Politics

Schumer says Senate trial for Mayorkas will take place next month

Mike Kline (notkalvin)/Getty Images

(WASHINGTON) -- House Speaker Mike Johnson announced on Thursday that the impeachment articles for Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas will be sent over to the Senate on April 10, and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said the Senate trial will take place on April 11.

In a new letter, Johnson and the Republican impeachment managers called on Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer to "schedule a trial of the matter expeditiously."

The House voted to impeach Mayorkas on Feb. 13 by a vote of 214-213 over what Republicans claimed was his failure to enforce border laws amid a "crisis" of high illegal immigration, allegations the secretary denied as "baseless." But Johnson waited to send over the articles until the government was fully funded.

"The evidence on both charges is clear, comprehensive, and compelling, and the House's solemn act to impeach the first sitting Cabinet official in American history demands timely action by the Senate," the letter to Schumer said.

Asked for a statement, DHS referred ABC News to the statement when Mayorkas was initially impeached.

"Without a shred of evidence or legitimate Constitutional grounds, and despite bipartisan opposition, House Republicans have falsely smeared a dedicated public servant who has spent more than 20 years enforcing our laws and serving our country," DHS spokesperson Mia Ehrenberg said. "Secretary Mayorkas and the Department of Homeland Security will continue working every day to keep Americans safe."

Once the articles are sent over, the Senate will be sworn in and seated for a trial. Later Thursday, Schumer's office said senators will be sworn in as jurors in the Mayorkas impeachment trial on April 11. However, Schumer has indicated Senate Democrats will move to dismiss a trial despite Republican demands for one.

"We call upon you to fulfill your constitutional obligation to hold this trial," House GOP said in the letter. "The American people demand a secure border, an end to this crisis, and accountability for those responsible. To table articles of impeachment without ever hearing a single argument or reviewing a piece of evidence would be a violation of our constitutional order and an affront to the American people whom we all serve."

Several Republican senators have called on Schumer to hold a full trial. If Schumer does hold a trial, the charges require a vote by two-thirds of the Senate to convict Mayorkas and remove him from office. There are not enough votes to convict Mayorkas.

The impeachment managers are: Homeland Security Committee Chairman Mark Green, Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Michael McCaul, Rep. Andy Biggs, Rep. Ben Cline, Rep. Andrew Garbarino, Rep. Michael Guest, Rep. Harriet Hageman, Rep. Clay Higgins, Rep. Laurel Lee, Rep. August Pfluger, and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene.

ABC News' Luke Barr and Mariam Khan contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.


ICE singles out 'sanctuary cities' after Laken Riley's killing as they announce separate migrant arrests

Via ICE

(NEW YORK) -- Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrested 216 noncitizens who faced criminal charges and convictions as part of the agency's latest nationwide operation, officials said on Thursday as they also singled out what are known as "sanctuary cities" in the wake of a Georgia college student's killing.

Over a period of 12 days earlier this month, agents across the country moved in on the at-large immigration offenders, ICE officials said at a news conference.

The operation was part of the ICE mission to target those in the country illegally who pose a risk to public safety, officials said.

All 216 arrested migrants have connections to drug crimes, according to ICE's allegations, and nearly half of those arrested had been previously deported.

"We're on a mission to protect the American public by containing and removing people who contribute to this horrible drug crisis," Acting ICE Director Patrick J. Lechleitner told reporters.

The operation also highlighted a divide between the goals of federal and local law enforcement agencies. As a federal agency, ICE is responsible for enforcing the nation's immigration law -- local law enforcement is not.

As a result, ICE officials said, some convicted criminals who are migrants -- such as those caught in the operation this month -- have previously been set free by local authorities despite being eligible for deportation.

"And to be frank -- in some areas -- there are laws that affect the ability for state and local law enforcement to cooperate with ICE," Lechleitner said. "So we're trying to make progress in areas that are a little less ICE friendly."

Those municipalities, commonly referred to as "sanctuary cities," restrict communication between local law enforcement and ICE because of what migrant and some civil liberties' advocates say is a concern about the abuse of federal deportation and enforcement policies.

The issue came to a head last month when Venezuelan national Jose Antonio Ibarra was arrested on murder charges in the killing of 22-year-old nursing student Laken Riley at the University of Georgia. Ibarra has not yet entered a plea.

Ibarra entered the U.S. illegally and had been previously arrested on suspicion of an unrelated crime but was subsequently released before ICE could move to deport him, ICE has said.

"I can't speak to individual jurisdictions that do this," Lechleitner said on Thursday, referring to sanctuary cities. "All we want to say is that we want to talk to them and we want to try and work through on any way we can cooperate with our law enforcement partners."

As part of the agency's latest investigative work tied to the March operation, officials identified more than 400 noncitizens who are subject to arrest.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.


Biden teaming up with Obama, Clinton in New York City for major campaign fundraiser

Alex Wong/Getty Images

(NEW YORK) -- President Joe Biden is teaming up with two of his Democratic predecessors -- former Presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton -- to ramp up enthusiasm for his reelection campaign at a star-studded fundraiser Thursday night in New York City.

The evening is expected to rake in more than $25 million, a “historic” sum for a single event, according to the campaign. It will begin with a virtual pre-program featuring Biden, Obama and Clinton, and hosted by Biden’s campaign manager.

Afterward, actress Mindy Kaling will host the program inside Radio City Music Hall featuring musical guests Queen Latifah, Lizzo, Ben Platt, Cynthia Erivo and Lea Michele. They will make appearances in front of a sold-out audience of 5,000 people. The campaign sent fundraising emails to supporters offering a link to tune in virtually in exchange for a donation.

First lady Jill Biden is scheduled to kick off the evening of performances that culminate with the main event: an armchair conversation with Biden, Obama and Clinton moderated by late-night comedian Stephen Colbert.

Tickets for the event ranged from $225 to $500,000. It could shape up to be the most lucrative event for Democrats in history.

Democrats are unified and energized behind President Biden's reelection campaign -- and that will be on full display this Thursday in New York City," Biden-Harris spokesperson Kevin Munoz said. Munoz, in the statement, attacked Donald Trump, on the other hand, as lacking money and energy and facing challenges like reluctance from some GOP primary voters and criticism from his former vice president, Mike Pence.

The fundraiser is part of a major push by the campaign to raise a large sum of money before the end-of-month Federal Election Commission deadline to continue to show the president's fundraising strength. The campaign said it and the Democratic National Committee, along with their joint fundraising committees, raised $53 million in February.

The event also comes as Biden continues to see protests while campaigning over his handling of the Israel-Hamas war, with a rally at a Virginia theater in January seeing at least 14 disruptions.

Anna Wintour, editor-in-chief of Vogue, helped to spearhead the Thursday event along with movie mogul and Biden campaign co-chair Jeffrey Katzenberg, campaign finance chair Rufus Gifford and Biden Victory Fund finance chair Chris Korge, according to the campaign.

Select guests will have the opportunity to have their portrait taken with the three presidents by the famed photographer Annie Leibovitz. There will also be a virtual conversation with the three presidents and campaign manager Julie Chavez Rodriguez, ahead of an after-party hosted by the first lady and featuring DJ D-Nice.

The star-studded evening comes as Biden ramps up campaigning for the general election with seven months to go. Since his State of the Union address, Biden has crisscrossed the country to visit battleground states in what the campaign is calling a "month of action."

Last week, during a visit to the White House, Obama taped videos with Biden highlighting the 14th anniversary of the Affordable Care Act and for future fundraising. The former president has been featured in two of the campaign's digital ads so far this cycle, with more recorded and ready to roll out soon, according to the campaign.

