Law (US)

Subterms

    More stories

    • 188 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      The right is stealthily working to remove Americans’ access to abortion medication | Moira Donegan

      by

      This week a Republican-appointed federal judge weighed whether to grant an injunction that could remove mifepristone, the drug used in most American abortions, from the market nationwide. And the hearing almost happened in secret.US district court judge Matthew Kacsmaryk had initially planned to keep Wednesday’s hearing in the case – in which a group of rightwing anti-abortion groups are suing the FDA to reverse its 20-year-old approval of mifepristone – quiet. In a conference call with lawyers for the anti-choice groups and the Department of Justice, Kacsmaryk asked attorneys not to disclose the existence of the hearing (“This is not a gag order,” he said repeatedly), and said that the event would only be made public late on Tuesday to minimize popular awareness. “It may even be after business hours.” The judge’s courtroom in Amarillo, Texas, is hours away from any major city. It was only because of a press leak that the hearing was known to the public at all.It was just one of many of the alarming irregularities in the lawsuit, in which Kacsmaryk seems poised to grant the plaintiffs’ wish and issue an injunction that will radically reduce access to abortion nationwide.For one thing, the plaintiffs’ standing is exceptionally shaky: it’s not clear why the collection of abortion opponents – including one doctor, George Delgado, whose attempt to design an abortion-reversal clinical trial sent 25% of the test subjects to the hospital – have standing to sue the FDA. It’s especially unclear why they have standing to sue in Amarillo; the federal judicial district has become a popular venue for rightwing litigation in part because Kacsmaryk, an exceptionally conservative jurist willing to publish poorly reasoned, policy-driven opinions, is the only federal judge there.For another thing, the plaintiffs’ requests are exceptionally far-reaching. The anti-abortion groups want Kacsmaryk to declare the FDA’s approval of mifepristone illegal, even though the drug has been available in the US, and proven to be safe, for more than 20 years, and even though a judicial reversal of FDA approval for a medication would be highly unusual and only dubiously legal. At the hearing on Wednesday, lawyers for the plaintiffs acknowledged that there was no precedent for the court to order the suspension of a long-approved medication. If Kacsmaryk approves the injunction – and all indications are that he will – the drug could become inaccessible nationwide, even in Democratic-controlled states where abortion is legal.For another thing, the plaintiffs’ claims are so profoundly divorced from fact that it is difficult to believe that they are being made in good faith. The anti-abortion groups – including the doctor whose study sent women to the hospital – say that they are challenging the drug because they believe, falsely, that mifepristone is unsafe. Lawyers from the Alliance Defending Freedom, the rightwing legal outfit that is representing the plaintiffs and which is designated as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, pursued this idea on Wednesday in court. “How many more women have to die?” attorney Erik Baptist asked.In fact, no one dies from mifepristone. One of the most aggressively studied and tested drugs in the world since its creation in France in 1987, mifepristone, which blocks the pregnancy hormone progesterone and stops a pregnancy from progressing, has been found effective and overwhelmingly safe; it has a lower rate of serious complications than Tylenol. One study found that “significant adverse outcomes” occurred in less than 1% (0.65%) of mifepristone patients; the most common of these was continued pregnancy.What women do die from – died from in massive numbers before Roe, and will die from again, if medication abortion becomes unavailable – is illegal surgical abortions.Since Dobbs, the abortion rights movement has correctly been aiming to de-stigmatize illegal, self-managed abortions, encouraging women to stock up on the pills in advance so that they have them if they need them. The idea was that women shouldn’t be scared to use the pills: mifepristone, taken together with the contraction-inducing drug misoprostol, is so overwhelmingly safe and effective that women who could access the pills could confidently and secretly manage their own abortions, even in ban states. But if medication abortion becomes inaccessible, women may attempt more dangerous methods to self-induce. This is the real reason anti-abortion groups are targeting mifepristone: not because it endangers women, but because it keeps them safe.The injunction doesn’t necessarily have to end medication abortion in America as we know it. For one thing, there are already groups, both foreign and domestic, that are mailing abortion medication, including mifepristone, to all 50 states, regardless of local law. Women’s solidarity, inventiveness and determination will always outmatch punitive anti-abortion regimes. For another, an established misoprostol-only protocol for abortion has already been proven effective.Some abortion providers have already signaled their intention to switch to misoprostol-only; the drug is available over the counter in Mexico. But though they are effective, misoprostol-only abortions are also significantly more painful than those conducted with mifepristone. For the anti-abortion groups in court, that’s likely part of the point.
      Moira Donegan is a Guardian US columnist More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      North Carolina court appears poised to overrule itself in gerrymandering case

