GOP Confirms Another Trump Judge Who Was Rated ‘Not Qualified’ To Serve

Jonathan Kobes, 44, just got a lifetime seat on a U.S. circuit court. No big deal!

By Jennifer Bendery 

WASHINGTON ― Senate Republicans voted Tuesday to confirm one of President Donald Trump’s judicial nominees, Jonathan Kobes, even though Kobes has earned an abysmal “not qualified” rating from the American Bar Association.

Rest of the story Here 

Former Frat President Accused Of Drugging And Raping Woman Fined $400 And Set Free

Former Baylor University student Jacob Walter Anderson was indicted on four counts of sexual assault in 2016.

By Alanna Vagianos 

A former fraternity president at Baylor University walked away with a fine and no jail time on Monday morning after he was arrested on accusations of drugging and sexually assaulting a female student in 2016.

Fort Worth, Texas’ Star-Telegram reported on Monday that Jacob Walter Anderson, now 23, was given a $400 fine, a recommended three years’ probation and ongoing psychological, alcohol and substance abuse counseling. The victim, identified as Donna Doe in court records, said Anderson drugged and repeatedly raped her at a fraternity party when she was a 19-year-old sophomore. 

“I am devastated by your decision to let my rapist Jacob Walter Anderson go free without any punishment,” Doe said to Texas State District Judge Ralph Strother in court, according to the “Today” show.

The young woman then addressed Anderson directly, telling the former fraternity president he could’ve killed her. Doe originally told police she woke up alone and choking on her own vomit after the alleged rape.

“It must be horrible to be you,” she said, “to know what you did to me, to know you are a rapist, to know that you almost killed me, to know that you ruined my life, stole my virginity and stole many other things from me.”

Anderson was originally indicted on four counts of sexual assault, and faced two to 20 years in prison and a $10,000 fine. In October, Anderson was offered a controversial plea deal for a lesser charge of unlawful restraint, which he accepted and pleaded no contest. He was expelled from Baylor University after an investigation.

The victim’s attorney, Vic Feazell, told local outlet KWTX, “I never, ever have seen such a sweetheart deal for a defendant like this,” adding, “It pays to be rich and white in McLennan County when you’re charged with a crime.”

“Our entire system failed this young woman,” Feazell added in a statement to the “Today” show. “In 40 years of law practice, I’ve never seen anything like this.”

Assistant District Attorney Hilary LaBorde said in a Monday statement that this verdict was the best outcome given the facts of the case. 

“Conflicting evidence and statements exist in this case making the original allegation difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt,” she said. “As a prosecutor, my goal is no more victims. I believe that is best accomplished when there is a consequence rather than an acquittal. This offender is now on felony probation and will receive sex offender treatment, a result which was not guaranteed, nor likely, had we gone to trial.”

Doe urged Judge Strother to put Anderson on the sex offender registry in a victim impact statement she wrote earlier in the trial.

“What will they tell the next victim when she questions why she did not know Jacob Anderson was a sex offender?” she wrote.

“How does she think the girls in his current college classes feel knowing they could have been his next victim?” Doe continued. “I am writing this letter to hold the DA accountable to do their job and seek justice. To hold Jacob Anderson accountable for his crimes. He raped me. He almost killed me.” 

Baylor University has become somewhat notorious in recent years for a number of sexual assault cases involving students. Last year, a federal lawsuit filed against the school accused the university of fostering sexual violence and using sex to market its football program to players.

Mueller: Paul Manafort Broke Plea Deal By Lying To Investigators In Russia Probe

The special counsel’s complaint argues that the plea agreement with Trump’s former campaign chair is now invalid.

By Lydia O’Connor 

 

Special counsel Robert Mueller filed a complaint Monday alleging that former Donald Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort breached his plea deal by lying during his interviews with prosecutors.

Manafort’s lies, which are not specified in the complaint, nullify all the promises federal prosecutors made to him as part of the plea agreement he reached two months ago in the investigation over Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election, Mueller’s complaint argues.

