SCOTUS rejects fast track for Trump election challenges; declines to hear abortion clinic ‘buffer zone’ case
A person walks by newly-placed barricades around the Supreme Court Building, the day after violent protesters loyal to President Donald Trump stormed the U.S. Congress in Washington, Thursday, Jan. 7, 2021. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)
ovp test
Male shot by female at Shreveport apartment
Class to create biodiverse backyard
Rules for outbursts at Caddo School Board Meeting
WASHINGTON (NewsNation Now) — The Supreme Court on Monday formally refused to put on a fast track, election challenges filed by President Donald Trump and his allies. The justices also declined to hear a “buffer zone” case involving free speech outside of a Pittsburgh abortion clinic.
ELECTION CHALLENGES BY PRESIDENT TRUMP
The court rejected pleas for quick consideration of cases involving the outcome in five states won by President-elect Joe Biden: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
The orders, issued without comment, were unsurprising. The justices had previously taken no action in those cases in advance of last week’s counting of the electoral votes in Congress, which confirmed Biden’s victory.
The court still could act on appeals related to the Nov. 3 election later this winter or in the spring. Several justices had expressed interest in a Pennsylvania case involving the state Supreme Court’s decision to extend the deadline for receipt of mailed ballots by three days, over the opposition of the Republican-controlled legislature.
But even if the court were to take up an election-related case, it probably wouldn’t hear arguments until the fall.
PITTSBURGH ABORTION CLINIC ‘BUFFER ZONE’
In addition to election challenges, the justices declined to get involved in a case about free speech outside a Pittsburgh abortion clinic.
The court’s decision not to hear the case leaves in place a 2019 appeals court decision that upheld a Pittsburgh ordinance creating a 15-foot “buffer zone” where protests are barred around entrances to health care facilities. The decision by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals allowed “sidewalk counseling” within that zone.
The appeals court said the city can restrict congregating, picketing, patrolling and demonstrating in the immediate vicinity of clinics, but the zone restrictions do not apply to “calm and peaceful” one-on-one conversations by anti-abortion activists seeking to speak with women entering a clinic.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that he agreed with the court’s decision not to take up this particular case because it “involves unclear, preliminary questions about the proper interpretation of state law.” But he said the court should take up the issue of buffer zones in an appropriate case.