The former president, who remains popular among Democrats’ base, has already proved to be a lucrative asset.

Grassroots fundraising content signed by or featuring Obama has generated more than $15.4 million for Biden's reelection this cycle, according to the campaign, with a "Meet the Presidents" event featuring Obama and Biden in December raising close to $3 million.

The Thursday fundraiser is the first joint public campaign event for Biden and Obama. The former president is expected to participate in major fundraising events and travel the country on behalf of Biden leading into November.

Given the stakes of this election, President Obama will do all he can to support President Biden's reelection," Obama senior adviser Eric Schultz said. "In fact, he looks forward to helping Democrats up and down the ballot make the case to voters this fall. Our strategy will be based on driving impact, especially where and when his voice can help move the needle."

Trump, meanwhile, is also fundraising off of the event, sending several emails as the Biden event was being planned with the subject line, "Obama is back!"

"I have something better," he said in a pitch last month. "I HAVE YOU & MILLIONS OF PATRIOTIC AMERICANS WHO WANT TO MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!"

Katzenberg called Thursday's event a "testament to the unprecedented fundraising machine we’ve built."

“Unlike our opponent, every dollar we’re raising is going to reach the voters who will decide this election — communicating the President's historic record, his vision for the future and laying plain the stakes of this election,” his statement continued. “The numbers don’t lie: today’s event is a massive show of force and a true reflection of the momentum to reelect the Biden-Harris ticket.”

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.


California State Bar recommends ex-Trump attorney John Eastman be disbarred for 2020 election efforts

Marilyn Nieves/Getty Images

(LOS ANGELES) -- The California State Bar has recommended that former Trump election attorney John Eastman be disbarred, a judge said in a filing on Wednesday.

Eastman was charged with multiple disciplinary counts by the State Bar of California last January from allegations that Eastman engaged in "a course of conduct to plan, promote, and assist then-President Trump in executing a strategy, unsupported by facts or law, to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election."

"Eastman's wrongdoing was committed directly in the course and scope of his representation of President Trump and the Trump Campaign," State Bar Court Judge Yvette D. Roland said in Wednesday's filling. "Eastman's actions transgressed those ethical limits by advocating, participating in and pursuing a strategy to challenge the results of the 2020 presidential election that lacked evidentiary or legal support."

"In view of the circumstances surrounding Eastman's misconduct and balancing the aggravation and mitigation, the court recommends that Eastman be disbarred," the judge wrote.

The judge found that Eastman exhibited an "unwillingness to acknowledge ethical lapses regarding his actions, demonstrating an apparent inability to accept responsibility."

The lack of remorse shown by Eastman, Roland said, "presents a significant risk that Eastman may engage in further unethical conduct, compounding the threat to the public."

In a statement to ABC News, Eastman's attorney Randall Miller said that Eastman maintains that the "handling of the issues he was asked to asses after the November 2020 election was based on reliable legal precedent."

"The process undertaken by Dr. Eastman in 2020 is the same process taken by lawyers every day and everywhere -- indeed, that is the essence of what lawyers do," Miller said. "To the extent today's decision curtails that principle, we are confident the Review Court will swiftly provide a remedy."

Investigators for the California bar said Eastman made "demonstrably false and misleading statements" with the memos he drafted that became the framework for the "legal strategies" aimed at having then-Vice President Mike Pence interfere with the certification of the 2020 election.

The disbarment proceedings, which began in June, featured testimony from Pence's legal counsel Greg Jacob, state election officials from several states, and experts who Eastman relied on for his false claims of widespread election fraud.

Eastman is also one of six alleged co-conspirators in the federal election interference indictment that special counsel Jack Smith brought against former President Donald Trump in August.

Separately, Eastman has been charged alongside Trump and other co-defendants in the separate criminal election interference case in Georgia. He has pleaded not guilty.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.


'This is the beginning, not the end': Republicans brace for continued abortion rights fallout

Grant Faint/Getty Images

(WASHINGTON) -- Republicans accomplished a longtime goal in 2022 when the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, scrapping constitutional protections for abortion. They've been faced with seemingly monthly electoral setbacks ever since, with no end in sight.

Democrats have made defending reproductive rights a rallying cry, seizing on it to defy expectations in the 2022 midterms and hoping it offers a life raft this year to a President Joe Biden, whose approval rating hit a new low in January, and down-ballot candidates running in his wake. And the fallout from the 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision has appeared ceaseless, sparking just recently a controversy over in vitro fertilization access in Alabama and this week's Supreme Court hearing on a challenge to the Food and Drug Administration's regulation of mifepristone, a widely used drug used in medication abortions.

That dynamic has many Republicans bracing for further electoral consequences, with few saying that they see an off ramp to the now routine flareups in the debate over abortion.

"This is the beginning, not the end. This issue is not going away anytime soon. There are many facets to this that are layered in federal policy, state policy, there's going to be court cases, there's going to be things that come up. We've had already this year an IVF challenge, we've had, now, the pill challenge. There's gonna be more of this," said GOP pollster Robert Blizzard.

To be fair, reproductive rights are not the only issue that could move the needle this November.

Israel's war in Gaza is dampening enthusiasm among Democrats' base; inflation, while declining, is still a major concern for voters, according to an early March ABC News/Ipsos poll of adults that found Americans grade Trump more favorably than Biden on inflation (45%-31%); immigration has been a constant thorn in the White House's side, with voters telling pollsters they trust Republicans more than Democrats to clamp down on unauthorized border crossings."

GOP operatives who spoke to ABC News frequently tied their conundrum around abortion to Democrats' struggles to convince voters that the parties share the blame over immigration concerns.

But on those other issues, there are at least action items, even if they may not ultimately succeed: diplomatic pressure could tamp down hostilities in Gaza, possibly ending the war months before Election Day; the Federal Reserve could lower interest rates to ameliorate inflation concerns; Biden could take already-teased executive actions on the border.

Republicans said they're still searching for action items on abortion that would prevent such flashes as the Alabama Supreme Court's ruling on IVF and the resulting controversies.

"It is the challenge that we have on a daily basis, and you never know what's next and what state or what member of Congress or state legislator's going to do something that rocks the boat on it," said one veteran GOP strategist who spoke anonymously to comment on such a hot-button issue.

"Just like we take advantage of the more liberal side of the Democrat Party, the Democrats are going to try to highlight some of the more conservative people on the right. That's the cards we're dealt, we're just gonna have to deal with it as it comes."

The electoral potency of the issue was put into sharp relief again Tuesday, when Democrat Marilyn Lands won a swing state House seat in Alabama. Lands focused much of her campaign around abortion and IVF, while Republican Teddy Powell centered much of his campaign around the economy.

Lands' win was in part attributed to a backlash to the state Supreme Court's IVF ruling. And while many Republicans privately and publicly lambasted that decision as beyond the pale, including by GOP standards, operatives conceded there's little that can be done to prevent a ruling or bill from making a splash in the future, even if it's widely viewed as unacceptable.

"The states have just started wrestling with one of the most intractable issues in American politics. And some state legislatures are going to overreach, and some state judicial rulings will overreach, and then they'll get corrected," GOP consultant Whit Ayres said. "We saw that with the IVF issue in Alabama, where the legislature and the governor rushed to confront and overturn a Supreme Court decision."

When asked if Republicans have to make peace with a pattern of overreach and correction, Ayres replied, "Yeah. That's the way the process works."

Republicans' challenge is rooted in a fundamental disagreement over how the party should approach abortion, with some advocating for some kind of federal policy like capping abortion at 15 weeks of pregnancy with exceptions for rape, incest and concerns for life of the mother, and others pushing a leave-it-to-the-states approach, keeping the party on the defensive.