      by

      The North Carolina supreme court heard oral arguments on Tuesday in a major gerrymandering case that could have significant implications for US voting rights.In a highly unusual move, the North Carolina court appears poised to overrule itself and get rid of congressional and state legislative districts it approved last year. The GOP-drawn map that was struck down could have produced a 11-3 advantage for Republicans in the congressional delegation. The one that replaced it was far less advantageous to the GOP and wound up producing a 7-7 split in the 2022 midterm elections. The court’s decision would likely allow Republicans to get a more advantageous map back in place.Demonstrators gathered outside the state supreme court in Raleigh on Tuesday as the justices heard oral arguments in the case, Harper v Hall. Much of the back-and-forth at the hearing focused on whether there were metrics the court could use to measure partisan gerrymandering. Phil Strach, a lawyer for the legislature, argued that because there were no clear metrics, it was not something the court could regulate.Anita Earls, a Democrat on the court, pushed Strach to explain whether that meant the legislature could essentially do whatever it wants when it comes to drawing districts. If the state legislature were to adopt a rule that explicitly said any congressional plan had to result in an 11-3 advantage for Republicans, she asked, could the state supreme court do anything to stop it? Strach suggested it could not.“Some things, your honor, are beyond the power of this court,” he said.Lali Madduri, a lawyer representing those challenging the map, accused lawmakers of playing a “cynical game, hoping that this newly constituted court will reverse course and abdicate its fundamental duty of judicial review”. Sam Hirsch, another lawyer for the challengers, said that an effort to impose new legislative districts could be unconstitutional since North Carolina’s constitution prohibits mid-decade redistricting for the state general assembly.Republicans won control of the North Carolina supreme court last fall and the new 5-2 GOP majority granted a request from the legislature to reconsider its redistricting ruling last month. The court had only granted similar requests twice before in the last 30 years. US courts do not typically grant requests to overrule their own rulings absent a major change in the case. The only thing that changed in the North Carolina case was the makeup of the court, Earls wrote in a searing dissenting opinion earlier this year.“It took this court just one month to send a smoke signal to the public that our decisions are fleeting, and our precedent is only as enduring as the terms of the justices who sit on the bench,” she wrote. “I write to make clear that the emperor has no clothes.”That rehearing decision could have reverberations at the US supreme court, which is separately considering the case and could issue a decision that could upend US election law.In December, lawyers for the legislature asked the justices to overrule the state court and endorse a fringe legal theory that would prohibit state courts from policing the drawing of congressional districts and other federal election rules. Such a ruling from the US supreme court would upend US election law, removing state courts from policing federal elections. Earlier this month, the US supreme court asked for briefing on how the decision to rehear the case in North Carolina affected its own authority to issue a ruling.In addition to the redistricting case, the North Carolina supreme court is also set this week to rehear a previous decision striking down the state’s voter ID law. More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Republicans push wave of bills that would bring homicide charges for abortion

