainly focuses on ending COVID-19 restrictions and barring COVID-19 vaccine requirements, public health experts say it could have implications for any kind of vaccine.

The bill states “every child shall be immunized against diphtheria, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, measles, meningococcal disease, mumps, pertussis, polio, rubella, tetanus, and varicella” but not any other disease.

This language could apply to vaccines that are currently in development or for shots that don’t yet exist.

What’s more, legislators would be able to decide whether to add or remove vaccines that are required for students in kindergarten through 12th grade in Texas.

“This is a very concerning trend because it’s not just about COVID,” Dr. Peter Chin-Hong, an infectious disease specialist at the University of California, San Francisco, told ABC News. “It’s not even just about future pandemics, although that’s worrisome as well.”

“It’s a now thing and it will have immediate potential implications by cherry-picking who gets vaccinated and who gets mandated and how much of the population is protected against diseases.”

Chin-Hong said diseases considered to be eliminated from the United States due to vaccines have cropped up in recent years, including several outbreaks of measles and a recent case of polio identified in New York last year.

Health experts say that COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective and that the bill is the most recent example of a trend of anti-vaccine legislation that has swept the country.

“There is no doubt…that the COVID vaccines are an extraordinary triumph,” Dr. William Schaffner, a professor of preventive medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, told ABC News. “They’ve been very effective, particularly in preventing severe disease, a kind that requires hospitalization, intensive care unit admission, and could lead to death.”

Schaffner continued, “They’ve been used in millions of people around the world. They’re no longer new. They’re no longer experimental. They’re really very solidly established vaccines.”

He said bills like this cast doubt on public health experts and further erode public trust.

The bill authored by Republican State Senator Lois Kolkhorst, who is the chairwoman of the Senate Health and Human Services Committee, which just passed the bill.

If the bill is passed and signed into law, it would go into effect Sept. 1, 2023.

Kolkhorst’s office did not immediately return ABC News’ request for comment, but this is not the first bill she’s introduced regarding vaccine restrictions.

One bill, SB 1025, prohibits the use of vaccine passports to certify vaccination status and would implement a tracking system for adverse events following the administration of vaccines and booster doses.

Another bill, SB 1026, prevents governments, courts, schools and employers from requiring proof of COVID-19 vaccination and from discrimination based on COVID-19 vaccination status.

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — At least three Republican senators have said they will not support a move to temporarily replace Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., on the Senate Judiciary Committee — saying they wouldn’t want to help Democrats advance President Joe Biden’s agenda.

On Monday afternoon, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, who sits on the committee, became the most recent Republican to voice his opposition to temporarily replacing Feinstein as she’s proposed while she recovers at home from having shingles, signaling an uphill battle Senate Democrats face in securing a replacement.

“Never, not once, have we allowed temporary substitutes on committees, and now is not the time to start. Republicans are not going to break this precedent in order to bail out Senator Schumer or the Biden administration’s most controversial nominees,” he claimed. “Senator Feinstein has been a mainstay of this body for more than three decades, and I hope to see her back in these halls soon. But until then, President Biden’s most controversial parts partisan judicial nominees will have to wait,” he added later.

With lawmakers returning to Washington on Monday from a two-week recess, Senate Democrats were poised to find a senator to temporarily replace Feinstein on the committee, the first step in freeing up a log-jam of politically important judicial nominations accumulated in her absence.

The Senate Judiciary Committee, where Democrats hold a mere one-seat majority, as they do in the full chamber, is the first stop for the president’s judicial nominations. With lifetime appointments, judges can deeply shape how the nation’s laws are interpreted.

After the 89-year-old senator said last week she was extending her already six-week absence from the Senate due to complications related to having shingles, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said he would grant her request to find another Democratic senator to temporarily serve in her place.

But Republicans may not allow for what’s typically a routine move to go forward smoothly.

Any hopes to pass Feinstein’s replacement through a unanimous consent vote were quashed over the weekend, when Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., a committee member tweeted an op-ed questioning why Republicans would cooperate with Feinstein’s ask, and said, “Republicans should not assist Democrats in confirming Joe Biden’s most radical nominees to the courts.”

Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., also a committee member, joined Cotton on Monday to argue that helping Schumer to replace Feinstein would amount to helping Democrats “pack the court with activist judges.”

“I will not go along with Chuck Schumer’s plan to replace Senator Feinstein on the Judiciary Committee and pack the court with activist judges,” Blackburn tweeted on Monday. “Joe Biden wants the Senate to rubber stamp his unqualified and controversial judges to radically transform America.”

It will now take at least 60 votes to pass the resolution required to temporarily replace Feinstein on the high-stakes committee, meaning at least 10 Republicans need to join Democrats in the 51-49 chamber under narrow Democratic control.

And with Cornyn adding his voice, it’s unclear how much other opposition Democrats might face.