"When you have inconsistencies across the country, it's easier for the other side to paint that in one broad stroke," Blizzard said.

Republicans in support of a federal policy like a 15- or 16-week limit with exceptions argue that could walk the line of taking action while not alienating too many voters.

"I think it's 15 weeks with exceptions on the federal level -- with states allowed to go further if they wish to. And I can't for a minute say that the entire movement has coalesced around that, but I think that's a winning proposal," said GOP strategist Bob Heckman.

Heckman added it would be "helpful" if former President Donald Trump, the GOP's presumptive White House nominee and de facto party leader, declared where he stands as a sign to the broader party.

The former president has floated capping abortion at 15 or 16 weeks of pregnancy, though he has declined to definitively lay out his stance -- a strategy that some predicted would change precisely because of the unpredictability of upcoming controversies around reproductive rights.

"I think for Trump, it's not feasible to not have a position. If you just say, 'leave it to the states, and I have no opinion beyond that,' I don't think that's feasible, because then you're stuck with anything that any state does," said Republican strategist Scott Jennings.

"What [Trump] could say is, 'look, I'm signaling my position. I think it's a reasonable position. I think it's where the Republican Party should be, and I think if you support me, you'd do well to take this position.' So, maybe that's where they're headed," Jennings added. "When he talks, Republicans listen, and they tend to adopt his views on issues, and so, I think it's likely that this will become the de facto position of the Republican Party."

Republicans who support a state-by-state approach, though, point to the existing lack of consensus and the ambitions of other lawmakers or conservative state courts to suggest that such federal policy isn't a panacea to the GOP's messaging woes.

"You've got a presidential campaign that usually sets the tone, and then you've got everybody else running in their Senate seats or congressional seats or even state legislative seats or statewide officeholders that are trying to be the most conservative on this issue or that issue. And even if there was a consensus at the federal level, that doesn't mean the state guys are gonna fall in line," said the veteran GOP strategist.

"There will never be an abortion policy that will be considered legitimate in both Massachusetts and Mississippi," Ayres added. "The idea that you're going to find some kind of national solution that will be accepted as legitimate around the country is a mirage."

When asked if he could think of any historical parallels of an issue that had such little consensus with such significant electoral repercussions, Ayres cited one of the country's most historically divisive issues: slavery.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.


Prosecutors say Trump team trying to 'rewrite indictment' in bid to dismiss Georgia election case

ftwitty/Getty Images

(ATLANTA) -- Attorneys for Donald Trump said that Trump's comments "calling into question" the election of 2020 were "the height of political speech," in arguments seeking the dismissal of the former president's Georgia election interference case Thursday.

Trump's lawyers were back in a Fulton County courtroom, where they argued that the election interference charges against Trump should be dismissed because his actions related to the 2020 election were "political speech advocacy that lie at the heart of the First Amendment."

Fulton County Judge Scott McAfee ended the hearing without making any rulings on the motions.

"I don't think there's any question that statements, comment, speech, expressive conduct that deals with campaigning or elections has always been found to be at the zenith of protected speech," Trump attorney Sadow argued, saying that even if Trump's statements were false, they are protected as a valuable contribution to public discourse.

"The only reason it becomes unprotected in the State's opinion is because they call it false," Sadow said.

But prosecutor Donald Wakeford fired back, telling the court that the former president's speech was part of a conspiracy to commit crimes.

"It's not just that he lied over and over and over again," Wakeford said. "It is that each of those was employed as part of criminal activity with criminal intentions. "

Arguing that Trump was part of a "criminal organization," Wakeford said that his speech was not protected by the First Amendment because he was using his words to commit crimes.

"It's not that the defendant has been hauled into a courtroom because the prosecution doesn't like what he said," Wakeford said. "What he is not allowed to do is employ his speech and his expression and his statements as part of a criminal conspiracy, to violate Georgia's RICO statute, to impersonate public officers to file false documents, and to make false statements to the government."

Wakeford also argued that Trump's motion to dismiss was premature and that it failed to form a basis to dismiss the indictment.

"What we have heard here today is an attempt to rewrite the indictment to take out the parts that are inconvenient and only say, 'Well, it's all speech ... and he was just a guy asking questions,'" Wakeford said. "All of this is an effort to get Your Honor not to look at the basic fact that this speech, this expression, all this activity is employed as part of a pattern of criminal conduct."

John Floyd, an expert on racketeering laws with the DA's office, argued that Trump's election comments could still be part of a criminal conspiracy even if they could be considered free speech.

"It doesn't matter whether that's First Amendment conduct or not ... this is a RICO conspiracy case," Floyd said. "It could be First Amendment protected conduct that also shows there's a conspiracy in operation."

Attorneys for Trump co-defendant and former Georgia Republican Party Chair David Shafer, meanwhile, asked the court to strike several phrases from the indictment, including ""duly elected and qualified presidential electors," "lawful electoral votes" and "false Electoral College votes."

Shafer's attorney Craig Gillen argued that the so-called fake electors cannot be defined as "public officers."

"Just because the fact that they were nominated by their party doesn't make them a public official," Gillen said. "This particular count is flawed for the very purpose of these electors cannot be under Georgia law, public officers."

"By law, by federal law, they did not have the authority," Gillen said.

A prosecutor for the DA's office argued that "anything that purports to be someone acting by authority of the government" is a public officer.

"It doesn't even have to be a real public officer, it doesn't have to be a state officer," the prosecutor said. "Anything that purports to be someone acting by authority of the government is a public officer, and that's certainly what presidential electors do."

Gillen also sought to have the team "fake elector" removed from the indictment, saying, "They want to have ingrained in the minds of the community and of jurors a concept that if you are not Democratic elector on December the 14th ... then you are a fake elector. That is a pejorative term, not necessary for the charges, and should be stricken."

"The phrase fake elector does not exist in this indictment," a prosecutor responded.

The hearing in Fulton County, Georgia, marks the first time that the parties in the case have returned to court since the failed disqualification effort against Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis. Trump and several co-defendants in the case received permission last week to appeal that decision.

Trump himself is not attending the proceedings.

Trump and 18 others pleaded not guilty last August to all charges in a sweeping racketeering indictment for alleged efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election in the state of Georgia. Four defendants subsequently took plea deals in exchange for agreeing to testify against other defendants.

Earlier this month, Judge McAfee dismissed six of the counts against Trump and his co-defendants, for soliciting the oath of a public officer, due to a technical fault in the indictment. McAfee ordered Thursday's hearing to consider three motions from lawyers for Trump and Shafer related to the dismissal of the indictment.

In their motion, Trump's lawyers argued that the First Amendment protects the former president's conduct related to the 2020 election, and makes the indictment "categorically invalid."

"President Trump enjoys the same robust First Amendment rights as every other American," Sadow argued in a filing. "The indictment here does not merely criminalize conduct with an incidental impact on protected speech; instead, it directly targets core protected political speech and activity."

"Every charge and overt act alleged against President Trump rests on core acts of political speech and advocacy that lie at the heart of the First Amendment," the filing said.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.


Former Senator Joe Lieberman dies at 82

Win McNamee/Getty Images

(NEW YORK) -- Former Sen. Joe Lieberman has died, his family announced Wednesday. He was 82 years old.

Lieberman died in New York City "due to complications from a fall," his family said in a statement.

"His beloved wife, Hadassah, and members of his family were with him as he passed. Senator Lieberman's love of God, his family, and America endured throughout his life of service in the public interest," the statement read.

Lieberman, a prominent Jewish politician who represented Connecticut, was Al Gore's running mate on the Democratic ticket in 2000. A political maverick who ultimately became an independent, he also nearly joined former Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain's presidential ticket as his running mate. The two were friends and were both defense hawks, advocating for a muscular U.S. posture abroad.