      by

      Republicans push wave of bills that would bring homicide charges for abortionProliferation of bills in Texas, Kentucky and elsewhere ‘exposes fundamental lie of anti-abortion movement’, experts sayFor decades, the mainstream anti-abortion movement promised that it did not believe women who have abortions should be criminally charged. But now, Republican lawmakers in several US states have introduced legislation proposing homicide and other criminal charges for those seeking abortion care.‘Sanctuary cities for the unborn’: how a US pastor is pushing for a national abortion banRead moreThe bills have been introduced in states such as Texas, Kentucky, South Carolina, Oklahoma and Arkansas. Some explicitly target medication abortion and self-managed abortion; some look to remove provisions in the law which previously protected pregnant people from criminalization; and others look to establish the fetus as a person from the point of conception.It is highly unlikely that all of these bills will pass. But their proliferation marks a distinct departure from the language of existing bans and abortion restrictions, which typically exempt people seeking abortion care from criminalization.“This exposes a fundamental lie of the anti-abortion movement, that they oppose the criminalization of the pregnant person,” said Dana Sussman, the acting executive director of Pregnancy Justice. “They are no longer hiding behind that rhetoric.”Some members of the anti-abortion movement have made it clear the bills do not align with their views, continuing to insist that abortion providers, rather than pregnant people themselves, should be targeted by criminal abortion laws.“[We] oppose penalties for mothers, who are a second victim of a predatory abortion industry,” said Kristi Hamrick, the chief media and policy strategist for Students for Life of America. “We want to see a billion-dollar industry set up to profit by preying on women and the preborn held accountable. The pro-life movement as a whole has been very clear on this.”A spokesperson for Susan B Anthony Pro-Life America echoed the same sentiment: that the organization unequivocally rejects prosecution of the pregnant person.The bills are likely to be controversial as they proceed, even within conservative circles: Republicans have frequently hit walls when trying to pass anti-abortion legislation, with lawmakers at odds over exactly how far bans should go.The reproductive justice organization If/When/How points out these bills are an indication of the different wings and splinter groups in the anti-abortion movement, increasingly evident since the Dobbs decision last year that overturned Roe v Wade.“What we’re seeing, post-Dobbs, is a splintering in tactics that abortion opponents are using, and emboldening on the part of more hardline” factions within the movement, said Farah Diaz-Tello, senior counsel and legal director at If/When/How.“That has always been an undercurrent” in the movement, Diaz-Tello added. “As we see other abortion opponents declaring their opposition to criminalization of people who end their pregnancies, this is the opportunity for them to really step up and put those principles into action.”The bills being introduced in Arkansas, Texas, Kentucky and South Carolina look to establish that life begins at conception. Each of these bills explicitly references homicide charges for abortion. Homicide is punishable by the death penalty in all of those states.Bills in Oklahoma, South Carolina and Texas also explicitly target medication abortion, which so far has fallen into a legal grey zone in much of the country.A bill in Alabama has also been announced, although not yet been introduced, by Republican representative Ernest Yarbrough, that would establish fetal personhood from conception and repeal a section of Alabama’s abortion ban that expressly prevents homicide charges for abortion. The state’s current law makes abortion a class A felony, on the same level as homicide, but exempts women seeking abortions from being held criminally or civilly liable.Laws that establish fetal personhood also bring the risk of opening pregnant people up to battery and assault charges for endangering a fetus. Such charges have already been documented in hundreds of cases, using criminal laws championed in recent decades by the anti-abortion movement that recognize fetuses as potential victims.“It never starts or stops with abortion,” said Sussman of the far-reaching effects of fetal personhood laws.“That means that not getting prenatal care, not taking pre-natal vitamins, working a job that is physically demanding – all of those things could impose some risk to the fetus – and that could be a child neglect or child abuse case.”Such laws have been used to target pregnant people who have taken prescribed medication, taken illegal drugs or drunk alcohol while pregnant, even when there has been no adverse outcome on the fetus.Some of the bills, such as the one in Arkansas, allow a partner to file an unlawful death lawsuit against a pregnant person who has had an abortion.“The ways in which pregnant people could become a mere vessel for an entity that has separate and unique rights is becoming closer and closer to reality. And there are ways in which this could be used that we haven’t even contemplated yet,” said Sussman.TopicsUS newsAbortionLaw (US)Reproductive rightsRoe v WadeUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Alex Murdaugh’s brother gives first interview since trial: ‘He knows more’

