WASHINGTON — The Senate has passed legislation to beef up security for Supreme Court justices.

Lawmakers are seeking to ensure that justices and their families are protected as the court deliberates abortion access and whether to overturn the landmark Roe v. Wade decision.

The bipartisan bill passed by voice vote with no objections Monday.

While it doesn't provide additional funding, that could come later.

The measure aims to put the court on par with the executive and legislative branches, making certain the nine justices are provided security as some protesters have gathered outside their homes.

The legislation comes one week after Politico leaked a draft of a Supreme Court opinion that indicated Roe v. Wade would be overturned as soon as June.

The bill now moves to the House for its consideration before heading to President Joe Biden’s desk.

The Supreme Court could potentially expand second amendment rights as it takes a look at a New York law.

Currently, New York law requires people seeking a concealed carry license to show a “proper cause.”

In 2008, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to keep arms at home for self-defense.

Now a new case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association vs. Bruen, questions whether handguns can be carried in public for self-defense.

In order to conceal carry, New Yorkers must prove that they have a great need for the license and that they face a “unique danger” to their life.

Conservative justices are in favor of striking down the New York law, arguing that it goes too far and imposes a burden on the Second Amendment.

Some justices are open to considering to allowing New York to ban guns from crowded places.

Arguments were held in November, months before a gunman opened fire at a Buffalo grocery store and killed 10, and another opened fire at a Texas elementary school and killed 21.

A decision from the Supreme Court is expected in the coming weeks.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that suspects cannot sue a police officer for damages if they are not warned about their right to remain silent before being questioned.

In a 6-3 vote, the Justices sided with a sheriff’s deputy that a Los Angeles hospital worker sued for failing to read a Miranda warning after being accused of sexually assaulting a patient, the Associated Press reported.

The court ruled that although Miranda rights protect constitutional rights, the warning itself is not a right that could be brought about in a civil lawsuit, CNN reported.

In his majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito stated that “a violation of Miranda is not itself a violation of the Fifth Amendment,” nor do “we see no justification for expanding Miranda to confer a right to sue"  under Section 1983.

Those for it, including Justice Elena Kagan, wrote that the decision “prevents individuals from obtaining any redress when police violate their rights under Miranda.”

Warning: The above video is live and may be graphic in nature. Viewer discretion is advised.

The Supreme Court has ended constitutional protections for abortion that had been in place nearly 50 years in a decision by its conservative majority to overturn Roe v. Wade. Friday's outcome is expected to lead to abortion bans in roughly half the states.

The decision, unthinkable just a few years ago, was the culmination of decades of efforts by abortion opponents, made possible by an emboldened right side of the court that has been fortified by three appointees of former President Donald Trump.

The ruling came more than a month after the stunning leak of a draft opinion by Justice Samuel Alito indicating the court was prepared to take this momentous step.

It puts the court at odds with a majority of Americans who favored preserving Roe, according to opinion polls.

Alito, in the final opinion issued Friday, wrote that Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the 1992 decision that reaffirmed the right to abortion, were wrong the day they were decided and must be overturned.

Authority to regulate abortion rests with the political branches, not the courts, Alito wrote.

Joining Alito were Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. The latter three justices are Trump appointees. Thomas first voted to overrule Roe 30 years ago.

Chief Justice John Roberts would have stopped short of ending the abortion right, noting that he would have upheld the Mississippi law at the heart of the case, a ban on abortion after 15 weeks, and said no more.

Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — the diminished liberal wing of the court — were in dissent.

The ruling is expected to disproportionately affect minority women who already face limited access to health care, according to statistics analyzed by The Associated Press.

Thirteen states, mainly in the South and Midwest, already have laws on the books that ban abortion in the event Roe is overturned. Another half-dozen states have near-total bans or prohibitions after 6 weeks of pregnancy, before many women know they are pregnant.

In roughly a half-dozen other states, the fight will be over dormant abortion bans that were enacted before Roe was decided in 1973 or new proposals to sharply limit when abortions can be performed, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports abortion rights.

More than 90% of abortions take place in the first 13 weeks of pregnancy, and more than half are now done with pills, not surgery, according to data compiled by Guttmacher.

The decision came against a backdrop of public opinion surveys that find a majority of Americans oppose overturning Roe and handing the question of whether to permit abortion entirely to the states. Polls conducted by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research and others also have consistently shown about 1 in 10 Americans want abortion to be illegal in all cases. A majority are in favor of abortion being legal in all or most circumstances, but polls indicate many also support restrictions especially later in pregnancy.

The Biden administration and other defenders of abortion rights have warned that a decision overturning Roe also would threaten other high court decisions in favor of gay rights and even potentially, contraception.

But Alito wrote in his draft opinion that his analysis addresses abortion only, not other rights that also stem from a right to privacy that the high court has found implicit, though not directly stated, in the Constitution. Abortion is different, Alito wrote, because of the unique moral question it poses.

Whatever the intentions of the person who leaked Alito's draft opinion, the conservatives held firm in overturning Roe and Casey.