Schumer, for his part, didn’t appear concerned with the objectors when he returned to the Capitol on Monday and said he planned to bring the matter to the floor later this week.

“We should have a temporary replacement until she returns and we’re hopeful Republicans will join us on that,” he told reporters. “It’s the only right and fair thing to do.”

Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., acknowledged on ABC’s “This Week” that Feinstein’s absence could become a bigger problem for Democrats if it extends into votes on raising the debt ceiling, for instance.

“If this goes on month after month after month, then she’s gonna have to make a decision with her family and her friends about what her future holds, because this isn’t just about California; it’s also about the nation,” Klobuchar said. “So it’s going to become an issue as the months go by. But I’m taking her at her word that she’s going to return.”

Despite at least two House Democrats calling on her to resign, lawmakers might not have to wait much longer for the oldest member of Congress to return.

“I spoke to Senator Feinstein, just a few days ago,” Schumer said. “She believes she will return soon.”

Until she does, Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, also 89 but three months shy of Feinstein’s age, has the distinction of being the oldest lawmaker in Washington — as of Monday.

ABC News’ Trish Turner and Lalee Ibssa contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — At least two Republican senators have said they will not support a move to temporarily replace Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., on the Senate Judiciary Committee — saying they wouldn’t want to help Democrats advance President Joe Biden’s agenda.

With lawmakers returning to Washington on Monday from a two-week recess, Senate Democrats were poised to find a senator to temporarily replace Feinstein on the committee, the first step in freeing up a log-jam of politically-important judicial nominations accumulated in her absence.

The Senate Judiciary Committee, where Democrats hold a mere one-seat majority, as they do in the full chamber, is the first stop for the president’s judicial nominations. With lifetime appointments, judges can deeply shape how the nation’s laws are interpreted.

After the 89-year-old senator said last week she was extending her already six-week absence from the Senate due to complications related to having shingles, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said he would grant her request to find another Democratic senator to temporarily serve in her place.

But Republicans may not allow for what’s typically a routine move to go forward smoothly.

Any hopes to pass Feinstein’s replacement through a unanimous consent vote were quashed over the weekend, when Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., tweeted an op-ed questioning why Republicans would cooperate with Feinstein’s ask, and said, “Republicans should not assist Democrats in confirming Joe Biden’s most radical nominees to the courts.”

Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., joined Cotton on Monday to argue that helping Schumer to replace Feinstein would amount to helping Democrats “pack the court with activist judges.”

“I will not go along with Chuck Schumer’s plan to replace Senator Feinstein on the Judiciary Committee and pack the court with activist judges,” Blackburn tweeted on Monday. “Joe Biden wants the Senate to rubber stamp his unqualified and controversial judges to radically transform America.”

It will now take at least 60 votes to pass the resolution required to temporarily replace Feinstein on the high-stakes committee, meaning at least 10 Republicans need to join Democrats in the 51-49 chamber under narrow Democratic control.

Schumer, for his part, didn’t appear concerned with the objectors when he returned to the Capitol on Monday and said he planned to bring the matter to the floor later this week.

“We should have a temporary replacement until she returns and we’re hopeful Republicans will join us on that,” he told reporters. “It’s the only right and fair thing to do.”

Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., acknowledged on ABC’s “This Week” that Feinstein’s absence could become a bigger problem for Democrats if it extends into votes on raising the debt ceiling, for instance.

“If this goes on month after month after month, then she’s gonna have to make a decision with her family and her friends about what her future holds, because this isn’t just about California; it’s also about the nation,” Klobuchar said. “So it’s going to become an issue as the months go by. But I’m taking her at her word that she’s going to return.”

Despite at least two House Democrats calling on her to resign, lawmakers might not have to wait much longer for the oldest member of Congress to return.

“I spoke to Senator Feinstein, just a few days ago,” Schumer said. “She believes she will return soon.”

Until she does, Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, also 89 but three months shy of Feinstein’s age, has the distinction of being the oldest lawmaker in Washington — as of Monday.

ABC News’ Trish Turner contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Embattled Rep. George Santos, R-N.Y., launched his reelection bid Monday despite being mired in several scandals over past lies over his biography and questions over his campaign finances.

In a press release announcing his reelection bid, Santos made no mention of the various investigations into the scandals, instead casting himself as a fighter for his Long Island district.

“As a first-generation American, I am no stranger to the issues affecting my district,” he said, saying he’d tackle immigration, the cost of living, crime and other policy issues.

“Since the Left is pushing radical agendas, the economy is struggling, and Washington is incapable of solving anything, we need a fighter who knows the district and can serve the people fearlessly, and independent of local or national party influence. Good isn’t good enough, and I’m not shy about doing what it takes to get the job done. I’m proud to announce my candidacy to run for re-election and continue to serve the people of NY-3,” he added.

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.