      by

      Alex Murdaugh’s brother gives first interview since trial: ‘He knows more’In New York Times interview, Randy Murdaugh says he remains unsure if his brother murdered son and wife in South CarolinaAlex Murdaugh, the disgraced South Carolina lawyer found guilty of murdering his wife and son, has long been a thief and liar – but his being a convicted killer is still a shock, his brother has said in the first interview a member of the family has given since the trial.In an interview with the New York Times, Randy Murdaugh said he remained unsure if Alex murdered his son and wife in June 2021. Randy Murdaugh added that while he respects the jury’s verdict, he has known Alex as a protective father and husband.Murder and mystery in the south: how the Murdaugh trial gripped AmericaRead more“He knows more than what he’s saying,” said Randy Murdaugh, referring to Alex’s lying about the murder. “He’s not telling the truth, in my opinion, about everything there.”Randy, Alex’s older brother, said in the interview that the pair were not close, despite going to the same college and law school, and working at the family’s law firm together.“It’s not like there was some problem with our relationship, necessarily,” Randy Murdaugh said. “We just really weren’t alike, so we didn’t do stuff together.”Weeks after the murder, Randy Murdaugh said that much of the family rallied around Alex, who suggested the killing of his 22-year-old son Paul was due to Paul’s involvement in a fatal 2019 boating accident. Maggie Murdaugh, Alex’s wife, was shot dead alongside Paul.Months after the murders, Randy confronted Alex about financial records that showed Alex had embezzled millions from the family business. In an emotional conversation, Randy recalled, Alex admitted to stealing, and to a severe addiction to painkillers.Alex promised never to lie to Randy again, Randy said, but soon broke that pledge. A day later, Alex told police and Randy that he had been shot on the side of the road by an unknown person.Police later said Alex Murdaugh had arranged to have someone else shoot him, in the hopes that his surviving son Buster could collect his life insurance money.Randy soon stopped speaking with Alex, who has been charged with stealing more than $8m from the family firm. The pair have not spoken in almost a year.But in July last year, when Alex was arrested over the murder of his wife and son, Randy re-examined aspects of what he knew about his younger brother.Randy Murdaugh told the newspaper that the family has dealt with similar uncertainty, given the gruesome nature of the crime and the previous understanding they had of Alex.“The not knowing,” Randy Murdaugh said, “is the worst thing there is.”Randy Murdaugh’s interview stands in sharp contrast from statements given by Alex’s defense lawyers, who have said that the Murdaugh family fully believes he did not murder anyone. His lawyers also said the family supports him.On Friday, Alex Murdaugh was given two sentences of life imprisonment after being found guilty of the murders of Paul and Maggie Murdaugh. The sentences capped a six-week, televised trial in which Alex maintained his innocence, though that was undermined by cellphone video captured by his son that placed him at the scene of the murders shortly before they occurred.Randy said the Murdaugh family is focused on supporting Buster, who has lost his immediate family. Randy said his life has attracted international attention given his brother’s crimes.Randy told the New York Times he hoped the trial would give him some closure and an answer about the circumstances around the death of his nephew and sister-in-law, but he said he has not stopped thinking about it.“I hoped that after the trial, because there’s nothing more that can be presented, that I’d stop thinking about this,” Randy Murdaugh said. “But so far, that has not been the case.”TopicsAlex MurdaughUS politicsSouth CarolinaUS crimeLaw (US)newsReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Walgreens limits abortion pills sales after pressure from conservative states