Lieberman became a player on the political scene again in recent years as the founding chair of the No Labels party, which is weighing launching a "unity ticket" in this year's presidential race, though no major candidates have said they plan to join.

Lieberman "meant so much to so many," No Labels said in a statement following his passing. "He was a beloved husband, father and grandfather. He was a senator and a statesman. He was the founding chairman and moral center of the No Labels movement.

"His unexpected passing is a profound loss for all of us," the statement continued.

"Senator Lieberman was a singular figure in American political life who always put his country before party. He was a deeply principled and pragmatic leader who believed public service was a privilege and who dedicated his life to the betterment of others. As a four-term senator, he led passage of transformative bipartisan legislation that made America's air and water cleaner, that made us safer after 9/11, and that expanded equality and opportunity for all," the statement continued, in part.

"Senator Lieberman leaves behind a void that cannot be filled," No Labels added. "But we are honored to have known him and we hope his family can find comfort in the difficult days ahead knowing the tremendous impact that he had."

Lieberman's funeral will be held Friday at Congregation Agudath Sholom in his hometown of Stamford, his family said.

Lieberman's former running mate, Al Gore, released a statement on X saying he was "profoundly saddened."

"I am profoundly saddened by the loss of Joe Lieberman. First and foremost, he was a man of devout faith and dedication to his family," Gore's statement read.

"Joe was a man of deep integrity who dedicated his life to serving his country. He was a truly gifted leader, whose affable personality and strong will made him a force to be reckoned with. That's why it came as no surprise to any of us who knew him when he'd start singing his favorite song: Frank Sinatra's 'My Way.' And doing things Joe's way meant always putting his country and the values of equality and fairness first.

"His fierce dedication to these values was clear even as a young man. When he was about to travel to the South to join the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s, he wrote: 'I am going because there is much work to be done. I am an American. And this is one nation, or it is nothing.' Those are the words of a champion of civil rights and a true patriot, which is why I shared that quote when I announced Joe as my running mate.

"It was an honor to stand side-by-side with him on the campaign trail. I'll remain forever grateful for his tireless efforts to build a better future for America," Gore's statement concluded.

Former President George W. Bush released a statement, calling Lieberman "one of the most decent people" he met in Washington.

"Laura and I are saddened by the loss of Joe Lieberman. Joe was as fine an American as they come and one of the most decent people I met during my time in Washington," his statement read. "As a Democrat, Joe wasn't afraid to engage with Senators from across the aisle and worked hard to earn votes from outside his party. He engaged in serious and thoughtful debate with opposing voices on important issues. And in both loss and victory, Joe Lieberman was always a gentleman. I'm grateful for Joe's principled service to our country and for the dignity and patriotism he brought to public life. As Laura and I pray for Hadassah and the Lieberman family, we also pray that Joe's example of decency guides our Nation's leaders now and into the future."

In a statement on X, former President Barack Obama expressed his condolences.

"Joe Lieberman and I didn't always see eye-to-eye, but he had an extraordinary career in public service, including four decades spent fighting for the people of Connecticut. He also worked hard to repeal "Don't Ask Don't Tell" and helped us pass the Affordable Care Act. In both cases the politics were difficult, but he stuck to his principles because he knew it was the right thing to do. Michelle and I extend our deepest condolences to Hadassah and the Lieberman family," his statement read.

Connecticut lawmakers honored Lieberman after news of his death broke.

"Connecticut is shocked by Senator Lieberman's sudden passing. In an era of political carbon copies, Joe Lieberman was a singularity. One of one. He fought and won for what he believed was right and for the state he adored. My thoughts are with Hadassah and the entire family," Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., wrote on X, formerly Twitter.

"On world and national stages, he helped to define and frame an era of history," Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., said in a statement. "He was a fierce advocate, a man of deep conscience and conviction, and a courageous leader who sought to bridge gaps and bring people together. He was dedicated to family and faith, and he was a role model of public service. He never ceased listening to both friends and adversaries. He leaves an enduring legacy as a fighter for consumers, environmental values, civil rights, and other great causes of our time and he was tireless in working for Connecticut no matter how far or high he went."

Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont, who beat Lieberman in the 2006 Senate Democratic primary but then lost to him in the general election when Lieberman ran as an independent, said they had ideological differences but honored Lieberman as "a man of integrity and conviction" and that "we stayed in touch as friends in the best traditions of American democracy" after their race was over.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., called his longtime friend's passing "devastatingly sad."

"Just heard of my dear friend Joe Lieberman's passing. As I am just now leaving Israel, so many emotions. This is devastatingly sad. I feel fortunate to have been in his presence, traveling the world in support of America's interests as we saw it," Graham said in a statement.

"To Hadassah, I know your heart is broken, but please understand your legion of friends love you dearly. To the Lieberman family, we will be with you through this journey. I look forward to sharing more thoughts about this wonderful man and the incredible life he lived.

"The good news, he is in the hands of the loving God. The bad news, John McCain is giving him an earful about how screwed up things are," Graham said, adding: "Rest in peace, my dear friend. From the Last Amigo."

Lieberman was the first Jewish American on a major party's presidential ticket and was known for his Jewish observance.

"Sen. Joe Lieberman was a true trailblazer, and represented the hopes, aspirations, and ideals of the Jewish community in the United States," the Jewish Federations of North America wrote on X. "As the first member of the Jewish community to run on a major party presidential ticket, he broke barriers and showed us what was possible, and always did so while holding strong to his values and moral outlook. Jewish Federations mourn his passing, and our thoughts are with his family at this difficult time."

The National Council of Jewish Women also mourned the loss of Lieberman, writing on X: "A trailblazer as the first Jewish candidate on the national ticket of a major party, he championed abortion access, LGBTQ+ equality and gun safety. Our communities are safer because of his leadership. May his memory be for a blessing."

"Joe Lieberman was a true mensch and a great American," former Sen. Norm Coleman, chairman of the Republican Jewish Coalition, said in a statement. "Time and again, Senator Lieberman put principle over politics. He was a shining example of all that's good and decent about public service. And he was a committed and proud Jew who served his country with distinction... I am proud to have known Joe and the Republican Jewish Coalition was proud to work with him over the years."

ABC News' Rick Klein, Kelsey Walsh, Mariam Khan and Oren Oppenheim contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.


What states could vote on abortion access, reproductive rights in November?

Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

(WASHINGTON) -- Advocates in as many as 14 states hope to get measures related to reproductive rights and abortion access on the 2024 general election ballot during a presidential election year, and as abortion access remains a major flash point in the United States, including at the Supreme Court.

It's not the first time abortion has been on the ballot. A ballot measure that supported abortion access passed in Ohio in 2023, while initiatives in Kansas and Kentucky saying the state constitutions don't protect abortion were defeated, respectively, by voters in 2022. Observers have speculated that the issue of reproductive rights is galvanizing voters across the political spectrum.

Here's a look at where reproductive rights might be on the ballot in November.

Where are initiatives confirmed on the ballot?

In two states, Maryland and New York, a measure that relates to reproductive rights is confirmed to be on the November ballot. Abortion is already broadly allowed in both states, and in New York until fetal viability, according to research by the Guttmacher Institute.

In Maryland, voters will decide on an act that would enshrine the right to get an abortion in the Maryland Constitution.

In New York, voters will see the Equal Rights Amendment constitutional amendment on the ballot, which would prohibit discrimination on the basis of various characteristics, including "reproductive health care and autonomy," according to the bill's text.

Where are initiatives gathering signatures?