“A breach relieves the government of any obligations it has under the agreement, including its agreement to a reduction in the Sentencing Guidelines for acceptance of responsibility, but leaves intact all the obligations of the defendant as well as his guilty pleas,” the filing reads.

Lawyers for Manafort, who pleaded guilty to conspiracy against the United States and conspiracy to obstruct justice as part of his plea deal in September, say the complaint is invalid. He was also convicted on eight counts of financial fraud in August in connection with his work as a political consultant in Ukraine.

Manafort’s plea deal with Mueller marked a major development in the special counsel’s investigation into Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. By agreeing to cooperate with Mueller, Manafort was expected to provide the investigation with valuable information about what, if any, role Trump’s campaign had in Russia’s interference in the election.

His decision to cooperate with the investigation all but guaranteed he could not count on a presidential pardon from Trump.

In rare rebuke, Chief Justice Roberts slams Trump for comment about 'Obama judge'

The president later responded on Twitter, defending his attacks on the Ninth Circuit for ruling against him in an asylum case.

By Pete Williams and Associated Press

WASHINGTON — In a highly unusual public statement, Chief Justice John Roberts rebutted President Donald Trump's statement that a ruling against the administration was made by "an Obama judge."

Asked Wednesday by the Associated Press about the president's comment, Roberts responded, "We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them."

He added on the day before Thanksgiving that an "independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for."

It's the first time the Republican-appointed leader of the federal judiciary has offered even a hint of criticism of Trump, who has previously blasted federal judges who ruled against him.

The president responded several hours later in a string of tweets, claiming there are, in fact, "Obama judges" and attacking the Ninth Circuit court.

Trump made his initial comment on Tuesday about the "Obama judge" in response to questions about Monday's ruling by Federal District Court Judge Jon Tigar in San Francisco that put a temporary hold on the administration's plan for refusing to consider asylum applications from immigrants who cross the border illegally.

 

"You go the 9th Circuit and it's a disgrace," Trump said. "And I'm going to put in a major complaint because you cannot win — if you're us — a case in the 9th Circuit and I think it's a disgrace. This was an Obama judge. And I'll tell you what, it's not going to happen like this anymore."

Tigar was nominated by President Barack Obama, but Roberts has consistently pushed back against claims that judges made decisions based on political considerations.

"I will not criticize the political branches," he said in a speech in October. "Our role is very clear. We are to interpret the Constitution and laws of the United States and ensure that the political branches act within them."

Even so, Roberts has had resisted responding directly to Trump's attacks on judges.

Trump said it was a "so-called judge" who issued the first federal ruling against his travel ban. During the 2016 presidential campaign, after calling for a wall on the southern border, he said U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel might be biased against him in a trial over Trump University because of the judge's Mexican heritage.

Trump's latest remarks come as the Supreme Court is enmeshed in controversy over his appointment of Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Several justices have spoken out about judicial independence and the danger of having the court viewed as a political institution that is divided between five conservative Republicans and four liberal Democrats.

The White House had no immediate response to a request for comment on Roberts' criticism on Wednesday.

Judge Orders White House To Reinstate Jim Acosta’s Press Credentials

By Carla Herreria and Marina Fang

Full story

This is a temporary order until the case goes to court, if it does.  

Trump EPA Official Who Fought Coal Cleanup Arrested On Criminal Ethics Charges

By Mary Papenfuss

Full Story

‘Deplorable And Inhumane’: Police Find 44 Dead Dogs In Woman’s Freezer

Detectives health department officials also discovered more than 100 dogs living in inhumane conditions.

By David Barden 

 

A New Jersey woman has been charged with animal cruelty after 44 deceased dogs were discovered stored in freezers throughout her home.

State police allege Donna Roberts, 65, also kept 130 living dogs in “deplorable and inhumane conditions in and around her home,” according to a statement posted to Facebook.

