Update from the Heartland
No.1226
7.7.25 – 13.7.25
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
Next up on my list of end-of-session Supreme Court cases was Medina v. Planned Parenthood [606 U. S. ____ (2025)], a South Carolina case dealing with Medicaid processes. In the subject instance, the governor of South Carolina declared that all medical services facilities that perform abortions were “unqualified” to receive Medicaid funds, which in turn denied some Medicaid patients from choosing their preferred medical services provider as guaranteed by the law—Social Security Amendments Act of 1965 [PL 89-097; 79 Stat. 286]. The conservative 6-3 majority dramatically narrowed the use of a challenge provision of 42 USC §1983—Civil Rights Act of 1871 [PL 42-I-022; 17 Stat. 13]. The Court reversed both the district and appeals courts’ judicial conclusions and rejected the explicit and precise direction of Congress. Associate Justice Gorsuch wrote for the majority, and made it clear, they were not interested in the central issue at hand, only in reducing the number of §1983 challenges. Associate Justice Thomas sought to go farther in his concurring opinion to reinforce his personal judicial penchant for regression, i.e., the only valid interpretation and application of law is isolated to the context in which it was originally enacted. In her dissenting opinion, Associate Justice Jackson stated, “The dispute in this case arises from South Carolina’s failure to comply with [the ‘free-choice-of-provider’] provision. In 2018, the State’s Governor issued an executive order deeming all ‘abortion clinics’ unqualified to provide healthcare services and directing the State’s Department of Health and Human Services to terminate them from the State’s Medicaid program. That executive order would have forced two clinics operated by Planned Parenthood South Atlantic (PPSAT)—one in Charleston and one in Columbia—to stop serving any patients who rely on Medicaid.”
The federal law states that a citizen receiving Medicaid funding has the right to the Medicaid Act’s free-choice-of-provider provision. The State of South Carolina defied the federal law and decertified Planned Parenthood medical services. Both district and appeals courts determined that South Carolina had violated federal law. Yet, the conservative majority conveniently ignores that finding of fact and the law to devote their judicial attention on the §1983 provision of the law, allowing individuals and organizations to challenge governmental actions that violate their rights. I agree emphatically with Justice Jackson’s analysis of both the free-choice-of-provider provision of the Medicaid Act and her assessment of §1983 provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1871. The current makeup of the Court is indicative and reflective of the inhumanity of the current federal administration. These are the times in which we live.
In what appears to be a developing trend, the current conservative majority sitting on the bench of the U.S. Supreme Court prefers to hide behind long held biases and grudges to impose their regressive interpretation of the law. The latest example in my review pile is Trump v. CASA [606 U. S. ____ (2025); No. 24A884], a case dealing with the weighty constitutional topic of birthright citizenship. What does the conservative majority do to settle the matter? They concentrate their judicial attention on the growing district court use of “universal injunctions” to slow executive action not approved or sanctioned by Congress. The matter before the Court is Executive Order No. 14160, titled: “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.” Three separate district courts and three separate appeals courts found that Executive Order 14160 likely violated the Constitution, and as such, they granted a “universal injunction,” meaning they stopped the enforcement of a likely unconstitutional executive order for all potentially affected newborn children. The lower courts appropriately noted the explicit provisions of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment. Justice Barrett, writing for the majority, noted that the frequency of judicial “universal injunctions” has increased. What she refuses to acknowledge is the reason for “universal injunctions” was the increased frequency of executive orders stretching or exceeding the law and in some cases the Constitution. Yet, the conservative majority refuses to address the unconstitutionality of the president’s unilateral actions to concentrate their majority capacity on interpretative nuances in the application of the law. Once again, Associate Justice Sotomayor writes an exceptional dissenting opinion that excoriates the misguided and myopic majority as they oh so conveniently ignore the elephant in the room to focus their collective attention on a scurrying ant in the corner.
The various aspects of this ruling are perhaps the best illustration yet of the tension that the conservative majority imposed on the Court, on the Judiciary, and every citizen of the United States of America. I am also amazed, staggered, disappointed, and angry at the gross injustice perpetrated by Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky [13.2.2016]. His betrayal of the American People started this whole clown show. Because of the prevailing political intransigence, the current chief executive has chosen to ignore the Constitution, Congress, and history to take his unilateral action. Undeterred by the Constitution, the law, and history, the president issued EO 14160. I do not know whether [no name] actually believes in what he has done, or is he blindly listening to the hairbrained white supremacist, Christian nationalist advisors surrounding him?
Early on, I thought the Russian destruction of civilian targets was a product of war and inaccurate targeting. Long ago, I was dispelled from that foolish notion. Putin and his conservative faction are not interested in fighting an immoral war; they are only interested in punishing the independent-minded Ukrainian people, to raze the free nation to dust and rubble. It is our choice to stand around watching the destruction of Ukraine, which seems quite like those who witnessed the murder of Kitty Genovese [13.3.1964] . . . and did nothing!
Then, just two weeks after the Supremes issued their Trump v. CASA [606 U. S. ____ (2025)] ruling, federal Judge Joseph LaPlante for the United States District Court District of New Hampshire joined the party in the birthright citizenship question—Barbara v. Trump [Civil No. 25-cv-244-JL-AJ (2025)]. He certified a class action and issued a class-wide injunction against Executive Order 14160, to circumvent and satisfy the Supreme Court’s CASA ruling. Like the other judges before him, LaPlante notes the likelihood of the complainants prevailing under the law. Too bad the conservative majority refuses to acknowledge reality.