In his draft, Alito dismissed the arguments in favor of retaining the two decisions, including that multiple generations of American women have partly relied on the right to abortion to gain economic and political power.

Changing the composition of the court has been central to the anti-abortion side's strategy. Mississippi and its allies made increasingly aggressive arguments as the case developed, and two high-court defenders of abortion rights retired or died. The state initially argued that its law could be upheld without overruling the court's abortion precedents.

Then-Gov. Phil Bryant signed the 15-week measure into law in March 2018, when Justices Anthony Kennedy and Ruth Bader Ginsburg were still members of a five-justice majority that was mainly protective of abortion rights.

By early summer, Kennedy had retired and was replaced by Justice Brett Kavanaugh a few months later. The Mississippi law was blocked in lower federal courts.

But the state always was headed to the nation's highest court. It did not even ask for a hearing before a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which ultimately held the law invalid in December 2019.

By early September 2020, the Supreme Court was ready to consider the state's appeal.

The court scheduled the case for consideration at the justices' private conference on Sept. 29. But in the intervening weeks, Ginsburg died and Barrett was quickly nominated and confirmed without a single Democratic vote.

The stage now was set, although it took the court another half year to agree to hear the case.

By the time Mississippi filed its main written argument with the court in the summer, the thrust of its argument had changed and it was now calling for the wholesale overruling of Roe and Casey.

The first sign that the court might be receptive to wiping away the constitutional right to abortion came in late summer, when the justices divided 5-4 in allowing Texas to enforce a ban on the procedure at roughly six weeks, before some women even know they are pregnant. That dispute turned on the unique structure of the law, including its enforcement by private citizens rather than by state officials, and how it can be challenged in court.

But Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted in a searing dissent for the three liberal justices that their conservative colleagues refused to block "a flagrantly unconstitutional law" that "flouts nearly 50 years of federal precedents." Roberts was also among the dissenters.

Then in December, after hearing additional arguments over whether to block the Texas law known as S.B. 8, the court again declined to do so, also by a 5-4 vote. "The clear purpose and actual effect of S. B. 8 has been to nullify this Court's rulings," Roberts wrote, in a partial dissent.

In their Senate hearings, Trump's three high-court picks carefully skirted questions about how they would vote in any cases, including about abortion.

But even as Democrats and abortion rights supporters predicted Kavanaugh and Gorsuch would vote to upend abortion rights if confirmed, the two left at least one Republican senator with a different impression. Sen. Susan Collins of Maine predicted Gorsuch and Kavanaugh wouldn't support overturning the abortion cases, based on private conversations she had with them when they were nominees to the Supreme Court.

Barrett was perhaps the most vocal opponent of abortion in her time as a law professor, before becoming a federal judge in 2017. She was a member of anti-abortion groups at Notre Dame University, where she taught law, and she signed a newspaper ad opposing "abortion on demand" and defending "the right to life from fertilization to natural death." She promised to set aside her personal views when judging cases.

Trump, meanwhile, had predicted as a candidate that whoever he named to the court would "automatically" vote to overrule Roe.

Protests have broken out across the country in response to the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, ending the federal constitutional right to an abortion. Twenty-six states are expected to ban or severely restrict abortion rights as a result.

The first protests started in front of the Supreme Court building in Washington D.C., where demonstrators on both sides of the issue have been largely present since the leaked draft opinion of the Supreme Court's intentions to overturn the landmark case was reported by Politico in early May.

Protests have also started to form in almost every major city around the country, and they are expected to continue to grow throughout the day and into the night.

Washington D.C.

Police in the nation’s capital are bringing in additional officers and mobilizing in anticipation of the protests growing outside the U.S. Supreme Court.

“I can’t believe it’s real,” Lauren Marlowe, 22, an anti-abortion demonstrator, said to The Washington Post. Marlowe shrieked and embraced her friends when the decision came down. “I just want to hug everyone. … We’re in a post-Roe America now.”

Tanya Matthews, a 26-year-old masters student from Charleston, South Carolina, also spoke to The Washington Post, telling them she had an abortion at 19, supports abortion rights and was dismayed by the celebratory crowd of anti-abortion activists.

“It feels like we’re at a Justin Bieber concert,” Matthews said. “They don’t understand the gravity of this decision. Just because it’s not legal doesn’t mean it isn’t going to happen.”

It was also being reported that traffic on Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge, just a few miles away from the Supreme Court, was shut down in the morning due to a demonstrator who climbed to the top of a 70-foot-tall archway, displaying a flag or a banner reading: “Don’t tread on my uterus.”

Protests have also started to form in almost every major city around the country, and they are expected to continue to grow throughout the day and into the night.

Boston, Massachusetts

Thousands of protesters marched through the streets of downtown Boston Friday evening, hours after the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

The abortion-rights advocates blocked traffic and in some cases were sitting in intersections between Boston Common and Copley Square.

Video below: Downtown Boston protest following SCOTUS abortion

The protesters were calling for abortion rights for women and reproductive rights for people, according to sister station WCVB.