Detectives and officials from the Burlington County Health Department visited Roberts’ home on Tuesday to carry out an inspection. Once there, they “observed evidence of animal cruelty inflicted upon various breeds of dogs on the property.”

The odor of animal feces and ammonia permeated the inside of the home, which caused several of the responders to experience dizziness and nausea, the statement said.

While the demise of the deceased dogs remains under investigation, New Jersey State Police Superintendent Col. Patrick Callahan said the other dogs at the property were also kept in terrible living conditions.

“Troopers take an oath to protect and safeguard life, including the lives and well-being of pets, which can be vulnerable to abuse,” Callahan said.

Roberts was released from police custody with a pending court date.

Judge Cites Trump’s ‘Shithole Countries’ Remark In Ruling On Census Lawsuit

Such slurs are “evidence that official action may be motivated” by an “unlawful purpose,” according to the ruling.

By Mary Papenfuss 

A federal judge pointed to President Donald Trump’s shockingly disparaging comments about immigrants and foreigners in his ruling that allows a lawsuit to proceed that seeks to block a census question on citizenship status.

U.S. District Judge George Hazel said in a ruling in Maryland on Friday that plaintiffs had properly supported their claim that a Trump administration decision to add a citizenship question to the census for the first time in 70 years was motivated at least in part by discrimination.

In reaching his decision he cited Trump’s widely reported comment in January at a private meeting with lawmakers “distinguishing immigrants of color— ‘these people from shithole countries’—from white immigrants from countries like Norway,” the judge wrote.

Hazel also noted Trump’s “degrading comparisons of immigrants to ‘animals’ who ‘infest’ the country.”

While “these statements were not made specifically in relation to the citizenship question, they are nonetheless relevant to understanding the administration’s motivations,” the judge wrote. “And while the use of racial slurs, epithets, or other derogatory language does not alone prove discriminatory intent, it is evidence that official action may be motivated by such an unlawful purpose.”

The Justice Department had argued that the lawsuit by the plaintiffs — including the nonprofit labor-rights group La Union del Pueblo Entero — should be thrown out.

A number of lawsuits are arguing that the citizenship question will have a chilling effect on immigrants and keep them from participating in the census. The result would be to make the census inaccurate. It would also dilute immigrants’ political power because census data are used to draw electoral districts and determine how hundreds of billions of dollars in federal funds are allocated.

Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross added the question earlier this year, saying the answer would help the Justice Department improve enforcement of the Voting Rights Act.

It Just Got Even Easier For Republicans To Confirm Trump’s Judges

With a newly strengthened Senate majority, Mitch McConnell can plow ahead with reshaping the nation’s court

By Jennifer Bendery 

WASHINGTON ― With the Republicans’ loss of the House, President Donald Trump is going to have a much harder time passing bills through Congress. But he can keep chugging along with one of his legacy-defining efforts: confirming conservative judges in the Senate.

Senate Republicans are in a good position to pick up as many as three seats once all the midterm election votes have been counted. That will make it even easier for Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to put Trump’s nominees into lifetime federal court seats.

McConnell has already been confirming judges at a breakneck pace, but given the GOP’s slim majority in the Senate, he couldn’t really afford to lose a single Republican on those votes. Now he’ll have more wiggle room if a GOP senator or two wants to vote no.

McConnell has said all along that judicial confirmations are his No. 1 priority as Senate leader. That won’t change going forward.

“We intend to keep confirming as many as we possibly can for as long as we’re in a position to do it,” he told reporters on Wednesday. “It will still be my top priority in setting the agenda here in the Senate. In the next Congress as well.”

To date, the Republican leader has confirmed two Supreme Court justices, 29 circuit judges and 53 district judges. He’s confirmed so many circuit judges ― many of whom are strongly anti-abortion, anti-LGBTQ rights and anti-voting rights, and nearly all of whom are ideologues handpicked by the conservative Federalist Society ― that 1 in 7 seats on the U.S. circuit courts are now filled by judges nominated by Trump.