      by

      Walgreens limits abortion pills sales after pressure from conservative statesRepublican attorneys general threatened the company with legal consequences for sending pills by mailWalgreens will not distribute the abortion pill mifepristone in nearly two dozen conservative states after Republican attorneys general threatened the largest US pharmacy companies with legal consequences for sending abortion pills by mail.South Carolina woman arrested for allegedly using pills to end pregnancyRead moreThe decision, first reported by Politico, came weeks after the attorneys general sent a letter to Walgreens and CVS arguing that sending abortion pills by mail would violate federal law and abortion laws in those states. A spokesperson for Walgreens said the move was in response to that letter.Walgreens had previously announced plans to become a certified pharmacy to dispense the pill in jurisdictions where it was legal to do so after the US Food and Drug Administration opted to allow retail pharmacies to dispense mifepristone pills, including by mail.But on Thursday the company confirmed to Politico that it would not dispense abortion pills by mail or within their stores in 20 states, including some states where abortion and medication abortion are legal.“There is currently complexity around this issue in Kansas and elsewhere,” Fraser Engerman, Walgreens’ senior director of external relations, told the outlet.Top Democrats were critical of the move. Adam Schiff described Walgreens as caving. “So much for putting a priority on the health of their customers,” he said on Twitter.Senator Amy Schumer said, “This is exactly why we need to codify the protections of Roe v Wade and guarantee the right to access care.”Abortion pills are a critical part of reproductive care nationwide. Of all US abortions, more than half are now with pills rather than with a procedure, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports abortion rights. But medication abortion has drawn increasing attention since the supreme court’s decision to overturn Roe v Wade last June.The FDA has limited dispensing of mifepristone to a subset of specialty offices and clinics due to safety concerns for more than 20 years. The agency has repeatedly eased restrictions and expanded access, increasing demand even as state laws make the pills harder to get for many women.But the announcement from Walgreens suggests that mifepristone access may not expand as broadly as federal regulators intended in January. Typically, the FDA’s authority to regulate prescription drug access has gone unchallenged. But more than a dozen states now have laws restricting abortion broadly – and the pills specifically – following last year’s supreme court decision overturning the federal right to abortion.Attorneys general from conservative states have also argued that shipments of mifepristone violate a 19th century law that prohibited sending items used in abortion through the mail.An anti-abortion group filed a federal lawsuit in Texas in November seeking to revoke mifepristone’s approval, claiming the FDA approved the drug 23 years ago without adequate evidence of safety.A federal judge could rule soon. If he sides with abortion opponents, mifepristone could potentially be removed from the US market. Legal experts foresee years of court battles over access to the pills.TopicsAbortionUS politicsRoe v WadeUS supreme courtLaw (US)newsReuse this content More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump not entitled to immunity from civil suits over Capitol attack, says DoJ

      by

      Trump not entitled to immunity from civil suits over Capitol attack, says DoJJustice department said ex-president could be held liable for physical and psychological harm suffered during January 6 Donald Trump does not have absolute immunity from civil suits seeking damages over his alleged incitement of the January 6 Capitol attack, the US justice department said in a court filing that could have profound implications for complaints against the former president.In an amicus brief in a case brought by two US Capitol police officers and joined by 11 House Democrats, the justice department said Trump could be held liable for physical and psychological harm suffered during the attack despite his attempts to seek blanket protections.Pence declines to support Trump if he’s 2024 nominee: ‘I’m confident we’ll have better choices’Read more“Speaking to the public on matters of public concern is a traditional function of the presidency,” read the 32-page brief to the US court of appeals for the DC circuit. “But that traditional function is one of public communication. It does not include incitement of imminent private violence.”The justice department stressed that it was not weighing in on whether the lawsuit had made a plausible argument that Trump’s speech immediately before the January 6 attack incited thousands of his supporters to storm the Capitol in an effort to stop certification of Joe Biden’s election win.But the department said that because actual incitement of imminent private violence – the key legal standard – would not be protected by presidential immunity, the appeals court should reject his contention that he had absolute immunity from civil litigation.“No part of a president’s official responsibilities includes the incitement of imminent private violence,” the brief said. “By definition, such conduct plainly falls outside the president’s constitutional and statutory duties.”The justice department opinion comes after the appeals court asked the government to offer its position while it considered whether Trump was acting within the confines of the office of the presidency when he urged his supporters to “fight like hell” and march on the Capitol.The sensitivity of the case – the potential impact on other civil suits against Trump that could have implications for presidential immunity – meant the department took several months and made two requests for a month’s extension before finalising its response.In siding against Trump’s position that he enjoyed “categorical immunity”, the justice department said it agreed with a lower-court ruling that the first amendment to the constitution did not allow Trump to evade liability in the January 6 suit.The lawsuit was filed under a statute, enacted after the civil war in response to Ku Klux Klan insurrections across the south to stop Black people voting, which allows for damages when force or intimidation are used to prevent government officials carrying out their duties.The amicus brief comes as the justice department controversially continues to defend Trump’s claim of absolute immunity in a defamation case brought by the writer E Jean Carroll, who accuses Trump of raping her in New York in the mid-1990s. Trump has said “it never happened” and said Carroll is not his “type”.Responding to that case, the department argued that while Trump’s comments were not appropriate, they came when he was president. Responding to a reporter’s question about the allegation, the department said part of a president’s responsibility was “to be responsive to the media and public”.TopicsUS newsDonald TrumpUS justice systemLaw (US)US Capitol attackUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Classified Trump schedules were moved to Mar-a-Lago after FBI search – sources