Louisville, Kentucky

An abortion rights rally is underway at the federal courthouse in downtown Louisville.

It started at 4:30 p.m. with several people gathering in opposition to Friday's Supreme Court ruling. They started marching just before 6 p.m.

Video below: Abortion rights rally outside Louisville's federal courthouse

Roe v. Wade has been in place for nearly 50 years, protecting abortion rights. Overturning it now puts abortion laws in the hands of the states.

For Kentucky, that meant an immediate ban on abortions because the state has had a "trigger law" in place since 2019. That law guaranteed that if Roe v. Wade was ever overturned, abortions would abruptly become illegal.

Madison, Wisconsin

After the U.S. Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe v. Wade, dozens of people took to Capitol Square in Madison — some in celebration and others in protest.

There's one word that reporters from sister station WISN said they heard over and over again when they asked protesters why they were there: anger.

But there is a small minority who are also there celebrating the news.

Within minutes of the ruling being announced, protestor Jessica Warwick went out to buy poster board and a marker, and then went straight to the Capitol.

Video below: Protesters gather at Wisconsin's Capitol after U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Roe v. Wade

"Right now, the only power that a lot of us have is to stop working. Don't do it. Withhold your labor. Because this is — because what's going on right now is wrong. It's wrong," Warwick said.

As the day went on, the numbers gathered on the Capitol steps grew.

"My anger was so overwhelming I felt that I needed to do something, and this was all I could do at the moment," protester Donna Volk said.

Manchester, New Hampshire

The decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to invalidate Roe v. Wade and overturn the constitutional right to abortion drew strong reactions in New Hampshire from people on both sides of the issue.

Outside the state Supreme Court, a large crowd of supporters of abortion rights gathered to speak out against the decision and call for abortion to remain accessible in the Granite State.

"I think this is going to be painful and dangerous and everyone is going to suffer," said one woman at the rally, who said she remembers what it was like 50 years ago, before Roe v. Wade. "This is a big mistake, and I think there are going to be political repercussions all the way down the line."

Devon Chaffee, of the ACLU of New Hampshire, said the legal implications of the Supreme Court decision will likely be sorted out in the coming months and years. But in dozens of states across the country, pregnant people are already being faced with new challenges.

Video below: Rallies held after US Supreme Court decision on Roe v. Wade

In New Hampshire, abortion is legal up to 24 weeks.

"So, if people want to access an abortion, they can," Chaffee said. "If they have an appointment, they should keep it."

"We've been preparing for this moment for years," said Kayla Montgomery, of Planned Parenthood of Northern New England.

Opponents of abortion rights said Friday was a day for celebration and something they have been waiting for for 49 years. Jason Hennessey, of New Hampshire Right to Life, said the decision is a cause for relief and joy.

"In New Hampshire, this has actually been a year of jubilee," he said. "We have the first protections for the unborn in years that came into effect in January, and now this, in the 49th year of Roe v. Wade, New Hampshire is now free to protect the life and liberty of all its citizens."

Some lawmakers said the decision opens the door to changes in the law, though nothing changes immediately in New Hampshire in the wake of the decision.

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Hundreds of people have gathered in downtown Pittsburgh at a rally for abortion rights, following the U.S. Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

The event is being held outside the City-County Building on Grant Street.

Speakers include Mayor Ed Gainey and state Rep. Summer Lee, the Democratic nominee for Pennsylvania's 12th Congressional District.

People who support the Supreme Court decision are also in the crowd.

Lancaster, Pennsylvania

An abortion rights rally is underway in Lancaster.

The event that started at 6 p.m. at Musser Park is being hosted by Lancaster Stands Up, Planned Parenthood Keystone and YWCA Lancaster.

It comes after the U.S. Supreme Court ended constitutional protections for abortion by overturning Roe v. Wade.

Video below: Abortion rights rally held in Lancaster

The Department of Homeland Security intelligence branch is warning law enforcement, first responders and private sector partners nationwide Friday of potential domestic violence extremist activity in response to the Supreme Court's decision on abortion, according to a memo obtained by CNN.

The memo from the DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis says federal and state government officials, including judges, "probably are most at risk for violence in response to the decision."

It also includes warnings about "First Amendment protected events," reproductive and "family advocacy health care facilities," and faith-based organizations being targets for violence or criminal incidents.

"Americans' freedom of speech and right to peacefully protest are fundamental Constitutional rights. Those rights do not extend to violence and other illegal activity. DHS will continue working with our partners across every level of government to share timely information and to support law enforcement efforts to keep our communities safe," a Homeland Security spokesperson told CNN in a statement.

DHS previously released a National Terrorism Advisory System bulletin warning of potential violence surrounding the Supreme Court ruling on abortion rights.

The memo notes that potential violence is expected "for weeks" following Friday's decision given that domestic violent extremists "may be mobilized to respond to changes in state laws and ballot measures" related to abortion. The assessment, DHS said in the memo, is based on an increase in violent incidents after a draft was leaked last month.

Some of those earlier incidents are cited throughout the memo, including arson attacks targeting pregnancy resource centers and incidents of vandalism threatening violence targeting "religious facilities perceived as being opposed to abortion."