There’s not much Democrats can do over the next two years to prevent Trump from drastically reshaping the courts. Republicans have been blowing up Senate rules and traditions to get as many judges through as possible, weakening the few tools the minority has to put a check on unqualified or egregiously ideological judicial nominees. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has also made it easier for Republicans: He cut deals two times this year with McConnell to expedite votes on batches of lifetime federal judges in exchange for letting Democrats go home to campaign for re-election.

A Schumer spokesman did not respond to a question on whether the Democratic leader is willing to cut more deals to expedite votes on judges in exchange for something else.

But a senior Senate Democratic aide, who requested anonymity, defended Schumer’s last such deal. He argued that it minimized the total number of judges who might have been confirmed before the midterm elections because McConnell could have kept senators in town and teed up votes on even more nominees than the agreed-on 15.

“If we had stayed in session, McConnell could’ve confirmed more than the deal yielded,” said this aide.

The reality is that the GOP’s strengthened hand in the Senate won’t change much when it comes to lower court nominees. Republicans already vote in lockstep to confirm all of them ― including the two pro-abortion rights GOP senators, Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Susan Collins (Maine), who have voted for piles of anti-abortion judges. To date, only one Republican senator, John Kennedy (La.), has voted against one of Trump’s circuit judges.

But if another Supreme Court seat opens up in the next two years, McConnell’s increased majority means Trump could nominate someone even further to the right and have a better chance of getting that person through.

Carl Tobias, a University of Richmond law professor and expert on judicial nominations, said his hope is that Republicans will return to “real regular order” in the next Senate session. That would mean restoring bipartisan traditions like considering American Bar Association evaluations of judicial nominees before giving them hearings, allowing for meaningful consultations with Democrats on nominees from their states, and honoring “blue slips,” which give senators veto power over nominees from their states.

He’s not holding his breath.

“My hope is some GOP institutionalists will speak out, but it is difficult to see who that might be,” said Tobias. “One possibility is more nominees who are not qualified and the issues that can create, but shame and embarrassment don’t seem to matter.”

“The GOP acts like it will never be in the minority again,” he said.

Ruth Bader Ginsberg Falls and Breaks Three Ribs

I smell another Republican Supreme Court pick coming.

It doesn't really matter since Schummer and the Democrats already gave Trump 30 lifetime federal judges without debate, or investigating them. Another example of Democratic leadership.

Trump Administration Goes To Trial To Defend Adding A Citizenship Question To Census

The plaintiffs say the administration’s justification for adding the question is just a pretext to use the count to discriminate.

By Sam Levine 

 

The Trump administration is set to defend its controversial decision to add a question about citizenship to the 2020 census in a closely watched federal trial that will begin Monday in New York City. 

Controversy over the question immediately erupted when it was leaked that the Justice Department requested it in December so it could collect better data to enforce the Voting Rights Act. In March, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, who oversees the Census Bureau, announced he had decided to add the question. Civil rights groups and other critics say the question is unnecessary and designed to scare immigrants and other minorities into not responding to the decennial survey. An inaccurate count would have severe and lasting consequences because census data are used to draw electoral districts and determine how hundreds of billions of dollars in federal funds are allocated.

The census currently asks about citizenship in the American Community Survey, a longer questionnaire that goes out to more than 3.5 million households each year. It has not asked about citizenship on its decennial survey ― which goes out to every American household ― since 1950. The Voting Rights Act, the basis for the Justice Department’s request to add the citizenship question, was passed in 1965.

The case, State of New York, et al. v. United States Department of Commerce, et al., is likely to focus on the way Commerce Department officials made the decision to add the citizenship question. The plaintiffs in the case ― 18 states, the District of Columbia, several cities and a handful of immigrant groups ― say the decision to add the question was motivated by discriminatory intent. They say the Justice Department’s request was a pretext and Ross was set on adding the question before DOJ asked the Census Bureau to do it and ignored evidence and recommendations that he should not add the question. The Commerce Department also made the decision to add the question without testing it ― an unusual practice given that questions are typically added to the census only after they’ve been extensively tested.