      by

      Classified Trump schedules were moved to Mar-a-Lago after FBI search – sourcesExclusive: Junior aide took the box, including some classified documents, from a government-leased office in Palm Beach to Mar-a-LagoDonald Trump’s lawyers found a box of White House schedules, including some that were marked classified, at his Mar-a-Lago resort in December because a junior aide to the former president had transported it from another office in Florida after the FBI completed its search of the property, according to two sources familiar with the matter.The former president does not appear to have played a direct role in the mishandling of the box, though he remains under investigation for the possible improper retention of national security documents and obstruction of justice. Special counsel seeks to compel Mike Pence to testify about January 6Read moreKnown internally as ROTUS, short for Receptionist of the United States, the junior aide initially kept the box at a converted guest bungalow at Mar-a-Lago called the “tennis cottage” after Trump left office, and she soon took it with her to a government-leased office in the Palm Beach area.The box remained at the government-leased office from where the junior aide worked through most of 2022, explaining why neither Trump’s lawyer who searched Mar-a-Lago in June for any classified-marked papers nor the FBI agents who searched the property in August found the documents.Around the time that Trump returned to Mar-a-Lago from his Bedminsiter golf club in New Jersey at the end of the summer, the junior aide was told that she was being relocated to a desk in the anteroom of Trump’s own office at Mar-a-Lago that previously belonged to top aide Molly Michael.The junior aide retrieved her work belongings – including the box – from the government-leased office and took them to her new Mar-a-Lago workspace around September. At that time, the justice department’s criminal investigation into Trump’s retention of national security documents was intensifying.Several weeks after the junior aide moved into her new workspace, federal prosecutors told Trump’s lawyers in October that they suspected the former president was still in possession of additional documents with classified markings despite the FBI’s search of Mar-a-Lago on 8 August.The Trump legal team subsequently hired two private contractors with security clearances to search Trump properties around Thanksgiving: Trump Tower in New York, Trump Bedminster and an external storage unit that turned up two additional documents marked “SECRET”, the Guardian has reported.But the justice department was not satisfied, and it pressed the Trump legal team to get the contractors to conduct the third known search of Mar-a-Lago in early December – at which point the contractors discovered the box of presidential schedules, some with classified markings.Kevin McCarthy denounced for giving January 6 tapes to Fox News hostRead moreThe Trump legal team alerted the FBI, which sent federal agents down to collect the box and its contents the following day.A few weeks later, Trump’s lawyers started exploring whether they could get a better understanding of the sensitivity of the small number of schedules marked as classified, for the junior aide had kept sole custody of the box throughout that period.It was at that point that the junior aide revealed for the first time that she could find out exactly what they were, because Michael – whose desk she inherited after she left the Trump political team at the end of the summer – had told her to scan all of the schedules on to her laptop.A lawyer for the junior aide declined to comment on Thursday night.When the Trump legal team told the justice department about the uploads, federal prosecutors demanded the laptop and its password, warning that they would otherwise move to obtain a grand jury subpoena summoning the junior aide to Washington to grant them access to the computer.To avoid a subpoena, the Trump legal team agreed to turn over the laptop in its entirety last month, though they did not allow federal prosecutors to collect it from Mar-a-Lago and handed it over just outside the gates of the property.It was later in January – as the justice department retrieved the laptop – that federal prosecutors in the office of the Trump investigation special counsel Jack Smith issued a grand jury subpoena for a manilla folder marked “Classified Evening Briefing” observed in the former president’s bedroom, the Guardian first reported.TopicsDonald TrumpMar-a-LagoLaw (US)US politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      In Wisconsin’s supreme court race, a super-rich beer family calls the shots