The DHS intelligence arm relied on a variety of sources, including news media accounts, open source reporting and Justice Department press releases, for its assessment.

CINCINNATI —

Emotions are high across Greater Cincinnati and the rest of the country as reactions to the U.S. Supreme Court’s historic overturn of Roe v. Wade settles in.

A divided court voted 5-4 to overturn the case, ending the national legalization of abortion that has been in place in the U.S. for nearly 50 years.

The 1973 Roe v. Wade court decision affirmed the right to receive an abortion under the 14th Amendment, ruling that abortions were constitutionally protected up until about 23 weeks when a fetus could be able to live outside the womb.

Protesters hit the streets Friday to voice their opinions on the landmark decision.

WATCH: Pro-choice supporters protest decision overturning Roe v. Wade

Many held up signs, while others like Sarah Bloomer, held anger in their heart.

“I felt like I was punched in the gut. I felt disbelief. I thought we've come so far why is this a priority right now?” expressed protester Sarah Bloomer.

Other protesters expressed fears that the overturning the landmark decision was only the beginning.

"People aren't going to be able to get the healthcare they need. This is probably going to lead to attacks on other things like gay marriage or access to birth control,” said protester Kristen Silva.

However, not all protesters feel rage, some are rejoicing in a decision they have long been advocating for.

WATCH: Pro-life supporters praise decision overturning Roe v. Wade

“We will be a better world with more babies born,” Cincinnati Right to Life Executive Director, Laura Strietmann said.

Strietmann said the work is still not done.

The fight is going to continue on it's just going to be a different fight,” she said.

Pro-life groups are gearing up to pressure the state to pass the most restrictive laws possible.

Following the Supreme Court’s decision Friday, Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost filed an emergency motion in federal court to dissolve "The Heartbeat Bill" injunction.

Later Friday evening, a federal judge approved Yost's motion and dissolved the injunction.

The move effectively bans abortions after approximately six weeks of pregnancy across the state.

Yost tweeted "The Heartbeat Bill is now the law” after the decision was announced.

Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine released a televised statement asking "Ohioan's to work together in the months moving forward."

The ACLU of Ohio sent out a statement following the decision, saying it plans to fight for women's access to medical services.

"I see one group of people insisting that they have rights to hold weapons not to be taken away but they're okay and stand by when our rights are taken away. I’m not okay with it,” Bloomer said.

This content is imported from Twitter.
You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Justice Samuel Alito mocked foreign leaders' criticism of the Supreme Court decision he authored overturning a constitutional right to abortion, in his first public comments since last month's ruling. The justice's remarks drew more criticism as well as some support.

Speaking in Rome at a religious liberty summit, Alito, 72, spent only a couple of minutes on the subject of abortion, and then only to discuss his foreign critics — an unusual step for a high court justice.

Dressed in a tuxedo and sporting a beard he sometimes grows when the court is out of session, Alito quipped that the ruling he authored had been "lambasted by a whole string of foreign leaders," then joked that British Prime Minister Boris Johnson had "paid the price" for his comments. Johnson called the decision "a big step backwards" shortly before stepping down amid unrelated ethics investigations.

The decision by the court's conservative majority led roughly a dozen states to shut down or severely restrict abortions within days. Eventually half of U.S. states are expected to ban or seriously restrict the procedure.

Alito also drew laughs from the audience at the conference, sponsored by the University of Notre Dame law school, when he said that "what really wounded me" were remarks made" by Britain's Prince Harry. Speaking to the United Nations last week, Harry talked about the "rolling back of constitutional rights here in the United States" as one of a series of converging crises that also included the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

French President Emmanuel Macron and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau also drew Alito's attention in the talk he gave in Rome on July 21 at the invitation-only event. The law school posted the video this week. Alito was not identified in advance as a speaker at the conference.

Johnson's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Trudeau's press secretary Cecely Roy said he would "always will stand up for women's constitutional rights — including the right to choose and access to abortion."

While justices routinely engage in pointed exchanges with their colleagues in dueling opinions, they rarely respond to outside critics. That's especially true when talking about foreign leaders in an appearance outside the U.S., said Neil Siegel, professor of law and political science at Duke Law School.

"His tone can be quite dismissive and scathing. It's as if he simply doesn't care that there are tens of millions of people in this country and abroad who disagree with him profoundly," he said. "I think the most important thing is that this is not how our justices are supposed to behave."

Yet there is no prohibition on justices discussing cases publicly once they are decided, said Akhil Reed Amar, professor of constitutional law at Yale Law School. Alito's comments weren't about the underlying issue of abortion, but rather about foreign dignitaries weighing in on American law without necessarily being well versed in the subject, he said. Johnson, for example, may have been seeking to draw attention away from his own domestic issues, Amar said.

"This was slightly impertinent on their part," Amar said, who also praised Alito for responding "with a little bit of wit and style."

The justice's speech drew criticism Friday from U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., who wrote in a tweet the remarks were politicized and said they "should be alarming to anyone."