The Trump administration says the question is not discriminatory and that Ross acted within his authority when he decided to add it.

While opening arguments are on Monday, the plaintiffs and the Trump administration have been fighting for months about how much information the government has to share about the decision. It’s easy to see why: The information the government has disclosed so far has substantially undermined its public justification for adding the question. 

The emails show Ross eager to get the question on the census far in advance of the Justice Department’s request and getting frustrated that it was taking so long. He also disclosed in June that he had discussed adding the question with “senior administration officials” ― including Steve Bannon, ― and that it was he who approached the Justice Department about adding the question, not the other way around.

When he announced the decision, Ross downplayed concerns that the question would lead to a lower response rate. But a January memo from the Census Bureau’s top scientist warned that adding the question would be “very costly, harms the quality of the census count, and would use substantially less accurate citizenship status data than are available from administrative sources.”

Attorney General Jeff Sessions reportedly personally blocked the Justice Department from meeting with Census Bureau officials to discuss alternatives to adding the question. 

John Gore, a top official in the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division closely involved in the request, said in a deposition he didn’t know if the data collected through a citizenship question would be any better than the citizenship data DOJ already has.

The case is likely to eventually be decided by the Supreme Court, which has already weighed in twice in the case. It agreed to block Ross from having to sit for a deposition and answer questions under oath about adding the question. The Supreme Court on Friday also declined to halt the trial over a dispute on what evidence U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman, an appointee of Barack Obama, can consider in the case.

In addition to the New York case, there are lawsuits in California and Maryland challenging the citizenship question. The New York case is the first to proceed to trial.

________________________________________________________________________________

The Supreme Court has tipped its hand on how it will decide this case and the president will prevail.  As the article states (quoting a Census scientist) this will effect greatly the results of the Census resulting in false numbers used to set voting districts and fund government programs. I have been following this story and you can read my archives for reference.

Appeals Court Orders Ohio To Count Purged Voters’ Ballots

A 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel’s emergency ruling likely will affect thousands of voters in next week’s election.

By Willa Frej 

A federal appeals court in Ohio issued an emergency ruling allowing provisional ballots cast by people purged from voter rolls to be counted in next week’s midterm elections.

In a decision likely affecting thousands of voters, a 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel determined that those purged from the rolls between 2011 and 2015 will be eligible to vote as long as they live in the same county where they were last registered. Anyone who re-registered before Oct. 9 should be able to vote with a regular ballot, according to the American Civil Liberties Union, one of the plaintiffs.

Ohio’s secretary of state, Jon Husted, said he won’t appeal the ruling to avoid “an unnecessary source of contention” days before the election.

Ohio removes voter registrations for people who don’t vote for several consecutive years and fail to notify the state of an address change. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June that Ohio’s aggressive voter purge practice was legal.

“Today’s ruling will allow Ohio voters ― who would have been unlawfully disenfranchised ― to cast their ballot this November,” Stuart Naifeh, senior counsel at Demos, another plaintiff, said in a statement. “In a state where elections have been won or lost by only one vote, protecting the right of eligible voters to have their voices heard will uphold the fundamental principles on which our democracy is supposed to operate.”

Fears of voter suppression have plagued several states ahead of the midterms. In Georgia, secretary of state Brian Kemp (R), also a candidate for governor, has been accused of stalling on over 53,000 voter applications, almost 70 percent from black applicants.

Supreme Court Blocks Deposition Of Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross In Census Citizenship Question Suit

The challengers in the case argued Ross had unique insight into the decision to add a citizenship question.

By Sam Levine 

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday blocked Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross from having to sit for a deposition in a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s decision to add a question about citizenship to the 2020 census.

The brief order from the court is a victory for the Trump administration, which fought hard to block Ross from having to answer questions under oath. It’s a major blow to the plaintiffs in the suit, a coalition of states, cities and immigrant groups that say the way the question was added violates the U.S. Constitution and federal law.