Once again, Robert Reich hits the nail square and sinks it in one stroke.
“Trump's Magnet of Malevolence – Why Miller, Vought, Bondi, Patel, Noem, Vance, Kennedy Jr., Rubio, and Hegseth are amplifying his cruelty”
by Robert Reich
Published: Jul 11 [2025]
https://robertreich.substack.com/p/trumps-magnet-of-malevolence
That is exactly as I see the state of [no name]’s second term as our employee. He has chosen to surround himself with sycophant, like-minded (at least prima facia), yes-women and men, who simply amplify der Lieber Anführermalevolence and disrespect for humanity in general. All I can say to the rest of the world is, that man does NOT represent the United States of America. We are much better than this. This too shall pass.
Comments and contributions from Update no.1225:
“Couple of items, Have been involved with continuum dynamic a CFD And R&D company in Princeton, NJ mainly SBIR type contracts and proposals with NASA and the military services.
“Was hot on a distributed instrumentation system for ONR and use on fixed wing and rotorcraft. Money got scrubbed in some of these cuts on R&D. consensus from CDI, Princeton University and other companies, doing R&D is little fingers administration does not understand the need for Applied R&D for future capability in all segments of the military and civil aerospace.
“Are you now in Wichita or Salina.”
My reply:
I certainly share your concern for the myopic perspective of the current administration. They seem to have no disquiet about adverse consequences on long term research and development objectives. [No name]’s direct assault on universities is tragic in so many ways. Thank goodness that Harvard is standing up to his idiocy. The long-range impact of Little Finger’s foolish crusade is incalculable and likely to have profound effect on engineering evolutionary improvements for a long time. We must remain hopeful—This too shall pass.
We came to rest in a small community on the northeast edge of Wichita—Bel Aire. So far, we like it . . . although there are irritants. We are still unpacking boxes, so I would not claim we are settled. Yet, things are beginning to settle, just so many things to do before we can claim to be settle. I need my routine—close but no cigar.
Comment to the Blog:
“Paramount Global paid off the Felon, but didn’t make any admission of wrongdoing.
“The One Big Ugly Bill is the law. The effect on ‘us’ depends on who you count as ‘us.’ Lower-income people including my family will pay more in taxes. Almost all services to society as a whole have been cut by this or prior actions, including the National Weather Service, NOAA, and FEMA. Medicare and Medicaid, both of which I receive, will be decimated. And I claim kinship to all humans; the ICE budget has been multiplied by 20. The concentration camps will cause major harm. The immigration case will aggravate that, and the deportation of US citizens threatens all of us.
“Elon Muskrat is threatening to create a new political party. His odds would typically be better than most due to the effect of big money on ballot access. His cognitive skills are higher than most. He also has stolen most government data, presumably including the Epstein files. However, his personal image (‘brand’) is in the toilet, and his sanity and drug issues will probably bring him down.”
My response to the Blog:
It is far worse than a simple pay off. [No name] criminally extorted US$16M from Paramount Global under the cover of his presidential executive authority. His suit was meritless and simply an ego-trip. Paramount had very few options. They traded CBS’s intellectual independence for the financial gain of their merger with Skydance Productions.
I thought my use of the plural pronoun ‘us’ was self-evident. Apparently not. So, for clarification, my use of ‘us’ was personal, not general. I recognize quite well that the “One, Big, Ugly” law will have dramatic impact on those least able to deal with the consequences. The law is tragic in epic proportions and will likely become the banner example of the inhumanity of the former Republican Party, and now the Bully-In-Chief Party (BICP). Yes, indeed, the deportation (or even de-naturalization) of U.S. citizens threatens us all. We must vote.
AG Bondi caved to the Felon-in-Chief by closing the Epstein case and file. Thank you for your observations regarding Musk. We shall see.
. . . Round two:
“I agree that the Paramount suit and settlement were morally/ethically heinous. I wanted to point out that not admitting wrongdoing gives CBS some legal freedom.
“It’s part of my moral values that my ‘us’ in a political or social context usually includes the general public. I’m specific when I mean more limited groups.
“There’s a question whether free and fair elections will happen. That’s one of my complaints about the DNC Democrats. They’re complacent.
“Epstein is dead, but the outcomes of his actions live on.”
. . . my response to round two:
True . . . but small distinction in the greater scheme of things.
Understood. Good point actually. Precise language is important.
I have faith in the election system. The vast majority are good, decent workers who strive to achieve free and fair elections. Unfortunately, there are always exceptions.
And, those consequences will likely live on for a long time.
. . . Round three:
“‘The election system’ needs some clarity. I trust most poll workers and local officials, but they don’t make the larger decisions. Our State Secretary of State and legislature do, and they’ve made it harder to vote this year. Gerrymandering continues unabated, despite being overturned by the State Supreme Court several times. And the Federal government has authority it can wield. ‘Free and fair’ elections are not to be counted on.”
. . . my response to round three:
You are, of course, quite correct. As with virtually all things and principles in a democracy, they are fragile. Republican legislatures are making it far more difficult to vote in the name of security. It is just another form of contemporary Jim Crow—Jim Crow v.2.0. Once again, their persistent efforts hurt the least able among us—another sign of the Republican inhumanity in our society.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
