A volunteer clinic escort holds a sign outside a Planned Parenthood clinic in Columbia, South Carolina, on Friday, March 28. (Photo by Skylar Laird/SC Daily Gazette)

U.S. Supreme Court justices will hear arguments Wednesday about whether South Carolina can remove Planned Parenthood clinics from the state’s Medicaid program because they offer abortions in a case that could imperil health care options for patients with low incomes.

At the center of the lawsuit is a conflict over whether a section of the Medicaid Act gives people who use Medicaid the right to choose their providers.

“While it might be just South Carolina’s name on this court case, it will have huge impacts nationwide,” said Vicki Ringer, Planned Parenthood South Atlantic’s director of public affairs in the state. “It will allow all of these red states that have been trying so hard to close down Planned Parenthood, and it will take away medical care for so many low-income people throughout our region of the country.”

Opponents of Planned Parenthood said Republican South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster should be able to direct Eunice Medina, the new head of the state Department of Health and Human Services, to remove the organization’s Charleston and Columbia clinics from the list of qualified Medicaid providers.

If the court rules broadly, it could allow other states to make the same move — and some already have. The case is also part of a broader strategy across the country to drain Planned Parenthood funding for all services, including reproductive health care aside from abortion. Efforts by abortion-rights opponents to do so go back decades in the United States.

Republican President Donald Trump’s administration has taken interest in the case, Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic. The acting U.S. solicitor general will argue in favor of South Carolina health officials during a portion of the Supreme Court hearing this week.  

Lawyers for Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative advocacy firm instrumental in major anti-abortion cases that have appeared before the Supreme Court, represent South Carolina officials in the lawsuit.

“This case is about whether states have the flexibility to direct Medicaid monies to best benefit low-income women and families,” John Bursch, senior counsel and vice president of appellate advocacy at Alliance Defending Freedom, said in an email.

Planned Parenthood’s two South Carolina clinics offer abortion up to six weeks in compliance with state law. But staff also provide birth control, emergency contraception, prenatal and postpartum exams and STI testing and treatment, among other services. 

“Being able to deny Medicaid patients the ability to select their own qualified provider tells low-income women, especially, that once again ‘You’re not important. Your decision-making doesn’t matter. We are here to decide for you what is best,’” Ringer said.

The picture in South Carolina

McMaster’s executive order against clinics that also offer abortions — deeming them “unqualified to provide family planning services” — has been blocked by lower courts since 2018. Throughout a nearly seven-year court battle, appellate judges have repeatedly ruled in favor of Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, and the Supreme Court has rejected requests to take up the case — until now.

“South Carolina has made it clear that we value the right to life. Therefore, taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize abortion providers who are in direct opposition to their beliefs,” McMaster said in a Feb. 10 statement.

Nearly half — 48% — of South Carolinians surveyed in May 2024 oppose the six-week ban that’s in place, while 31% support it, and the rest were not sure or refused to answer, according to a Winthrop University poll last year. 

Ringer said South Carolina lawmakers’ anti-abortion positions are at odds with residents’ views on the issue.

“It’s political pandering, but it’s to a population that doesn’t agree with them,” she said. “They think because they’re elected, then that means we’re an anti-abortion, so-called ‘pro-life’ state.”

Like many states, South Carolina only allows Medicaid coverage of abortion in cases of rape, incest or to save a patient’s life.

Julia Walker, a spokesperson for the regional affiliate, said 10% of patients who routinely visit the South Carolina clinics for family-planning services use Medicaid.

Just 0.2% — $88,464 — of the $35 million the state spent on Medicaid-covered family-planning services went to Planned Parenthood in the 2022-2023 fiscal year, SC Daily Gazette reported. Medicaid is a reimbursement program, meaning providers foot the bill and seek at least partial reimbursement for an appointment or procedure.

A case study in Texas

Arkansas, Missouri and Texas — Republican-led states — have ended some clinics’ Medicaid eligibility for reproductive health care services because they provided abortions at one time or are affiliated with Planned Parenthood.

Still, clinic doors remain open in those states, despite ongoing lawsuits and right-wing wrangling that blocked Medicaid patients.

“Let’s be clear about where Texas was even before they cut Planned Parenthood out of Medicaid,” said Melaney Linton, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast, which still has six locations in the greater Houston area. “Texas already was suffering some of the nation’s worst rates of maternal and infant mortality, and highest under and uninsured populations.”

