U.S. Markets close in 5 hrs 42 mins
  • S&P 500

    3,713.28
    +20.05 (+0.54%)
     
  • Dow 30

    29,595.28
    +4.87 (+0.02%)
     
  • Nasdaq

    11,016.51
    +148.58 (+1.37%)
     
  • Russell 2000

    1,687.79
    +8.20 (+0.49%)
     
  • Crude Oil

    80.07
    +1.33 (+1.69%)
     
  • Gold

    1,652.90
    -2.70 (-0.16%)
     
  • Silver

    18.99
    +0.08 (+0.42%)
     
  • EUR/USD

    0.9666
    -0.0022 (-0.2320%)
     
  • 10-Yr Bond

    3.7770
    +0.0800 (+2.16%)
     
  • Vix

    30.97
    +1.05 (+3.51%)
     
  • GBP/USD

    1.0814
    -0.0042 (-0.3904%)
     
  • USD/JPY

    144.1950
    +0.8750 (+0.6105%)
     
  • BTC-USD

    19,197.54
    +306.02 (+1.62%)
     
  • CMC Crypto 200

    439.91
    +6.81 (+1.57%)
     
  • FTSE 100

    7,004.55
    -14.05 (-0.20%)
     
  • Nikkei 225

    26,431.55
    -722.28 (-2.66%)
     

AG Garland asked what the point of SCOTUS is: “Federal law invalidates state laws that are in direct contradiction."

·1 min read

The Department of Justice is filing suit against the state of Idaho for its restrictive abortion laws, which came into effect after the Supreme Court struck down Roe vs Wade. At a press briefing, Attorney General Merrick Garland was asked if what the DoJ was doing circumvents and undermines the Supreme Court.

REPORTER: “What's the point of the Supreme Court if DOJ is going to go around and do these kinds of things?”

GARLAND: “This is not, in any way, going around the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court said that each state can make its own decisions with respect to abortion. But so too can the federal government, nothing that the Supreme Court said, said that the statutes passed by Congress such as EMTALA are in any way invalid. It's quite the opposite, the Supreme Court left it to the people's Representatives EMTALA was a decision made by the Congress of the United States. The supremacy clause is a decision made in the Constitution of the United States. Federal law invalidates state laws that are in direct contradiction. This has really nothing to do with anything that the Supreme Court said. And certainly nothing to do with going around the Supreme Court.”