In Arizona, advocates are gathering signatures for the Arizona Abortion Access Act ballot initiative, which would amend the state's constitution to prohibit the state from legislating against abortion up until fetal viability, and it would enshrine other abortion protections into law. Currently, according to the Guttmacher Institute, abortion is banned after 15 weeks in Arizona and under a variety of restrictions.

Arizona will also feature a high-profile Senate race on the ballot in November, likely between Republican candidate Kari Lake and Democratic candidate Rep. Ruben Gallego.

In Arkansas, groups are collecting signatures to get the Arkansas Abortion Amendment on the ballot. The initiative would amend the state constitution to prohibit the government from banning abortion further than 18 weeks and includes exceptions for rape, incest and the mother's health. Abortion is currently fully banned in Arkansas, with few exceptions.

In Colorado, where abortion is not restricted but where state Medicaid coverage for abortion is usually prohibited, dueling initiatives are currently gathering signatures.

The Right to Abortion initiative would "ensure the right to abortion" in the state constitution, according to the text of the initiative, while the Equal Protection of Every Living Child in Colorado initiative would add to state statutes language banning abortion fully in the state, framed around protecting children beginning at conception.

In Florida, the Amendment to Limit Government Interference with Abortion is a ballot initiative that would amend the state's constitution to prohibit the government from legislating about abortion "before viability or when necessary to protect the patient's health," according to the initiative.

In January, the petition surpassed the required number of signatures but is currently held up due to a challenge from Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody, which the Florida Supreme Court is supposed to rule on by April 1.

In Missouri, the Right to Reproductive Freedom ballot initiative would enshrine the right to reproductive freedom relating to reproductive health care, according to the petition text. Abortion is currently fully banned in the state with few exceptions.

In Montana, which allows abortion until fetal viability, a proposed ballot initiative would affirm in the state's constitution "the right to make and carry out decisions about one's own pregnancy, including the right to abortion" and would prohibit the government from "denying or burdening the right to abortion before fetal viability," according to the group Montanans Securing Reproductive Rights.

Montanans voted down in 2022 a measure that would have restricted abortion access. In November 2024, the state will also have a high-profile Senate race on the ballot, likely between Democratic incumbent Sen. Jon Tester and Republican candidate Tim Sheehy.

In Nebraska, the Protect the Right to Abortion initiative by the Protect Our Rights coalition would amend the state constitution to allow abortion up until fetal viability. Abortion is currently banned after 12 weeks in Nebraska.

Separate initiatives that would restrict abortion access or procedures have also been introduced in Nebraska, including a Protect Women and Children initiative that would ban most abortions after the first trimester. The initiative was launched in early March, according to Omaha ABC affiliate KETV. That initiative is not yet listed by the Nebraska Secretary of State's Office.

In Nevada, the Nevadans for Reproductive Freedom Political Action Committee is currently collecting signatures to put an initial vote to add a section enshrining the "fundamental right to reproductive freedom" into the state's constitution. Under the proposed section, according to the petition's text, the state would be allowed to legislate about abortion after fetal viability unless a health care provider says abortion is necessary. Abortion is currently banned after 24 weeks in Nevada.

If the initiative makes the ballot and passes in 2024, it would still need to pass another vote in 2026 to amend the state's constitution.

In South Dakota, which almost fully bans abortion, a proposed constitutional amendment would guarantee abortion access to preserve the life and health of pregnant women, would prohibit an abortion ban before the end of the first trimester, and would allow the state to regulate abortion through the end of the second trimester, according to the proposed amendment. A ban would be allowed at the beginning of the third trimester under the proposed amendment.

Where are initiatives undergoing state legislative action?

In Maine and Pennsylvania, proposed constitutional amendments to enshrine reproductive rights are currently in progress in the respective state legislatures.

In Iowa and also in Pennsylvania, amendments that would say there is no constitutional right to abortion in those states are in progress in those respective legislatures, as well.

The initiatives in those respective states need to go through various votes by the state legislatures before they can potentially be on the general election ballot.

ABC News' Libby Cathey, Hannah Demissie, Nicholas Kerr, Kendall Ross, and Kelsey Walsh contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.


Democrats sound alarm on RFK Jr. and new running mate, Shanahan

Tayfun Coskun/Anadolu via Getty Images

(WASHINGTON) -- Democrats are leaving no room for doubt on how they view former party colleague turned independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and his freshly minted vice presidential pick, deep-pocketed lawyer Nicole Shanahan: the pair are a danger to voters and present as a "spoiler" ticket, destined to siphon votes from President Joe Biden and deliver the White House to former President Donald Trump.

In a Democratic National Committee press call on Tuesday night, several party surrogates called Kennedy's presidential bid "disgusting" and a ploy to reelect Trump.

"All he can do is take away votes from President Biden and make it easier for Donald Trump to win. And we simply can't afford to let that happen," said Pennsylvania Lt. Gov. Austin Davis.

Michigan state Sen. Mallory McMorrow said the Kennedy ticket is "disgusting and an abuse of our democracy."

"There is absolutely no path for Kennedy to become president and he knows that," McMurrow said. "That is why he picked a VP who can fund -- who can buy his way onto the ballot in a number of state," McMurrow said. "First of all, that's disgusting and an abuse of our democracy. Second, that means that him being in the race means that there is a greater likelihood that Donald Trump will become president again."

Kennedy is working to gain access to each state's ballot, a painstaking and expensive process that requires dispatching volunteers to gather thousands of signatures. Initial news of Kennedy's consideration of Shanahan as his running mate prompted speculation that he simply wanted to tap her financial resources to help him cover the high cost of ballot access in each state.

Shanahan, who has donated millions of dollars to a pro-Kennedy Super PAC, partly bankrolled half of the $7 million used to create an ad that ran during this year's Super Bowl and displeased several members of Kennedy's extended family for its riffing on a John F. Kennedy Jr. campaign ad.

Several high-profile Democrats on the call pointed to praise of Kennedy's ticket from Republican hard-liners as justifications to their concerns -- one of the freshest examples as recent Wednesday morning, with Trump himself saying on his social media platform that Kennedy's candidacy is "great for MAGA."

"I love that he is running!" Trump wrote.

The DNC has sharpened its messaging significantly, assembling a team to combat third-party and independent challengers led by veteran strategist and firebrand Lis Smith -- with much of that ammo pointed directly at Kennedy, and now, Shanahan.

This tactic to combat Kennedy and other potential challenges by the official arm of the Democratic party is a marked change from past cycles, when concerns about third-party challengers such as Green Party's Jill Stein and Libertarian Gary Johnson were met with much less public consternation.

The DNC also tapped Smith's former deputy, Matt Corridoni, to be the spokesperson for the effort to thwart third-party and independent challengers.

"We're facing an unprecedented election and we know the GOP is already working to prop up third-party candidates like Robert Kennedy Jr. to make them stalking horses for Donald Trump," Corridoni said in a statement to ABC News earlier this month. "With so much on the line, we're not taking anything for granted. We're going to make sure voters are educated and we're going to make sure all candidates are playing by the rules."

ABC News' Will McDuffie contributed to this story.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.


There's a long road ahead to cleaning up Baltimore's Key Bridge collapse: Not 'quick or easy or cheap'

Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images

(WASHINGTON) -- In the wake of the Francis Scott Key Bridge's partial collapse in Baltimore on Tuesday, "Rebuilding will not be quick or easy or cheap," Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg said.

"But we will get it done," he told reporters at a White House press briefing on Wednesday.

Buttigieg reiterated the federal government's support for recovery, cleanup and construction efforts in the months -- and perhaps years -- to come but also acknowledged there will be logistic obstacles.

"It's not going to be simple," the transportation secretary said.

The original bridge took some five years to complete, he noted.

