The Supreme Court just handed down a near-unanimous decision on one abortion case that could change everything

Photo by Sora Shimazaki from Pexels

After Roe v. Wade was overturned conservatives celebrated the win of a decades-long battle.

Left-wing radicals saw it as a declaration of war on their right to choose whether babies are born or not.

Now the Supreme Court just handed down a near-unanimous decision on one abortion case that could change everything.

Teen who was granted abortion in Illinois, sues Missouri clerk for violating her rights

In 2018, a teenage “Jane Doe” filed a lawsuit requesting that she be allowed to abort her unborn child without the consent of her parents.

The girl, who lived in Missouri at the time, tried to get permission from a state court, but after her request was declined, she traveled to Illinois instead.

At the time, Missouri law prohibited minors from aborting their unborn children without permission from their parents.

In exceptional cases, Missouri would have let her proceed, but according to the court, this wasn’t an exceptional case.

The teen then took her case to Illinois where she was granted the abortion.

After getting permission from the state of Illinois to disregard parental rights, she decided that she would sue the Missouri court, alleging that a clerk violated her rights because he claimed she was required to notify her parents, and eventually claimed immunity. 

A federal district court in Missouri disagreed with the claim of immunity, and so did a U.S. Court of Appeals.

Now, the Supreme Court has weighed in.

Supreme Court backs the court clerk in the case with near unanimous favor

Nearly five years after the initial ruling that put court clerk Michelle Chapman in hot water, the Supreme Court has ruled in her favor.

They vacated the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals with 8 out of 9 Justices showing support for Chapman. 

The Court invoked “Munsingwear vacatur,” which states that decisions should be vacated if the case becomes moot while waiting for a review from a higher court.

This doctrine is generally used when the party most affected by a vacated decision did not cause the case to become moot.

The only Justice that ruled in favor of the teen’s right to sue the clerk was Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.

The radical left-wing activist Justice was appointed by President Joe Biden to replace Justice Stephen Breyer in the summer of 2022.

In her dissent she claimed that SCOTUS was using legal doctrine that wasn’t meant for such cases.

Justice Jackson had a lot to say, and called the action a “risk” to the Court of Appeals.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was lone dissenter at SCOTUS

Jackson criticized her fellow Justices’ decision, saying that she was “concerned that contemporary practice related to so called ‘Munsingwear vacaturs’ has drifted away from the doctrine’s foundational moorings.”

She said that Chapman did indeed contribute “to the mootness of this case insofar as she stipulated its dismissal.”

The radical Justice argued that this doctrine was reserved for “extraordinary” cases, and that the suit brought by Chapman did not meet her criteria for an exception.

“Chapman’s only argument in support of vacatur is that the Eighth Circuit’s opinion was wrongly decided,” Jackson said. “But mere disagreement with the decision that one seeks to have vacated cannot suffice to warrant equitable relief under Munsingwear.”

She went on to argue that the Court should “limit the availability of Munsingwear,” and “to do otherwise risks considerable damage to first principles of appellate review.”

Despite Justice Jackson’s dissent, the case was vacated.

This wasn’t just a win for the right to life or parental rights, but also for government officials’ ability to do their job.

US Political Daily will keep you updated on any developments to this ongoing story.