Most of Houston is in Harris County, an area that has one of the highest Black maternal death rates nationwide. Black women in the county had a pregnancy-related mortality rate of 83.4 deaths per 100,000 live births from 2016 to 2020, according to a report last year.

The maternal mortality rate in Texas from 2018 to 2021 was 28.1, compared with 23.5 nationwide, according to federal data.

Black Texans are 2.5 times more likely to die from childbirth-related issues than white Texans, according to the state’s Maternal Mortality and Morbidity Review Committee.

A judge ruled in March 2021 that Texas could stop Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid funds. Linton said the state’s actions cut off an estimated 8,000 Planned Parenthood patients.

Linton offered an example of a former patient who struggled to find a Medicaid provider who would accept her insurance and give her the birth control she was seeking. Only 34% of providers accepted Medicaid and had IUDs and birth control shots readily available for new patients, according to a University of Texas at Austin research brief.

“Politicians like to talk about how they care about women and infants and families,” Linton said. “If they did, they would do everything they can to make sure that women have more access to birth control, not less.”

Six months after Texas suspended Planned Parenthood’s Medicaid funds for reproductive health care services, the state enacted a six-week abortion ban. Teen birth rates skyrocketed in Harris County and across the entire Lonestar State for the first time in 15 years, data shows.

Linton said what happens in Texas is often replicated in other parts of the country, and the same will probably hold true for the South Carolina case before the U.S. Supreme Court this week.

“Every American should be concerned about that,” she said.

Long waits and limited options

If the Supreme Court rules in South Carolina’s favor, Bursch, the Alliance Defending Freedom attorney, said Medicaid patients can instead access family-planning services at publicly funded health care clinics instead of the Planned Parenthood clinics in Charleston and Columbia. The state has 53 public health clinics that offer family-planning services, 32 federally qualified health centers and 14 Title X federally-funded family-planning clinics, including Planned Parenthood’s Columbia clinic.

But public clinics are struggling financially, said Dr. Katherine Farris, the chief medical officer at Planned Parenthood in the Carolinas and the Virginias, in a news conference Friday. A patient may have to wait three months for an intrauterine device appointment at some of them, but at Planned Parenthood, she said, the patient can walk in and get an IUD insertion the same day.

Ringer and Linton also said finding a provider that accepts Medicaid and can see a new patient promptly is not so simple. 

“Doctors who at one time did take Medicaid aren’t anymore. It is a losing prospect for many providers,” Ringer said. “I’ve seen what Medicaid reimburses, and for many of the services we provide, we lose money on them. But because we are a safety-net provider, that means we provide care to people no matter what. If you can or can’t pay, we are going to take care of you.”

South Carolina and Texas are 2 of 10 states that have not expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act passed in 2010, Stateline reported.

When Planned Parenthood’s Texas affiliates were removed from Medicaid eligibility, Linton said the Gulf Coast staff tried to connect their Medicaid patients to other health care providers.

“Unfortunately, what our patients told us is that sometimes it took them three months or more calling around the 20 or 30 practices to find someone who would even take them. Many times they didn’t provide the birth control method that that patient had been accustomed to receiving,” Linton said.

Bursch and other Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys argue that if Planned Parenthood stopped providing abortions in South Carolina, Medicaid funding could be restored.

Planned Parenthood Federation of America attorney Catherine Peyton Humphreville said that South Carolina does allow some abortions to be provided in the state.

“At no point has anyone asserted that Planned Parenthood South Atlantic is not complying with South Carolina law,” Humphreville said.

No one has questioned the quality of care that the organization provides, they said, and the idea that Planned Parenthood can be punished for simply advocating abortion “has serious First Amendment issues.”

On Capitol Hill

Anti-abortion Republicans in Congress are pushing bills to “defund Planned Parenthood” and other abortion providers, including independent clinics, nationwide. Unlike previous sessions when Congress faced gridlock, legislation could advance this year given the GOP trifecta of power in Washington, D.C.

U.S. Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley filed legislation on Jan. 16 that would prohibit federal funding from going to organizations that provide abortions, referrals and the like, with the stated intention of cutting funds from “Planned Parenthood and abortion providers across the nation.” A 2019 rule passed by the Trump administration blocked $60 million in federal funds from flowing to the organization, Hawley said, before the rule was rescinded under Biden.