"That does not necessarily mean it will take five years to replace, but that tells you what went into that original structure going up," he said, adding, "We need to get a sense of the conditions, of the parts that look OK to the naked eye, but we just don't know yet, especially in terms of their foundational infrastructure."

"This will be a long and difficult path," he said, "but we will come together and rebuild."

Buttigieg said that he didn't yet have a precise price tag for the rebuild but stressed that there are ways for the federal government to begin providing emergency funding right away to aid the recovery.

“We don't have dollar estimates yet, but we actually have provisions that allow us to begin releasing funding even while that is being determined," he said. "My understanding is as we speak this afternoon, an emergency relief funding request has come in from the Maryland state [transportation department]. We’ll be processing that immediately to start getting them what they need."

Buttigieg said that he expects the White House will need lawmakers to authorize additional money beyond the approximately $1 billion allocated by the 2021 infrastructure law for potential emergency relief.

"It is certainly possible -- I would go so far as to say likely -- that we may be turning to Congress in order to help top up those funds," he said, "but that shouldn’t be a barrier to the immediate next few days beginning to get the ball rolling."

A cargo ship crashed into the bridge early on Tuesday, causing a near-total collapse of the span and halting vessel traffic into and out of the Port of Baltimore.

Buttigieg said at Wednesday's briefing that he’s concerned about the local economic impact of the port's ongoing closure.

"No matter how quickly the channel can be reopened, we know that it can't happen overnight, and so we're going to have to manage the impacts in the meantime," he said. "We’re working to mitigate some of those impacts."

He said he’ll be meeting Thursday with shippers and other supply chain partners to "understand their needs" during this disruption.

"That said, the Port of Baltimore is an important port, so for our supply chains and for all the workers who depend on it for their income, we’re going to help to get it open as soon as safely possible," he added.

President Joe Biden has likewise pledged his administration's muscle to the rebuilding efforts, saying in remarks from the White House on Tuesday afternoon that "it's my intention that the federal government will pay for the entire cost of reconstruction in that bridge. I expect the Congress to support my effort."

"This is going to take some time," the president said then. Nonetheless: "We're not leaving until this job gets done."

The crash appeared to be accidental, not intentional, officials have said.

Two people were rescued from the Patapsco River and at least six people remain missing, according to officials. The search-and-rescue mission for the missing construction workers was suspended Tuesday evening; operations then shifted to a recovery phase.

ABC News' Sam Sweeney contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.


Israel agrees to reschedule delegation visit to the White House: US official

Caroline Purser/Getty Images

(WASHINGTON) -- Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has agreed to reschedule his delegation's visit to the White House after he canceled the trip on Monday, a U.S. official told ABC News on Wednesday.

"The prime minister's office has agreed to reschedule the meeting dedicated to Rafah. We are now working to find a convenient date," the official told ABC News.

Israel pulled its delegation earlier this week after the U.S. allowed, through abstention, for the U.N. Security Council to adopt a resolution demanding an immediate humanitarian cease-fire in Gaza for the remaining days of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan -- and potentially longer.

The resolution called for the unconditional release of hostages being held by Hamas terrorists, though it did not explicitly tie that with a temporary cease-fire. The resolution further urged that the humanitarian pause should then lead "to a lasting sustainable ceasefire."

The White House said on Monday that it was "disappointed" and "kind of perplexed" that Israel canceled the delegation's planned visit to the U.S.

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre confirmed that the U.S. and Israel are working to set a date for the Israeli delegation's visit to discuss Rafah.

"We're working to set a date. The Prime Minister's Office agreed to reschedule this meeting," she told ABC's Selina Wang.

"We are working to convene ... that meeting, an important meeting on Rafah. And when we have a date, certainly we'll share that with you."

The decision to reschedule came after several members of President Joe Biden's Cabinet held "constructive discussions" with Israel's Defense Minister Yoav Gallant this week in Washington, D.C., the official said.

The official said that Rafah, a city in the south of Gaza bordering Egypt, was "one of the many topics discussed" during meetings with National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and CIA Director Bill Burns.

Netanyahu said that a victory against Hamas is "impossible" without the Israel Defense Forces entering Rafah to eliminate the rest of the terrorist group's battalions.

Hamas waged an attack on Israel on Oct. 7, which has led to months of conflict.

In the Gaza Strip, more than 31,000 people have been killed by Israeli forces since Oct. 7, according to Gaza's Hamas-controlled Ministry of Health. In Israel, at least 1,200 people have been killed by Hamas and other Palestinian militants since Oct. 7, according to Israeli officials.

The White House has said Biden has "deep concerns" Israel will not do enough to prevent civilian casualties as it goes after Hamas fighters in Rafah.

The Israeli military said that it plans to direct many of the displaced Palestinians living in Rafah toward "humanitarian islands" in the center of the territory ahead of any invasion.

ABC News' Selina Wang and Sarah Beth Hensley contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.


RNC won't pay Trump's legal bills, daughter-in-law Lara says, insisting 2020 election is 'in the past'

Kent Nishimura/Bloomberg via Getty Images

(WASHINGTON) -- Former President Donald Trump's daughter-in-law, recently elected Republican National Committee co-chair Lara Trump, said in a new interview that the national party doesn't plan to pay his ongoing legal bills and maintained that donors could opt-out of contributing funds for that if they want to.

Lara Trump also differed with her father-in-law on the importance of early and mail voting while insisting that Republicans are moving past 2020 election -- though, like Donald Trump, she continued to raise doubts about the results without offering any evidence of widespread fraud.

Appearing on NBC News on Wednesday, Lara Trump discussed a new joint fundraising committee linking the party and the Trump campaign.

The fine print on how that new joint committee is arranged suggests a priority is funneling money into the Trump campaign as well as a political action committee, Save America, that has paid a significant portion of Donald Trump's ongoing legal bills. One upcoming fundraiser for the new joint committee shows that Save America is ahead of groups like the RNC and 40 state party committees when it comes to the order for how donations are disbursed.

Lara Trump said on NBC, however, that donors don't have to give money that way.

"Anyone who does not want to contribute to that very small amount of money is able to opt out of that … [If you] don't want that specific amount to go to Donald Trump's legal bills, then you are very -- you can very easily opt out of that," she said.

She was referencing how the Trump campaign and the RNC are now raising money together through the joint fundraising committee -- where a small part of that money goes to Trump's Save America leadership PAC, which is able to pay the former president's legal bills. But donors could also choose to donate directly to the RNC or to a different fundraising vehicle that doesn't include Save America, according to an RNC spokesperson.

Though legal bills make up nearly 80% of Save America's total expenditures so far this year, according to financial filings, a Trump spokesman said in a statement that Save America also "covers a very active and robust post-Presidency office and other various expenses."

Lara Trump said on NBC that the RNC "does not support paying his legal bills, no." A previous effort to pass a formal resolution preventing that failed within the party, however.

Having said before becoming co-chair that "every penny" of the party's funds should be prioritized toward Donald Trump's reelection, Lara Trump has since modified that stance. On Wednesday, she appeared to take an expanded view of the party's responsibilities, noting that they'd also prioritize down-ballot races: "I will ensure that every penny of every dollar is going to causes that Republican voters care about."

Views on 2020 election

Lara Trump again voiced support for early voting and vote-by-mail efforts.

Donald Trump has occasionally spoken positively on in-person early voting, especially during the South Carolina primary last month when he repeatedly told his supporters at campaign rallies to go vote as early voting was underway.

Mail-in voting, however, is something he continues to publicly rail against, baselessly suggesting they allow illegitimate ballots.

"Anytime the mail is involved, you're going to have cheating," Donald Trump falsely claimed during an interview with GB News' Nigel Farage last week.