It's "ironic" that Alito scoffed at international opinions even though he cited English jurists from the 17th and 18th centuries in the opinion overturning Roe v. Wade, said Michele Goodwin, a professor at the University of California, Irvine, and the founding director of the Center for Biotechnology and Global Health Policy. "He himself invested in an ideology from abroad that was quite arcane in order to do what he did in this decision," he said.

The speech comes amid a sharp increase in the portion of Americans who say their confidence in the Supreme Court is eroding. A poll from The Associated Press -NORC Center for Public Affairs Research this week found 43% of Americans have "hardly any confidence" in the court, up from just 27% percent three months ago.

The abortion ruling was one of several seismic decisions this summer, but overturning Roe v. Wade and ending a nearly half-century guarantee of abortion rights had the most widespread impact.

It's also sparked profound changes in other medical care, with some doctors declining immediate treatment for serious health problems related to reproductive care for fear of running afoul of strict abortion bans.

Alito's speech was dedicated primarily to praising religious liberty, another area in which conservatives prevailed at the Supreme Court in cases involving tax dollars for religious schools in Maine and a football coach's right to pray at the 50-yard line.

He has been a justice since 2006, appointed by President George W. Bush.

Four years later, attending President Barack Obama's State of the Union speech, Alito was caught on camera mouthing the words "not true" in response to Obama's criticism — also unusual — of another major, conservative-driven court decision, the Citizens United case that opened the floodgates to corporate and union spending in federal election campaigns.

Alito has never addressed that controversy in public, but it seems clear from the questions he posed when the court heard arguments that he objected to Obama saying the ruling reversed a century of law.

Alito has never again attended the State of the Union address.

__

Associated Press writer Rob Gillies in Toronto contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON (AP) — A gold judicial collar made of glass beads that belonged to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is being auctioned to benefit a charity, the first time any of the her signature neckwear will be available for purchase.

The piece is part of a collection of about 100 items being sold in an online auction that begins Wednesday. It concludes Sept. 16, just days before the two-year anniversary of the liberal icon's death at 87.

In addition to the collar, the items being auctioned include a pair of Ginsburg's opera glasses, a wooden gavel and artwork that hung in her Washington apartment.

There are quirky items too. Her son, James, said in an interview that in talking about the collection "it's hard not to mention about the cake topper. " The fondant sculpture was commissioned by friends for one of the justice's birthdays and depicts her standing in a judicial robe with her arms outstretched on the bow of a battleship dubbed "The Notorious RBG," the justice's nickname. Ginsburg said it reminds him a little bit of a scene from the movie "Titanic."

The auction also includes other Ginsburg fashion pieces: a white handbag, a shawl, scarves and two sets of fishnet lace gloves. She began wearing gloves in the the late 1990s after undergoing colon cancer treatment. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the Supreme Court's first female justice, suggested them as a way to prevent illness while shaking hands, but Ginsburg liked gloves so much she just kept wearing them.

But it was Ginsburg's collars — which she wore on the bench as an accessory to her black robe — that were her most notable fashion item. She had dozens, her son and daughter-in-law said. The family donated several to the Smithsonian, including a sparkly black one she wore on the bench when she dissented in a case. Speaking at an event in 2020, Ginsburg — who became a pop culture figure in later years — said that at the time she was getting a collar "at least once a week" from fans worldwide.

The auction had initially been planned to include two of Ginsburg's collars. The other, made of fabric, was a gift from her law clerks. Stitched inside is a family motto: "It's not sacrifice, it's family." But the family said in a statement Tuesday that they had decided to keep the collar and permanently loan it to "an appropriate institution where it can be displayed for all to see." The family did not provide additional details.

The auction is the third this year of items owned by the justice, and her son said that it will be the last. In April, some 150 items — including art Ginsburg displayed in her home and office — raised more than $800,000 for Washington National Opera, one of the late justice's passions.

Bonhams, which is conducting the latest auction, estimated the current group of objects as selling for a total of just under $50,000. In January, however, an online auction of her books also conducted by Bonhams brought in $2.3 million, almost 30 times the pre-sale estimate.

Bonhams said it expects the collar to sell for $3,000 to $5,000. In the earlier book auction, however, a copy of the Harvard Law Review from 1957-58 with Ginsburg's annotations sold for more than $100,000, shattering Bonhams' estimate of $2,500 to $3,500.

Proceeds from the current sale will fund an endowment in Ginsburg's honor benefitting SOS Children's Villages, a organization that supports vulnerable children around the world. Ginsburg's daughter-in-law, Patrice Michaels, is on the organization's advisory board. Michaels, a composer and singer, said the gavel being auctioned is one Ginsburg gave her to use while performing a composition she had written about Ginsburg's dissents. The gold beaded collar was also one she chose from Ginsburg's collection.

"I thought it was just literally so beautiful," Michaels said. "The aesthetic of it and the feel of it being as elegant as my mother-in-law was appealed to me very much."

The U.S. Supreme Court has stripped federal agencies of authority over millions of acres of wetlands, weakening a bedrock environmental law enacted a half-century ago to cleanse the country's badly polluted waters.