The Hyde Amendment, a provision approved annually by Congress since 1977, already prevents federal funds from covering the costs of abortion unless the pregnancy stemmed from rape or incest, or the patient could die in child birth.

Planned Parenthood Federation of America President and CEO Alexis McGill Johnson said the organization is prepared to defend itself from both state-level and national attacks.

“The most immediate focus is going to be on the Medicaid defund [bills] in Congress, and that has a direct tie to the Supreme Court case,” McGill Johnson said. “That fight looks like doing everything we can to defeat, delay, to litigate, to mitigate every effort that is trying to put sexual and reproductive health care out of reach.” 

The U.S. Supreme Court building. (Photo by Ariana Figueroa/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration submitted an emergency appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday in an effort to resume the rapid deportations of Venezuelans accused of gang ties under a wartime law that a lower court blocked.

Acting U.S. Solicitor General Sarah Harris argued in a brief to the Supreme Court that a federal judge’s temporary restraining order this month, and an appeals court ruling Wednesday upholding it, wrongly denied President Donald Trump the authority to make decisions about national security operations, including the removal of Venezuelan nationals the administration says are subject to the Alien Enemies Act of 1798.

“The district court’s orders have rebuffed the President’s judgments as to how to protect the Nation against foreign terrorist organizations and risk debilitating effects for delicate foreign negotiations,” Harris wrote in her request to the court.

The Alien Enemies Act had only been invoked three times, during the War of 1812, World War I and World War II.

The Trump administration has tried to use it in a novel way, when the nation is not officially at war. The administration designated the Tren de Aragua – a gang that originated in Venezuela – as a foreign terrorist group, and argued that any Venezuelan nationals aged 14 and older with suspected ties to the gang are subject to the proclamation.

U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg placed a temporary restraining order on the Trump administration’s use of the law this month, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the order this week. The administration asked the Supreme Court to lift the order.

“As long as the orders remain in force, the United States is unable to rely on the Proclamation to remove dangerous affiliates with a foreign terrorist organization—even if the United States receives indications that particular (Tren de Aragua) members are about to take destabilizing or infiltrating actions,” Harris said Friday.

Extending restraining order

Boasberg’s temporary restraining order placed on the use of the Alien Enemies Act is set to expire Saturday. The American Civil Liberties Union, which brought the suit, requested that order be extended for an additional two weeks.

The ACLU also plans to request Boasberg issue a preliminary injunction, which would block the administration from deportations under the act until the lawsuit is complete. A hearing is set for April 8.

Boasberg has rejected the Trump administration’s move to lift his restraining order, on the grounds that those subject to the Alien Enemies Act should have due process to challenge those accusations.

At the D.C. Circuit this week, Department of Justice attorneys for the Trump administration argued that those subject to the proclamation do not need to be notified they are being removed under the Alien Enemies Act. The Trump administration also argued that those who fall under the Alien Enemies Act can bring a challenge of their detention under a habeas corpus claim.

Defied verbal order

The White House quietly implemented the act on March 15 and a verbal restraining order given by Boasberg that day to block it went into effect hours later.

In that order, Boasberg barred the Trump administration from applying the act but three deportation planes landed in El Salvador after the order was issued. The Trump administration has argued that his verbal order was not enforceable.

Boasberg also ordered that anyone subject to the Alien Enemies Act be returned to the U.S., but federal immigration agents took more than 250 men aboard the three flights to a notorious prison in El Salvador.

Boasberg has vowed to determine if the Trump administration violated his restraining order in sending the deportation planes to El Salvador, but Attorney General Pam Bondi invoked the “state secrets privilege” to refuse to answer detailed questions about the flights.

Friday’s emergency request is one of several immigration-related appeals the Trump administration has made to the high court, such as the request to lift several nationwide injunctions placed on the president’s executive order that ends the constitutional right of birthright citizenship.

The U.S. Supreme Court, as seen on Oct. 9, 2024. (Photo by Jane Norman/States Newsroom)

This report was updated at 2:30 p.m. EDT.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court Wednesday overwhelmingly upheld a Biden-era regulation governing kits that can be assembled into untraceable firearms, also known as ghost guns.