However, Lara Trump claimed on NBC that the former president would change his tune due to what she called the election security initiatives that the RNC is working on.

"We have to start encouraging Republican voters to do things like voting early, trust mail-in voting. These are ways that we actually can have a big lead as we head into Election Day," she said. "And these are things that traditionally Republicans have sort of shied away from. You look at things like legal ballot harvesting -- we've never embraced that as a party. We're embracing it this election cycle."

Of her father-in-law, she said, "I actually think if you talk to him right now, you will see that he is very much embracing early voting."

And though she claimed that "we're past that" when talking about the 2020 election, which Donald Trump continues to falsely claim was marred by fraud, Lara Trump also pushed unfounded claims about the security of that race.

"I think that's in the past. We learned a lot. Certainly we took a lot of notes," she initially said on NBC, referring to 2020.

When asked how Republican voters would trust the results of the 2024 election if Donald Trump loses and continues to doubt the results, she added, "I think that we're putting a lot of things in play right now at the RNC that are going to ensure that people have more trust."

She contrasted that with 2020, alleging that "there were so many issues in that election," drawing pushback from NBC about the multiple audits and lawsuits that ultimately found that the results of the election were legitimate.

Numerous local elections officials, from both political parties, certified the 2020 election results across the country and found there wasn't widespread fraud. No major legal challenge to the election was successful either.

ABC News has confirmed the RNC has been asking those seeking employment within the organization if they believe the 2020 election was stolen, according to a source familiar with the matter.

As first reported by The Washington Post, over the past few weeks, advisers to former President Trump have asked current and potential RNC staffers about their views on the 2020 presidential election -- serving as an apparent litmus test for hiring.

In a statement, RNC spokesperson Danielle Alvarez told ABC News: "Potential staffers who worked on the front line in battleground states or are currently in states where fraud allegations have been prevalent were asked about their work experience. We want experienced staff with meaningful views on how elections are won and lost and real experience-based opinions about what happens in the trenches."

'The reason that I'm here'

In her NBC interview, Lara Trump also seemed to split with the former president on abortion, though she claimed they were on the same page. She said that he "agrees with allowing the states to decide," though he has not publicly taken a position on backing a nationwide ban, as some Republicans have proposed.

He has said the issue is "probably better" to leave to the states. In private, he has expressed support for a 16-week national abortion ban with exceptions for rape, incest and to save the life of the mother, ABC News reported in February, citing two sources.

At the time, the Trump campaign did not deny the reporting but issued a statement that said he would work to find middle ground on abortion.

Lara Trump on NBC on Wednesday also dismissed criticisms of nepotism in her new role.

"I think the reason that I'm here is to assure people who ever had any question as to how their money is being spent -- can they trust the RNC? Can they donate to this entity?" she said. "Trust me, I am the daughter-in-law of Donald Trump."

ABC News' Hannah Demissie, Katherine Faulders and Rachel Scott contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.


Five takeaways as Supreme Court questions sweeping challenge to abortion pill access

joe daniel price/Getty Images

(WASHINGTON) -- The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday heard a challenge to the Food and Drug Administration's regulation of mifepristone, a widely used drug used in medication abortions.

In what was the most significant reproductive rights case brought before the high court since its conservative majority overruled Roe v. Wade in 2022, most of the justices, across ideological lines, appeared skeptical of restricting access to the abortion pill nationwide and repeatedly questioned whether the group of anti-abortion doctors who brought the case had standing to sue and seek such a sweeping remedy.

A decision in the case is expected by the end of June.

Here are five key takeaways from the roughly two hours of arguments.

Standing at center of debate: 'You need a person'

The arguments largely revolved around whether the anti-abortion plaintiffs, the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, had standing to bring this case -- specifically whether their clients had suffered the kind of injury from the FDA's regulation needed to meet the legal requirement to challenge it.

"The FDA approved mifepristone based on the agency's scientific judgment that the drug is safe and effective," Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, representing the federal government, said in her opening statement.

"Americans have used mifepristone to safely end their pregnancies. Respondents may not agree with that choice, but that doesn't give them ... standing or a legal basis to upend the regulatory scheme," she continued.

While mifepristone was first approved in 2000, Tuesday's hearing more specifically examined the claim that the FDA improperly relaxed regulations around using the pill in 2016 and 2021.

Prelogar argued that the doctors cited by the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine as having suffered conscience harm -- because they oppose abortion but contend they are forced to be connected to treating abortion patients through the widespread use of mifepristone -- don't "come within 100 miles" of standing as established by the Supreme Court precedent.

Justice Elena Kagan pressed the counsel for the group on this point directly, asking her: "You need a person ... So who's your person?"

Senior counsel Erin Hawley, defending the doctors, argued they did have proper standing because the FDA's "outsourcing of abortion drug harm to respondent doctors forces them to choose between helping a woman with a life-threatening condition and violating their conscience."

Anti-abortion doctors voice conscience objections

Hawley argued not having a nationwide injunction of mifepristone may require the anti-abortion doctors to treat people experiencing abortion complications and "take an unborn life."

Hawley also invoked the specter of an "intolerable" choice created by the widespread use of mifepristone if an anti-abortion doctor must consider treating abortion patients in an emergency situation or not.

She said plaintiffs have treated people experiencing abortion complications "dozens of times" and even said treatment may require "scraping out a uterus," She did not provide specific numbers.

However, Justice Amy Coney Barrett noted that two of the doctors cited by Hawley do not appear to have ever participated themselves in an abortion to terminate an embryo or a fetus. Barrett asked Hawley: "Do you want to address that?"

Hawley answered that precedent showed a doctor could claim harm of conscience and the FDA's action with regards to mifepristone created "substantial risk" that they'd have to ultimately confront a situation requiring them to, in her words, end the life of an unborn baby.

Prelogar said the federal government does believe that, with some exceptions, individual doctors still have broad "conscience protections" if they oppose abortion and decline to provide access to mifepristone and that federal laws already protect doctors in this situation.

Justices question if a sweeping ban is necessary

As Hawley voiced the objections of the anti-abortion plaintiffs, some justices pressed whether a sweeping ban was truly necessary.

if a nationwide reversal of the FDA's approval of mifepristone is needed because the court could simply rule that doctors do not need to prescribe the pill if they have conscience objections.

"Do we have to entertain your argument that no one in the world can have this drug in order to protect your client?" Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson asked Hawley.

"It makes sense for individual doctors to seek a [conscience] exemption but they already have that," Jackson said at one point in the arguments. "What they are asking for here is -- in order to prevent them from ever having to do these kinds of procedures -- that everyone else should be prevented from getting access to that medication. How is that not overbroad?"

Several other justices, including conservative-leaning Neil Gorsuch, also appeared leery of reinstating sweeping limits on the drug nationwide when only a handful of doctors were alleging harm.

"This case seems like a prime example of turning what could be a small lawsuit into a nationwide legislative assembly on an FDA rule or any other federal government action," Gorsuch said.

Hawley argued that given the "emergency nature" that could require doctors to treat women suffering abortion complications that result in terminating an embryo or a fetus, it is "impracticable" to have the doctors rely solely on their personal conscience objections without broader restrictions.

Gorsuch pressed Hawley on what he called a "rash of universal injunctions" the court has had to review, which appeared to reference the ruling from Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of the Northern District of Texas, who outright suspended the FDA's original approval of mifepristone potentially blocking access to the abortion medication across the country.

Kacsmaryk's decision led to the appellate fight which came before the high court this week.