A 5-4 majority significantly expanded the ability of farmers, homebuilders and other developers to dig up or fill wetlands near rivers, lakes and streams, finding the government had long overreached in limiting such activities.

The ruling Thursday may nullify key parts of a rule the Biden administration imposed in December, which two federal judges already had blocked from being enforced in 26 states. It's the latest turn in a decades-old struggle by courts and regulators to determine which waters are subject to protection under the Clean Water Act.

Some experts say the battle over wetlands now may shift to states, with red and blue states writing laws that take dramatically different approaches.

The high court's decision follows one in 2022 curtailing federal power to reduce carbon emissions from power plants and indicates a willingness by the court's emboldened conservatives to limit environmental laws and agency powers.

"This is one of the saddest chapters in the 50-year history of the Clean Water Act," said Jim Murphy, an attorney with the National Wildlife Federation.

Industry and farm groups praised the ruling.

"We're absolutely thrilled with the results," said Travis Cushman, deputy general counsel for the American Farm Bureau Federation. "This is the exact answer that we've been asking for for a long time."

The court's majority sided with an Idaho couple who sought to build a house near Priest Lake in the state's panhandle. Chantell and Michael Sackett objected when federal officials identified a soggy portion of the property as a wetland requiring them to get a permit before filling it with rocks and soil.

"Now that the case is finally over ... they'll be able to make reasonable use of their property," said Damien Schiff of the Pacific Legal Foundation, which represented the couple.

While all nine justices agreed the Sacketts' property was not covered by the law, they disagreed over the definition of "waters of the United States" and which wetlands it includes.

The majority opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito, echoed a 2006 opinion by the late Justice Antonin Scalia. It said federally protected wetlands must be directly adjacent to a "relatively permanent" waterway "connected to traditional interstate navigable waters" such as a river or ocean.

They also must have a "continuous surface connection with that water, making it difficult to determine where the 'water' ends and the 'wetland' begins," Alito wrote.

The court jettisoned a 17-year-old opinion by their former colleague, Anthony Kennedy, describing covered wetlands as having a "significant nexus" to larger bodies of water. It had been the standard for evaluating whether permits were required for discharges under the 1972 landmark environmental law. Opponents had objected that the standard was vague and unworkable.

Justice Elena Kagan, one of three liberals on the court, said the majority rewrote the law to reach the political decision it wanted by coming up with new ways to curtail environmental protection powers Congress gave the Environmental Protection Agency.

"The court will not allow the Clean (Water) Act to work as Congress instructed," Kagan wrote. "The court, rather than Congress, will decide how much regulation is too much."

EPA Administrator Michael Regan said the decision "erodes longstanding clean water protections" and the agency was considering its options.

The Biden administration regulations replaced a Trump-era rule that federal courts had thrown out and environmentalists said left waterways vulnerable to pollution.

Even after the latest court ruling, some experts said ambiguities remain – and likely will persist as the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers craft yet more regulations tailored to the court's edicts.

Landowners wishing to develop property near waterways will still need to hire consultants, "walk the land and figure out whether you're in or out" of federal reach, Boston real estate attorney Peter Alpert said. "There's still going to be a lot of doubt about what's in the gray area."

The ruling could scuttle protections for at least 45 million acres of wetlands, an area roughly the size of Florida, according to the Southern Environmental Law Center.

"They just put huge swaths of wetlands at risk," said Kelly Moser, an attorney with the center.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh said the majority likely stripped protections from wetlands that were long considered regulated, including those behind levees along the flood-prone Mississippi River.

Despite their vital role in blocking flood waters and filtering out pollutants, those wetlands may lose protection because they aren't directly connected to the river, he said in an opinion that concurred on the Sackett case but disagreed significantly with the majority on the broader issues.

The ruling will have a big impact in the arid Southwest, where some rivers and streams dry up between infrequent rainstorms, experts said. The court majority said the Clean Water Act protects only wetlands connected to rivers and streams that are "relatively permanent" or "continuous."

"Continuous is a big deal because we don't have water, really, for 10 months of the year," said Maureen Gorsen, a California environment and regulatory attorney.

The ruling might lead some developers to decide they don't need to seek permits for projects that could disturb wetlands, said Jim Murphy, director of legal advocacy for the National Wildlife Federation.

And those who are discussing settlements for wetland damage or building new ones to compensate for losses might back out, said Alpert, the Boston attorney.

"Everybody involved in enforcement actions … is going to hit the pause button on negotiations with agencies right now and question with their consultants whether under this decision there is a reason to even be talking with the government," he said.

Environmental advocates will prod Congress and states to "plug some of the gaps that have been created by this decision," Murphy of the National Wildlife Federation said.

But Congress showed in March it is in no mood to do so, voting to overturn the administration's wetlands rules and prompting a veto from President Joe Biden.

State governments may become another battleground. More than a dozen prohibit environmental regulations tougher than federal ones.