In testimony before Congress and in a memo announcing the question, Ross said the administration added the question at the request of the Department of Justice so that the department could better enforce the Voting Rights Act. But documents disclosed in the lawsuit show Ross was interested in adding the question months before the Justice Department made its request, and that he discussed it with Steve Bannon, a top White House adviser.

Ross’ deposition could have provided key insights into those conversations and how the decision was made. The plaintiffs likely would have used it to make their case that the Justice Department request was a pretext and that Ross, who has control over the Census Bureau, was set on adding the citizenship question before he even instructed census officials to study the possibility of doing so.

Civil rights groups strongly oppose the decision to add the citizenship question, saying immigrants will be less likely to respond to the census because they are fearful about giving information about their own immigration status or the status of a loved one to the Trump administration.

They say the question has a “discriminatory purpose” in violation of the Constitution’s due process protections, and that Ross violated federal law by deciding to add the question before the Census Bureau had reviewed it.

An inaccurate census would have severe consequences. The survey helps determine how hundreds of billions of dollars in federal funds are allocated, and how political districts are drawn. While the Census Bureau does ask about citizenship through the American Community Survey, which only goes out to a small percentage of households each year, it has not asked about citizenship on the decennial census, which goes out to every American household, since 1950.

It is not common for federal judges to order high-ranking government officials, including Cabinet secretaries, to sit for depositions. But U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman, the trial judge who is overseeing the case in New York, ordered Ross in September to sit for one. He reasoned that Ross’ “intent and credibility are directly at issue in these cases.”

“The concededly relevant inquiry into ‘Commerce’s intent’ could not possibly be conducted without the testimony of Secretary Ross himself,” Furman wrote in September. “Critically, that is not the case merely because Secretary Ross made the decision that Plaintiffs are challenging. ... Instead, it is the case because Secretary Ross was personally and directly involved in the decision, and the unusual process leading to it, to an unusual degree.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit upheld Furman’s decision in October.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions strongly criticized Furman’s ruling in a speech to the Heritage Foundation this month, saying it was an example of the federal courts overstepping their authority.

“The probing discovery of the kind ordered in the Census case is just the kind of intrusion Hamilton warned against,” Sessions said, according to prepared remarks. “And we are seeing it in case after case. When a hot-button policy issue ends up in litigation, judges are starting to believe their role is to examine the entire process that led to the policy decision — to redo the entire political debate in their courtrooms.”

The trial in the New York case is scheduled to begin in early November. There are also separate federal lawsuits in California and Maryland seeking to block the question from being added.

Chief Justice John Roberts Stresses Court’s Independence After Kavanaugh Confirmation

Roberts, speaking at a University of Minnesota event, acknowledged “the contentious events in Washington in recent weeks.”

By Dominique Mosbergen 

The complete report including multiple videos of Roberts speech is here. 

The following are excerpts from the report and Roberts speech:

Addressing the bitter, partisan battle over Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination, Chief Justice John Roberts reaffirmed on Tuesday the court’s commitment to independence.

Acknowledging what he described as “the contentious events in Washington in recent weeks,” Roberts ― speaking to a packed auditorium at the University of Minnesota ― stressed the importance of keeping the judiciary separate from “political branches” and warned of the dangers that can arise when the court bows to political pressure.

“I have great respect for our public officials. After all, they speak for the people, and that commands a certain degree of humility from those of us in the judicial branch who do not,” the chief justice said. “We do not speak for the people, but we speak for the Constitution. Our role is very clear: We are to interpret the laws and Constitution of the United States and ensure that the political branches act within them.”

“That job obviously requires independence from the political branches,” he continued.

“Without independence, there is no Brown v. Board of Education,” he said, referring to the landmark 1954 decision that outlawed segregated public schools. “Without independence, there is no West Virginia v. Barnette, where the court held that the government could not compel school children to salute the flag.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's all fine oratory about independent jurists, but Roberts has to explain why the Supreme Court has most of the time voted along party lines, especially his Supreme Court. 

