BOSTON – A fight is already brewing over the replacement for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, who announced his retirement this week.

President Donald Trump said he'll begin work on choosing Kennedy's replacement "immediately," and Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell announced that the Senate "will vote to confirm Justice Kennedy's successor this fall."

Democrats who are positioning themselves for a 2020 run – like Senator Elizabeth Warren – voiced concern on the steps of the Supreme Court building Thursday afternoon. She told the crowd there's 50 years of hard work on the line.

"Women's access to safe, legal abortions – on the line. Marriage equality, on the line. Voting rights, on the line. Worker rights, on the line. Environmental rights, on the line,” said Warren. “What's at stake? The future of America."

Warren described Democrats as "down in this fight, but not out." They want the selection and confirmation process for a new justice to wait until after the November elections.

With Kennedy's retirement, four justices selected by Republicans and four by Democrats remain on the high court.

Democratic leaders have pointed to the way Republicans held up the Supreme Court nomination of Merrick Garland, and eventually replaced him with Justice Neil Gorsuch.

While Kennedy was often the swing vote on the high court, Donald Trump's pick could tip the balance in favor of conservatives for years to come. Senator Warren said a Trump choice won't necessarily be selected.

"Donald Trump is not king,” said Warren. “No one makes it to the Supreme Court without going through the United States Senate. And in the United States Senate, everyone has a vote."

A key issue in the debate over Justice Kennedy's replacement is abortion rights. Planned Parenthood has said the defense of 'Roe versus Wade' – the case that protects access to safe, legal abortion – comes down to who's sitting on the Supreme Court.

All eyes will be on female Republican senators, such as Maine's Susan Collins and Alaska's Lisa Murkowski, in the debate.


get more stories like this via email

A case with national implications on the power of the U.S. president to use state National Guard troops to quell protests now rests with a panel of three district court judges after a hearing on Tuesday ended without a decision.

Gov. Gavin Newsom wants the court to force President Donald Trump to relinquish control of the California National Guard, which was deployed over Newsom's objections to Los Angeles following unrest over immigration raids.

Brett Shumate, assistant attorney general for the Civil Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, said the court has no power to review the President's decision.

"The President has the discretion to decide what level of forces are necessary to counter the threat, necessary to repel the invasion, suppress the rebellion or execute those laws," Shumate argued. "In the President's judgment, 2,000 National Guard are necessary to execute the laws in California and the record bears that out."

The governor and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass have countered local law enforcement had the situation under control. They contend the Guard's presence only inflamed tensions and raised the risk of violence. Schumate asserted the troops are essential to enforce immigration laws.

Samuel Harbourt, the attorney representing Gov. Newsom and the State of California, told the court the law requires the president to go through the governor, and denied the protests constituted an "invasion" or "rebellion."

"It would defy our constitutional traditions of preserving state sovereignty, of providing judicial review for the legality of executive action, of safeguarding our cherished rights to political protest," Harbourt outlined.

Harbourt noted the deployment in Los Angeles draws the California National Guard away from critical work at the state level, including wildfire prevention and drug interdiction.


get more stories like this via email

UPDATE: A statement about the arrest from the University of Cincinnati has been added. (8:10 a.m. MDT, Apr. 3, 2025)

A recent arrest on the University of Cincinnati campus is sparking outrage among civil rights advocates, raising new concerns about student speech, academic freedom and the treatment of Muslim and pro-Palestinian voices across the country.

A University of Cincinnati student was arrested this week - allegedly for waving a Palestinian flag. Videos posted online show five police officers tackling the student as he repeatedly asked if he was under arrest.

Khalid Turaani, CAIR-Ohio executive director, called the incident an attack on civil liberties.

"We unequivocally condemn the arrest of student activists and the alleged attack on freedom of speech and academic freedom. For police officers to attack a student for raising a Palestinian flag is beyond the pale as Americans," he said.

The University of Cincinnati released a statement on the incident:

"UC Police arrested a student who was protesting against a free speech demonstration occurring on campus that involved non-university affiliated preachers. Police officers warned the student several times not to impede the movement of the demonstrators. The student became involved in an altercation with the demonstrators and disregarded police officers' directions. Student was subsequently arrested for disorderly conduct and resisting arrest."

The Council on American-Islamic Relations said the arrest fits a troubling national pattern. Over the past month, students at institutions such as Columbia, Georgetown and Tufts have been detained. Some have been transferred to detention centers in Louisiana or had their visas revoked.

Turaani said Americans around the country should be cautious.

"It's creating an atmosphere that is reminiscent of the McCarthyist era where people are going to be assaulted or jailed or targeted because of things that they say or because of the belief that they have," he continued.

Turaani warned the recent wave of arrests could especially impact international and Muslim students, who may feel silenced for speaking out, and speaks directly to them.

"You are in the forefront of this civil rights movement. Everybody went through that. It seems this is our turn, to defend the civil rights of the rest of America for freedom of expression, for academic freedom, for human rights," he said.



get more stories like this via email

Debates over academic freedom and diversity initiatives have intensified nationally and in Ohio.

Senate Bill 1, known as the Advance Ohio Higher Education Act, proposes significant changes to the state's public higher-education system. The bill aims to ban diversity, equity and inclusion programs, prohibit faculty strikes and mandate post-tenure reviews for professors.

At the national level, the detention of Columbia University activist Mahmoud Khalil has sparked widespread protests.

Jay Saper, a member and leader for the group Jewish Voice for Peace, expressed deep concern.

"We are absolutely outraged that he has been abducted from his home for speaking up for Palestinian liberation," Saper explained. "As Jews, we understand what it means to experience fascism."

Khalil's detention has ignited debates about free speech and civil liberties, resonating with ongoing discussions in Ohio, where the bill's proponents, including bill sponsor Sen. Jerry Cirino, R-Kirtland, argued the legislation seeks to promote intellectual diversity and prevent perceived ideological indoctrination within Ohio's public universities.

Scott DiMauro, president of the Ohio Education Association, expressed concerns about the bill's potential effect on academic freedom and labor rights.

"There are very serious attacks on collective bargaining rights embedded in that law," DiMauro pointed out. "And it is one of these culture-war fronts where extremist politicians are trying to eliminate all efforts at inclusion and diversity and accessibility."

As Ohioans consider the implications of the bill, the broader national discourse on free speech and diversity initiatives in higher education continues to evolve. The bill now awaits consideration in the Ohio House of Representatives, where further debate is expected.

Reporting by Ohio News Connection in association with Media in the Public Interest and funded in part by the George Gund Foundation.