"You're going to see a patchwork of regulation depending on what state you are in," said Ashley Peck, an environmental attorney in Salt Lake City.

The Supreme Court ruling will likely create "'red state' and 'blue state' approaches to water protection," said Cara Horowitz of the UCLA School of Law.

___

Reporters Mark Sherman and Jessica Gresko in Washington contributed to this story.

President Joe Biden honored soon-to-be-retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer at the White House on Thursday and said that he will nominate Breyer's replacement by the end of February.

He also reiterated a campaign promise in noting that his first Supreme Court nominee would be a Black woman.

"The person I will nominate will be someone with extraordinary qualifications, character, experience and integrity. And that person will be the first Black woman ever nominated to the United States Supreme Court," Biden said.

Reports emerged Wednesday that Breyer — one of the oldest justices on the court and the second-longest tenured justice — would soon step down.

In a letter to the president made public Thursday, Breyer said his retirement would take effect "when the court rises for the summer recess this year (typically late June or early July)." He added that he hoped his successor would be "nominated and confirmed" by that time.

In honoring Breyer Thursday, Biden reminisced about presiding over his Supreme Court confirmation hearings as the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He raved about Breyer's "brilliance," " values," and "scholarship," and called his opinions "particular, sensible and nuanced."

"I think he's the model public servant in a time of partisan division," Biden said.

Breyer spoke briefly following Biden's remarks, quoting the founding fathers in calling America an "experiment that's still going on." He added that it's up to future generations to "determine whether the experiment still works."

"I'm an optimist, and I'm pretty sure it will," Breyer said.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has already promised that a Biden nominee would "receive a prompt hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee and will be considered and confirmed by the full United States Senate with all deliberate speed."

Many Democratic lawmakers have been pushing Breyer to retire now — while Democrats control the White House and the Senate — to ensure another liberal judge is added to the high court.

The ideology of the court has swung to favor conservatives in recent years. President Donald Trump — buoyed by a Republican-led Senate's refusal to vote on President Barack Obama's nominee ahead of the 2016 election — nominated three conservative justices to the bench in his four years in office: Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. The additions of those justices gave conservatives a 6-3 advantage on the court.

Breyer's retirement comes as the Supreme Court weighs several landmark cases that concern abortion rights, voting rights and affirmative action in the college selection process.

Newsy

Potential nominees

With Biden promising to nominate a Black woman to the Supreme Court, a few front runners have already emerged, according to The Associated Press and Newsy. They are:

U.S. Circuit Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson — The 51-year-old judge has served as a district judge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia since 2013. Biden nominated her to the U.S. Court of Appeals last summer.

U.S. District Judge J. Michelle Childs — The 55-year-old Childs has served as a federal judge in South Carolina since 2010. Biden recently nominated her to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals.

California Supreme Court Justice Leondra Kruger — The 45-year-old judge previously served in the Office of the Solicitor General under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama. She's served on the California Supreme Court since 2014.

Civil rights lawyer Sherrilyn Ifill — The 59-year-old civil rights lawyer currently serves as the President and Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. Glamour Magazine recently named her the 2020 Woman of the Year for her continued work fighting for racial justice.

The Supreme Court will make history Monday when it live-streams audio of oral arguments in a case for the first time.

Earlier this year,

the court said it would hear arguments in a series of cases via teleconference due to the COVID-19 pandemic. It also said it would stream live audio of the proceedings — giving unprecedented access to how the cases are conducted.

All justices and lawyers will conduct proceedings from their homes.

While C-SPAN provides live video of Congressional hearings and parliamentary procedure and reporters are routinely granted one-on-one interviews with the President, the Supreme Court is famously shielded from public view. Cameras have never been allowed in the courtroom during arguments, and until two years ago, case filings weren't even available online.

Monday's case surrounds

Booking.com's effort to trademark its name.

Past precedent holds that companies can't receive trademarks for generic terms that could confuse consumers. The Booking.com case surrounds the company's use of ".com" in its trademark.

Listen to the arguments below when proceedings begin at 10 a.m.

A majority of Supreme Court justices on Monday seemed open to allowing abortion providers in Texas to challenge a controversial law currently in place that bans the procedure in the state after just six weeks of pregnancy.

However, it's unclear when the high court could hand down a decision that would allow such a lawsuit to move forward, or if such a ruling would suspend the law while courts consider the challenge.

According to CNN and The Associated Press, Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — both of whom were appointed by President Donald Trump — raised questions about the structure of the Texas law during a three-hour hearing on Monday.

In September, both Barrett and Kavanaugh sided with the four other conservative justices in allowing the law, SB8, to go into effect. However, on Monday, they raised key questions as to how the law is enforced.

The law bans abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected, which usually occurs at about six weeks, or before many women know they are pregnant. When the law went into effect earlier this year, it shut down practically all abortion services in the state.

But the law has an unusual structure that has made it difficult to challenge. It specifically outlaws the state executive branch from enforcing it. Instead, it calls on private citizens to file lawsuits seeking $10,000 in damages from anyone who aids or abets a person from seeking an illegal abortion.