In the 7-2 decision, Justice Neil Gorsuch, the author of the opinion, said that the regulation from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is “not inconsistent” with the Gun Control Act of 1968. The rule was written during the administration of former President Joe Biden.

In his opinion, Gorsuch said that the Gun Control Act allows the ATF to regulate “any weapon . . . which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive.”

“Neither the rule of lenity nor constitutional avoidance applies where, as here, the statute’s text, context, and structure make clear it reaches some weapon parts kits and unfinished frames or receivers,” he continued.

Conservative Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas wrote a dissent.

The case, Bondi v. VanDerStok, renamed to reflect Trump administration Attorney General Pam Bondi, raised the question before the high court as to whether a 2022 rule issued by ATF overstepped in expanding the definition of “firearms” to include “ghost guns” under a federal firearms law.

Wednesday’s ruling falls out of line with recent gun-related cases before the conservative-led Supreme Court that struck down a ban on bump stocks and struck down a New York law that banned concealed carry.

The nine justices initially heard oral arguments back in October.

Ghost guns are firearms without serial numbers. The kits can easily be bought online and quickly assembled in parts.

Law enforcement officials use serial numbers to track guns that are used in crimes and have raised concerns about how ghost guns can impede investigations involving firearms.

The regulation that was challenged by gun advocacy groups did not ban ghost guns, but instead required manufacturers of those firearm kits or parts to add a serial number to the products, as well as conduct background checks on potential buyers.

The ATF rule also clarified those kits are considered covered by the 1968 Gun Control Act under the definition of a “firearm.”

‘Buy Build Shoot’ kits

Gorsuch noted in his opinion that the statute in the Gun Control Act gives the ATF the authority to regulate any weapon designed to “expel a projectile by the action of an explosive” through two requirements.

The first is that there needs to be a “weapon.” The second is that “weapon” has to meet one of three criteria.

“It must be able to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive, designed to do so, or susceptible of ready conversion to operate that way,” he said.

The appeals court interpreted the ATF regulation as invalid because “no weapon parts kit” can meet those two requirements. Gorsuch said the high court did not agree.

“We disagree because, to our eyes, at least some kits will satisfy both,” he said.

In the Supreme Court’s reasoning, Gorsuch pointed to an example of a ghost gun kit – a Polymer80’s “Buy Build Shoot” kit.

He noted the kit came with all the tools needed to build a “Glock-variant semiautomatic pistol.”

“And it is so easy to assemble that, in an ATF test, an individual who had never before encountered the kit was able to produce a gun from it in 21 minutes using only ‘common’ tools and instructions found in publicly available YouTube videos,” Gorsuch said.

He said when assessing if the “Buy Build Shoot” kit applies to the two requirements, he first questioned if the word “weapon” could apply to a kit.

“Reflecting as much, everyday speakers sometimes use artifact nouns to refer to unfinished objects—at least when their intended function is clear,” he wrote. “A friend might speak of the table he just bought at IKEA, even though hours of assembly remain ahead of him.”

Gorsuch said the same logic can apply to the kit.

“But even as sold, the kit comes with all necessary components, and its intended function as instrument of combat is obvious,” he said. “Really, the kit’s name says it all: “Buy Build Shoot.”

As for the second requirement, Gorsuch noted the kit met it because “a person without any specialized knowledge can convert a starter gun into a working firearm using everyday tools in less than an hour.”

Thomas dissent

Justice Thomas argued that firearm kits do not meet “the statutory definition of ‘firearm.’”

Thomas also wrote the opinion on a 2022 decision that greatly expanded the Second Amendment by determining the New York concealed carry law violated the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.

“The majority instead blesses the Government’s overreach based on a series of errors regarding both the standard of review and the interpretation of the statute,” he wrote in his dissent Wednesday. “Congress could have authorized ATF to regulate any part of a firearm or any object readily convertible into one. But, it did not.”

He argued that the ATF regulation rewrites what a “frame” and “receiver” is on a weapon. Thomas wrote that ghost guns do not meet this definition because they are “unfinished.”

Thomas also pushed back against the majority opinion on how easy it is to assemble a firearm through a kit.

“Special tools and an indeterminate amount of time are required to convert an unfinished weapon-parts kit into a functional weapon,” he said. “Thus, even assuming that the ordinary meaning of ‘weapon’ does not resolve whether the term includes weapon-parts kits, at minimum the term ‘weapon’ cannot encompass weapon-parts kits in ‘the same way’ it covers disassembled firearms.”

Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts and Justice Elena Kagan attend U.S. President Donald Trump's address to a joint session of Congress at the U.S. Capitol on March 4, 2025, in Washington, D.C.  (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts on Tuesday rejected calls to impeach federal judges who issue rulings that block Trump administration policies, a rare public statement from the nation’s highest sitting judge.

“For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision,” Roberts said. “The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.”

The comments, provided to States Newsroom by a spokesperson for the court, came just hours after President Donald Trump vented his frustration with a federal judge on social media.

“I’m just doing what the VOTERS wanted me to do,” Trump wrote. “This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges’ I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!! WE DON’T WANT VICIOUS, VIOLENT, AND DEMENTED CRIMINALS, MANY OF THEM DERANGED MURDERERS, IN OUR COUNTRY. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!”

The post appeared to be directed at U.S. Judge James Emanuel Boasberg in the District of Columbia, who over the weekend blocked the Trump administration from deporting certain immigrants under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798.

The American Civil Liberties Union is arguing the Trump administration violated the judge’s order by not bringing back flights traveling to Honduras and El Salvador on Saturday.

Boasberg on Monday called on attorneys from the Justice Department to provide detailed information on the deportation flights over the weekend.

The U.S. House of Representatives must vote to impeach federal officials. Trump was impeached twice by the House during his first term in office.

The Senate then holds a trial, after which at least two-thirds of the lawmakers in that chamber must vote to remove the federal official from office. The upper chamber didn’t take that step during Trump’s first term and he was acquitted twice.

“The House has initiated impeachment proceedings more than 60 times; roughly a third of all proceedings have led to full impeachments,” according to a post by the Office of the Historian. “Just eight individuals—all federal judges—have been convicted and removed from office by the Senate.”

Ariana Figueroa contributed to this report. 

The Trump administration Thursday called on the U.S. Supreme Court to take action on three cases from lower courts dealing with the president's executive order ending the constitutional right to birthright citizenship.  (Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration Thursday called on the U.S. Supreme Court to limit the scope of three nationwide injunctions from lower courts against the president’s executive order ending the constitutional right to birthright citizenship. 

It’s the first time the administration has asked the high court to intervene in cases challenging President Donald Trump’s executive order that aims to redefine birthright citizenship, under which children born in the United States are legal citizens.

Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris is asking the Supreme Court to scale back the nationwide injunctions to apply to only the individual plaintiffs in the cases brought before federal courts in Maryland and Washington, or 18 people.

The Trump administration is asking for a full stay of a third suit filed by Democratic attorneys general in Massachusetts.

Harris argued “universal injunctions compromise the Executive Branch’s ability to carry out its functions….”

“These cases — which involve challenges to the President’s January 20, 2025 Executive Order concerning birthright citizenship — raise important constitutional questions with major ramifications for securing the border,” she wrote in her emergency request. “At a minimum, this Court should stay all three preliminary injunctions to the extent they prohibit executive agencies from developing and issuing guidance explaining how they would implement the Citizenship Order in the event that it takes effect.”

Appeals underway

The Trump administration has appealed to the 4th Circuit of Appeals the case from Maryland, brought by two nonprofits — Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project and CASA — that represent five women who are currently pregnant and do not have legal status. Other individual plaintiffs belong to the two organizations.

The Department of Justice has also appealed to the 1st Circuit the case out of Massachusetts brought by Democratic attorneys general.

The third case is in Washington state and the Trump administration has appealed to the 9th Circuit. It was filed by attorneys general from Arizona, Illinois, Oregon and Washington state and includes two individual plaintiffs.

The executive order that brought a flurry of legal challenges says that the federal government will not recognize or issue citizenship documentation to any child born after Feb. 19 to parents who are in the country without proper authorization, or if the parent is in the United States on a temporary visa and the other parent is a noncitizen or green card holder.

14th Amendment

The Supreme Court in 1898 upheld the 14th Amendment, in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, extending birthright citizenship.

In that case, Ark was born in San Francisco, California, to parents who were citizens of the Republic of China, but had legal authority to be in the country. Ark’s citizenship was not recognized when he left the United States and he was denied reentry due to the Chinese Exclusion Act— a racist law designed to restrict and limit nearly all immigration of Chinese nationals.