Texas judge rules Indian Child Welfare Act unconstitutional: Ruling could have national impact

By Joe Bowen on Oct 12, 2018 at 7:02 p.m

BEMIDJI, Minn. — Some Bemidji-area American Indian leaders decried a recent Texas court ruling that could have national implications.

A federal judge ruled last week that the Indian Child Welfare Act is unconstitutional because it gives preferential treatment to American Indians and therefore violates the equal protection provision in the Fifth Amendment. The judge, U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor, also found that the act violated a piece of the 10th Amendment that prevents the federal government from asking states to modify their laws.

"We refuse to go back to the dark days before the enactment of the Indian Child Welfare Act when our children were forcibly removed from their families and their communities by state courts and state agencies without recourse," Darrell Seki, Sr., chairman of Red Lake Nation, wrote in a statement to Bemidji-area media on Tuesday.

"And the Red Lake Nation supports all efforts to have the recent wrongly decided Texas court decision reversed."

In a nutshell: the Indian Child Welfare Act asks states to place adopted or fostered American Indian children with, in order, other family members, a family in their tribe or another American Indian family before making them available for adoption by a family from the public at large. Enacted in 1978, "ICWA" was drafted amid concerns that contemporary adoption policies removed a disproportionate number of American Indian children from their tribes and cultures.
A 1977 report to the Senate estimated that American Indian children in Minnesota were removed from their homes and put in adoptive or foster care 520 percent more often than non-American Indian children.

"Indian nations, their greatest asset is their future, which is their children," said Nicky Michael, an indigenous studies professor at Bemidji State University and member of the Lenape, Delaware Tribe of Indians in Bartlesville, Okla. "There's a whole generation of what we call 'pre-ICWA' kids that don't know who their tribes are and don't know who their original families are...Even those children who had good adoption placements, they feel a lack of connection to something, oftentimes, until they find their tribe or their family. Even if they know they're native, they don't know anything about it and that causes a lot of anxiety and hurt as those children grow up."

The Texas ruling could raise broader questions of tribal sovereignty — a crucial concept for American Indians. O'Connor ruled that the act was based on race rather than political affiliation and citizenship to a tribe.

"And that's the problem," Michael said, echoing Native American Rights Attorney Dan Lewerenz, who compared American Indian adoptions to international ones in an interview with The Washington Post.

"This is a nation-to-nation relationship," Michael said.

Defendants in the Texas case have indicated they intend to appeal O'Connor's ruling, which could ultimately bring it before the U.S. Supreme Court. Michael said there's a "high" chance the Indian Child Welfare Act will be overturned there.

"That's when we stand to lose ICWA altogether," she said.

Legality of Abortion Before Roe/Wade by State

 
Abortion laws in the United States prior to Roe vs. Wade

   Illegal.

   Legal in cases of rape.

   Legal in cases of danger to woman's health.

   Legal in cases of danger to woman's health, rape or incest, or likely damaged fetus.

   Legal upon request


If Roe/Wade is overturned by the Supreme Court, abortions would become illegal in every State. The States would have to pass abortion, or anti-abortion laws individually, as it was before Roe/Wade.

The Federal government could make abortions illegal in every State in the Union, if both Houses passed such bills and the Supreme Court voted approval of those bills in an at least 5-4 majority.

It's very plausible the Supreme Court could overturn Roe/Wade, especially when the Republicans get one more judge on the Supreme Court. I doubt both Houses of Congress would pass bills to make  abortion illegal throughout the country. They would not have the votes for that. Another scenario would be if the Supreme Court had the correct worded case to decide the Supreme Court could outlaw States from allowing abortions, then the Congress would have to pass a law allowing States to have abortions if they wanted.

As you can see, only 4 States had abortion on demand before Roe/Wade.