Questions over potential 'harms' and FDA regulation

Prelogar and Jessica Ellsworth, who represented mifepristone manufacturer Danco Labs, both advocated for the drug's safety and defended the FDA's judgment -- warning of broader consequences for all drug approvals if the agency's expertise were, in their view, invalidated or undercut by the courts.

Justice Samuel Alito noted to Prelogar that the plaintiffs argued in court filings that studies have shown after the 2021 change from the FDA, which allowed mifepristone to be mailed, that there was an increase in emergency room visits.

Prelogar said the agency acknowledged that while some studies have shown the availability of abortion pills by mail led to more ER visits, this did not equate to "more serious adverse effects."

"Many might go because they are experiencing heavy bleeding which mimics a miscarriage and they need to know whether or not they are having a complication," she said.

Alito also asked Jessica Ellsworth, representing the drug manufacturer, if she believed FDA was "infallible" -- which she rejected.

Alito further questioned whether the FDA should have continued requiring prescribers to report non-fatal complications of mifepristone.

Justice Jackson, following up on whether Ellsworth believed the FDA was "infallible," pondered the alternative of having courts interpreting medical studies without specialized scientific knowledge.

"I think we have significant concerns about that," Ellsworth said, noting that Judge Kacsmaryk in Texas relied on, in part, two studies that were retracted earlier this year.

What about the Comstock Act?

Justices Clarence Thomas and Alito repeatedly asked counsels about the relevance of the Comstock Act, a 151-year-old law under which it's illegal to use carriers like the United States Postal Service to mail "obscene" materials such as drugs that induce abortions.

Prelogar told Alito she did not believe the law fell under the FDA's "lane" of responsibilities when he asked whether the agency should consider Comstock's provisions when regulating mifepristone.

Thomas questioned Ellsworth on why the legislation doesn't prohibit her company from mailing and advertising the pill.

Ellsworth responded that the Comstock Act has not been enforced for "over 100 years" and that she didn't believe this case presented the court an opportunity to "opine" on its reach. She also noted the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on mifepristone did not consider the Comstock Act argument made by the anti-abortion group.

"The FDA routinely approves drugs whose manufacturer and distribution is restricted by other laws, like the Controlled Substances Act, environmental laws, customs laws and so on," she said. "I think this court should think hard about the mischief it would invite if it allowed agencies to start taking action based on statutory responsibilities that Congress has assigned to other agencies."

ABC News' Devin Dwyer and Lalee Ibssa contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.


Austin to Israeli defense minister: 'Civilian casualties [are] far too high' in Gaza

Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

(WASHINGTON) -- Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin met with Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant on Tuesday -- a day after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu canceled the delegation to the United States that was going to discuss plans for an operation in Rafah.

Israel pulled its delegation after the U.S. allowed, through abstention, for the U.N. Security Council to adopt a resolution demanding an immediate humanitarian cease-fire in Gaza for the remaining days of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan -- and potentially longer.

The resolution called for the unconditional release of hostages being held by Hamas terrorists, though it did not explicitly tie that with a temporary cease-fire. The resolution further urged that the humanitarian pause should then lead "to a lasting sustainable ceasefire."

In brief remarks ahead of their meeting at the Pentagon on Tuesday, Austin said in his strongest terms yet that humanitarian considerations, such as the 1.5 million Palestinian civilians currently sheltering in Rafah and the acute threat of famine, must be confronted amid the war in Gaza.

"In Gaza today, the number of civilian casualties is far too high and the amount of humanitarian aid is far too low. Gaza is suffering a humanitarian catastrophe and the situation is getting even worse," Austin said ahead of a meeting with Gallant, who was at the Pentagon after meetings at the White House and State Department on Monday.

Austin raised humanitarian priorities as Israel plans an offensive in Rafah, a city in the south of Gaza bordering Egypt, a campaign Netanyahu has said is needed to root out Hamas. The White House has said Biden has "deep concerns" Israel will not do enough to prevent civilian casualties as it goes after Hamas fighters in the city.

The Israeli military said that it plans to direct many of the displaced Palestinians living in Rafah toward "humanitarian islands" in the center of the territory ahead of any invasion.

Hamas, a U.S.-designated terrorist group, waged an attack on Israel on Oct. 7, which has led to months of conflict.

In the Gaza Strip, more than 31,000 people have been killed by Israeli forces since Oct. 7, according to Gaza's Hamas-controlled Ministry of Health. In Israel, at least 1,200 people have been killed by Hamas and other Palestinian militants since Oct. 7, according to Israeli officials.

"We continue to share the goal of seeing Hamas defeated, so we'll discuss alternative approaches to target Hamas elements," Austin said, adding that there would be a discussion about "how we can dramatically and urgently ease the humanitarian crisis in Gaza."

Gallant did not mention humanitarian conditions or "alternative" military approaches in Gaza or Rafah, but previewed a discussion on continued U.S.-Israeli security cooperation.

"Today, we will discuss the developments in Gaza and the means to achieve our goals: the destruction of Hamas organization and bringing back the Israeli hostages back home," Gallant said.

Austin reiterated that the United States is an ally to Israel, saying that "we continue to share the goal of seeing Hamas defeated."

"Our security bond is unshakeable. The United States is Israel's closest friend, and that won't change," Austin said.

Yet Austin's characterization of the situation on the ground as a "catastrophe" is a more direct assessment than the Pentagon has previously offered -- as the Biden administration continues to warn of dire humanitarian consequences in the Gaza Strip.

After the U.S. changed course by foregoing a veto at the Security Council, the State Department said during Secretary Antony Blinken's meeting with Gallant on Monday, Blinken "reiterated opposition to a major ground operation in Rafah."

While Austin did not express public opposition to a military campaign in Rafah, in addition to his call for security "alternatives," he appealed for stepped-up humanitarian measures -- beyond aid corridors by the sea that the Pentagon is spearheading.

"We need immediate increases and assistance to avert famine, and our work to open a temporary humanitarian corridor by sea will help, but the key is still expanding aid deliveries by land," he said.

A report out earlier this month found that famine is "imminent" in northern Gaza amid ongoing high levels of food insecurity on the Gaza Strip as the Israel-Hamas war rages on.

President Joe Biden recently announced an "emergency" military mission to construct a port in the Mediterranean Sea on Gaza's coast to get humanitarian aid in.

A senior defense official said the port's main feature will be a temporary pier that will "provide the capacity for hundreds of additional truckloads of assistance each day."

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.


Texas Rep. Troy Nehls' campaign finances being investigated by ethics committee, he says

Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images

(WASHINGTON) -- The House Ethics Committee is investigating Rep. Troy Nehls, R-Texas, the panel said in a statement on Tuesday.

The committee did not specify what it is investigating and said it will make another announcement on the matter by May 10. The issue was first flagged to the committee by the independent Office of Congressional Ethics in December.

"The Committee notes that the mere fact of a referral or an extension, and the mandatory disclosure of such an extension and the name of the subject of the matter, does not itself indicate that any violation has occurred, or reflect any judgment on behalf of the Committee," Mississippi Rep. Michael Guest, the ethics chair, and Pennsylvania Rep. Susan Wild, the ranking Democrat, said in the statement.

Nehls stressed his cooperation and transparency in a statement issued after the ethics committee's announcement.

He also said the matter had to do with campaign money.

"I look forward to assisting the House Committee on Ethics inquiry into my campaign's finances," he said. "My campaign has complied with every Federal Election Commission (FEC) law, and my books are open."

A former sheriff, Nehls was first elected in 2020.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.


Weather

970 KSYL On Air Now

Sean Hannity
Sean Hannity
2:00pm - 5:00pm
Sean Hannity

94.7 ESPN On Air Now

Local Events

 

 

LSUA

 

LAB

Resources

Station Tour

Station Tour