Lawyers representing Texas say that because the state is not enforcing the law, a lawsuit cannot stop it from being enforced.

Kavanaugh on Monday called the law's structure a "loophole."

"There's a loophole that's been exploited here, or used here," Kavanaugh said, according to The Associated Press. The "loophole" to which he was referring was set up in a 1908 Supreme Court case, which according to The New York Times, set precedence in how the government could go about blocking potentially unconstitutional legislation.

Kavanaugh's and Barrett's questioning implied that a majority of justices were leaning toward granting abortion providers the chance to challenge the law.

However, in a separate challenge brought by the Department of Justice, CNN reports that a majority of conservative justices expressed reservations about how broad the Biden Administration's argument was in seeking a challenge.

While the legality of abortion was not at issue during Monday's hearing, the Supreme Court's eventual ruling on the case could have massive implications for abortion access in Texas and how other conservative-leaning states could seek to limit abortions in the future.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether it is unconstitutional to exclude people living in Puerto Rico from Supplemental Social Security Income.

The justices said Monday they would hear an appeal, first filed by the Trump administration, of a lower-court ruling that held that residents of the U.S. territory should have the same access to SSI benefits as older, disabled and blind Americans in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

The administration argued that a pair of 40-year-old Supreme Court decisions already upheld the federal law that created SSI and excluded Puerto Rico and other U.S. territories from it.

In recent months, a federal judge ruled that Puerto Rico residents should have access to other federal welfare benefits from which they have been excluded as well. A federal judge in Guam said residents of that Pacific island also should be able to collect SSI.

A separate program, Aid to the Aged, Blind and Disabled, covers residents of the territories, but it has more stringent eligibility requirements and pays less generous benefits than SSI.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled unanimously in favor of the government in a case that determines how courts should rule on the credibility of an asylum seekers' claim when the facts in the case are in doubt.

In Tuesday's ruling, the Court reversed a Ninth Circuit ruling that found two asylum seekers' claims to be credible.

In one case, Ming Dai sought asylum in the U.S., claiming China sought to persecute him for violating the government's one-child policy. In a separate case that was also considered, Cesar Alcaraz-Enriquez sought permission to stay in the U.S. because he feared persecution in Mexico.

In writing the opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote that instead of presuming an asylum seekers' account to be fact, the Board of Immigration Appeals should review factfinders' work and apply "applying a presumption of credibility" only "if there is no explicit adverse credibility determination."

The ruling was the latest in a series of high court decisions that overturned rulings made by the Ninth Circuit — an appeals circuit that includes western states like California that's known for liberal leanings. Last week, the Supreme Court unanimously overturned a pair of Ninth Circuit rulings.

WASHINGTON — Every spring the Supreme Court seems to find itself in the headlines with consequential rulings on the horizon.

This spring is no different.

Over the coming weeks, major cases impacting various aspects of American life are poised for rulings.

HEALTH CARE CHALLENGE

One of the biggest outstanding cases involves the Affordable Care Act.

The Supreme Court ruled in 2012 that it was constitutional, but this is a new challenge.

This challenge was brought by conservatives who believe the last ruling was only ruled constitutional because the Supreme Court interpreted the law as a tax.

Congress has since removed tax penalties from the law and therefore critics believe justices now have grounds to strike down the entire law.

Constitutional experts have argued this stands little chance of taking place, however the addition of Justice Amy Coney Barrett has left some wondering: "just how conservative has the Court become?"

LGBTQ RIGHTS

A big case involving LGBTQ rights and religious rights will get a ruling, too.

This case is out of Philadelphia where the city suspended its relationship with Catholic Social Services over the organization's policy of not allowing LGBTQ parents to adopt.

The organization has cited the Catholic Church's teachings on gay marriage, while the city says it violates anti-discrimination laws.

This case will impact religious rights and LGBTQ rights.

VOTING RIGHTS

Justices are expected to rule on two voting laws out of Arizona involving in-person voting and whether votes cast in different precincts can count. Additionally, justices are looking into who can return an absentee ballot.

This case will potentially impact voting rules and regulations across the country.

The case could also set the tone for future voting challenges.

A number of liberal organizations have filed lawsuits in recent weeks against new voting laws signed by conservative governors.

SOCIAL MEDIA AND SCHOOL DISCIPLINE

The Supreme Court just heard oral arguments in a case involving a Pennsylvania cheerleader and vulgar comments she made on social media.

After not making the varsity cheerleading squad, the teenager took to social media where her language got her suspended from the team.

This case looks at whether after school, online comments by students can warrant in-school suspensions or discipline.

Since this case was just heard, it will likely be several weeks before a ruling.

POSSIBLE RETIREMENT?

It's also possible President Joe Biden gets his first Supreme Court pick in the coming weeks.

That is because many progressives are calling on Justice Stephen Breyer, a liberal justice who is 82 years old, to step down.

The calls are not based on rulings, but rather on his age and the desire by Democrats to replace Breyer with another liberal justice while Biden is in the White House and Democrats control the Senate.

Breyer has so far made no indication he plans to step down.