The high court ruled that children born in the United States to parents who were not citizens automatically become citizens at birth.

Attorneys on behalf of the Trump administration have argued that the case was misinterpreted.

The Trump administration contends that the phrase in the 14th Amendment means that birthright citizenship only applies to children born to parents who are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. That would mean, under their view, people in the U.S. without legal status or temporary legal status are “subject to the jurisdiction” of their country of origin. 

Reading Time: 2 minutes

The Supreme Court on Friday said it would take up a new religious rights case over whether a Catholic charitable organization must pay Wisconsin’s unemployment tax.

The justices will review a divided state Supreme Court ruling that refused to grant an exemption to the Catholic Charities Bureau, based in Superior, Wisconsin. The state court ruled that the work of Catholic Charities and four related organizations is primarily not religious, although it found that the motivation to help older, disabled and low-income people stems from Catholic teachings.

The case probably will be argued in the spring.

The Supreme Court in recent years has issued an unbroken string of decisions siding with churches and religious plaintiffs in disputes with states.

Lawyers for the Wisconsin groups argued to the court that the decision violates religious freedoms protected by the First Amendment. They also said the court should step in to resolve conflicting rulings by several top state courts on the same issue.

“Wisconsin is trying to make sure no good deed goes unpunished. Penalizing Catholic Charities for serving Catholics and non-Catholics alike is ridiculous and wrong,” Eric Rassbach, the lead lawyer for Catholic Charities at the Supreme Court, said in a statement.

Wisconsin Attorney General Joshua Kaul had urged the high court to stay out of the case, arguing that much of the groups’ funding comes from state and local governments, and the joint federal and state Medicaid program.

Employees don’t have to be Catholic and “people receiving services from these organizations receive no religious training or orientation,” Kaul wrote.

Catholic Charities has paid the unemployment tax since 1972, he wrote.

Wisconsin exempts church-controlled organizations from the tax if they are “operated primarily for religious purposes.” The state high court ruled that both the motivations and the activities have to be religious for organizations to avoid paying the tax.

A group of religious scholars, backing Catholic Charities, told the court that “the case involves governmental interference with religious liberty” that warrants the justices’ intervention.

Catholic, Islamic, Lutheran, Jewish and Mormon organizations also filed briefs in support of Catholic Charities.

At the state Supreme Court, the Freedom from Religion Foundation argued that a ruling for Catholic Charities would extend to religiously affiliated hospitals and some colleges across Wisconsin, potentially taking their employees out of the state unemployment insurance system.

Catholic Charities in Superior manages nonprofit organizations that run more than 60 programs designed to help older or disabled people, children with special needs, low-income families, and people suffering from disasters, regardless of their religion, according to court documents.

Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit and nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletter to get our investigative stories and Friday news roundup. This story is published in partnership with The Associated Press.

U.S. Supreme Court to hear Catholic Charities plea to avoid Wisconsin unemployment tax is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Reading Time: < 1 minute

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal from Wisconsin parents who wanted to challenge a school district’s guidance for supporting transgender students.

The justices, acting in a case from Eau Claire, left in place an appellate ruling dismissing the parents’ lawsuit.

Three justices, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas, would have heard the case. That’s one short of what is needed for full review by the Supreme Court.

Parents with children in Eau Claire public schools argued in a lawsuit that the school district’s policy violates constitutional protections for parental rights and religious freedom.

Sixteen Republican-led states had urged the court to take up the parents’ case.

Lower courts had found that the parents lacked the legal right, or standing. Among other reasons, the courts said no parent presented evidence that the policy affected them or their children.

A unanimous three-judge panel of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals included two judges Republican Donald Trump appointed during his first term.

But Alito described the case as presenting “a question of great and growing national importance,” whether public school districts violate parents’ rights when they encourage students to transition or assist in the process without parental consent or knowledge.

“Administrative Guidance for Gender Identity Support” encourages transgender students to reach out to staff members with concerns and instructs employees to be careful who they talk to about a student’s gender identity, since not all students are “out” to their families.

Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit and nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletter to get our investigative stories and Friday news roundup. This story is published in partnership with The Associated Press.

US Supreme Court rejects Wisconsin parents’ challenge to school guidance for transgender students is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.