ACLU Update: In Two Days' Time, The Supremes Will Likely Drop (Without Additional Comment) The Trump Appointees' Claim Of Misconduct...

Tonight, I am offering a gratuitous bit of what I am afraid may be "man-splaining" (to many) here, below.

But it likely closes out the foolishness started by 45's political appointee / Solicitor General, from our December 20, 2017 post, regarding the mentioned Texas undocumented teen's right to control her own reproductive choices inside her own body -- and her related family health calculations.

I belabor it, to lay out just how unhinged the Trump position truly is. It will be dumped as early as this Friday -- by the Supremes, without comment (which makes mine. . . mansplaining). Lawyers for Sidley & Austin have done an amazing job on this 30 page brief -- defending the integrity of the ACLU lawyers -- do go read it all:

. . . .The government’s concluding suggestion that this Court “may wish to issue an order to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken” against respondent’s counsel, Pet. 26, is both extraordinary and baseless. It finds no support in the facts or the law. . . .

The government’s recitation of events shows that: (1) Ms. Doe’s counsel made a series of accurate statements concerning the availability of, and logistics surrounding, Ms. Doe’s ability to obtain an abortion; (2) some government personnel may have incorrectly assumed that Ms. Doe could not obtain an abortion before October 26, even though she was legally entitled to obtain an immediate abortion, and had received state-mandated counseling on October 19; (3) some government lawyers may have believed that Ms. Doe’s counsel would advise them if facts changed; and (4) Ms. Doe’s counsel did not take affirmative steps to notify the government that the doctor who provided the counseling on October 19 agreed to come back to the clinic. The government’s suggestion that this might amount to sanctionable misconduct is not supported by legal authorities regarding attorney conduct, is not remotely justified by the disciplinary cases it cites, and is contrary to counsel’s respective ethical duties. . . .

In an effort to show otherwise, the government repeatedly claims that opposing counsel “represented” “that no abortion would take place until October 26,” Pet. 11; see also id. at 13, 14, 19. Yet no such representation appears in the emails or the declaration of the AUSA lodged with the Court by the Solicitor General that the government cites. Instead, the events recited in the petition indicate that Ms. Doe’s representatives stated at various times on October 24 that the physician who was available at the clinic on October 24 (who was not the physician who originally provided the state-mandated counseling) could provide a new counseling session, which would trigger a 24-hour waiting period. See 11/1/2017 AUSA Decl. ¶¶ 6–7. The government does not claim that any of these statements was false. . . .

The petition describes a course of events where many different parties were communicating into the night as events unfolded rapidly. Particularly given this fluid situation, and the government’s knowledge that Ms. Doe had sought throughout the litigation to obtain an abortion as soon as possible, it is striking that government counsel, by the government’s own account, neither requested that Ms. Doe forbear from obtaining the procedure while the government sought a stay from this Court nor sought confirmation of government counsel’s “understanding” that no abortion would occur prior to October 26. Absent such a commitment or confirmation, it was incumbent upon government counsel immediately to seek a stay. The government cannot now blame opposing counsel for its own failure either to act with its customary alacrity or to take any protective steps. . . .

Indeed. [Perhaps I'll be able to type it all a lil' more gently tomorrow. . . .]

G'night to all of good will.

नमस्ते