      by

      In Wisconsin’s supreme court race, a super-rich beer family calls the shotsMembers of the Uihlein dynasty are pouring millions into opposite sides of one of this year’s most important electionsWhen Wisconsinites vote on Tuesday in primary elections for a justice’s seat on the state’s supreme court, few will be aware that much of the big money pouring into this race hails from just one family whose fortunes flow from beer.‘Stakes are monstrous’: Wisconsin judicial race is 2023’s key electionRead moreMillions of dollars have been injected into the battle by members of the Uihlein family, a manufacturing dynasty with roots in Milwaukee. The huge sums could help determine the balance of power on the state’s top court and in turn influence critical areas of public life – from abortion to voting rights, and potentially even the 2024 presidential election.The source of the Uihleins’ fabulous wealth traces back to 1875, when Joseph Schlitz, the owner of a brewing company, died in a shipwreck off the Isles of Scilly. Control of the firm passed to four Uihlein brothers who were next in the line of inheritance and who went on to build the brand into the largest beer producer in America. Schlitz became ubiquitous under the jingle: “The beer that made Milwaukee famous.”Though its star has fallen, Schlitz beer is still popular in the midwest, and the Uihleins have gone on to become even richer and more powerful. They have also diversified their wealth and in recent years have started to wield it as a political weapon.Tuesday’s election for a Wisconsin supreme court position has been the target of huge amounts of Uihlein money – surprisingly, on both sides of the political divide. On one side stand the billionaire couple Richard and Elizabeth Uihlein, owners of the Wisconsin-based shipping supplies company Uline, who are on track to pump millions of dollars into the race in support of a conservative judicial candidate, Dan Kelly.On the other side, Richard’s cousin Lynde Bradley Uihlein, a prominent funder of progressive causes, has already invested hundreds of thousands of dollars to support the liberal-leaning judges vying for the supreme court seat.An expensive raceHow just one family rose to such pre-eminence in political spending, only to become split between opposing factions, is a very Wisconsin story. The state once prided itself on its campaign finance rules that put voters before donors, bore down on conflicts of interest and corruption, and required openness and transparency.But in 2010, the US supreme court unleashed untold amounts of corporate and individual wealth into elections through its controversial ruling Citizens United. Five years later the Republican-controlled Wisconsin legislature lifted the ceiling on personal donations to political parties in the state.The result was an avalanche of outside spending on elections in Wisconsin, which in recent cycles has become an increasingly key battleground state with the ability, through its 10 electoral college votes, to make or break presidential campaigns. The abundance of money has now reached even the lesser-known contests over judicial positions, as Tuesday’s primary amply illustrates.Four candidates are running in the primary: two conservatives, Kelly, a former supreme court justice, and judge Jennifer Dorow; and two liberals, the county court judges Janet Protasiewicz and Everett Mitchell. The two candidates who gain most votes in the primary will face off in the general election in April.Revealed: Trump secretly donated $1m to discredited Arizona election ‘audit’ Read moreConservatives currently command a 4-3 majority on the Wisconsin supreme court, but with the retirement of one of the conservative justices there is now a chance to flip the court. That would potentially allow progressives to legalise abortion, push back extreme Republican gerrymandering in the drawing of electoral maps and resist any election-denying challenges in next year’s presidential battle.With stakes so high, vast sums are already being channeled by outside groups into political TV and radio advertising. The Brennan Center’s Buying Time 2023 database has already recorded more than $6m of political ad orders for the primary alone – a statistic that might be overshadowed once the general election gets underway.A slew of special interests have waded into the race, with an offshoot of the anti-abortion group Susan B Anthony Pro-Life America promising to invest six figures in Kelly’s campaign. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that Kelly himself has predicted that total outside donations could reach $20m – a sum that dwarfs anything Wisconsin has ever seen – bragging that he was the candidate best placed to attract the cash.The Brennan Center’s counsel Douglas Keith said that the supreme court election was on track to be the most expensive in Wisconsin history, “and could very well end up being the most expensive in the country’s history”.“It’s escalating rapidly,” said Barry Burden, a political science professor at University of Wisconsin – Madison. “If $15m, $20m, $25m is spent on this race it’s more than you see in governor’s races in some states.”A family dividedAmid the millions being flung at the election, the Uihlein family name stands out – both for the sheer scale of its spending and for the fact that family members are fighting each other across the political schism.Over the past decade, Richard and Elizabeth Uihlein have joined the top five biggest Republican mega-donors in the US. They have lavished more than $230m on federal candidates alone.Among the politicians they have championed are some of the most notorious allies of Donald Trump. They include Ron Johnson, the Republican senator from Wisconsin, who ran a racially charged re-election campaign last November, and Marjorie Taylor Green, the extremist congresswoman from Georgia.The Uihleins live in a suburb of Chicago, but their heritage lies in Wisconsin. Richard’s great-grandfather was August Uihlein, one of the four brothers who inherited the Schlitz beer empire following the fateful shipwreck.According to the Brennan Center’s database of ad spending and official Wisconsin campaign finance records, Richard and Elizabeth have already given $40,000 of their own personal fortune to support Kelly, while injecting almost $2m more into the supreme court race through an outside group. Fair Courts America, a Super Pac largely bankrolled by Richard Uihlein, was created in 2020 with the aim of combatting the “woke mob” by shifting the balance of state and federal courts towards the far right.Latest figures compiled by the Brennan Center show that Fair Courts America has already placed TV and radio ad orders of $1.8m backing Kelly. “Madison liberals are trying to take over the Wisconsin supreme court,” one of the Super Pac’s ads says. “That’s why we need to elect conservative justice Dan Kelly.”Deploying her vast wealth in the opposite direction is Lynde Bradley Uihlein, another direct heir to the Schlitz brewing empire. Her grandfather, Harry Lynde Bradley, founded the Bradley Foundation, a rightwing powerhouse that has created a network of thinktanks and dark money groups that has helped transform Wisconsin over the past decade into a conservative bastion.Like her cousin Richard, Lynde Uihlein operates largely in the shadows, to the extent that it remains unclear why she would have bucked the family tradition and sided with progressive rather than conservative causes. She has given $20,000 of her own wealth – the maximum allowed under Wisconsin law – directly to the campaign coffers of the liberal-leaning judge Protasiewicz.In addition, she has donated $200,000 to Democratic groups in the past year as well as $250,000 to A Better Wisconsin Together, a political fund that funnels dark money – contributions whose origins cannot easily be traced – to progressive statewide candidates.Conservative donors pour ‘dark money’ into case that could upend US voting lawRead moreA Better Wisconsin Together has become the main financial backer of the two liberal candidates in the state supreme court race, pumping almost as much cash into the election as its conservative rival, Fair Courts America. The latest tally from the Brennan Center shows A Better Wisconsin Together ordering $1.6m of political TV and radio ads in the primary election alone.Keith of the Brennan Center said that the financial injection of rival Uihlein money in the election raised a profound question: “Do we want who sits on our state supreme courts to be decided as a result of a fight between the members of one of the wealthiest families in the state?”Matthew Rothschild, executive director of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, a non-profit monitoring money and politics, said this week’s election was a “grotesque example of what happens when you get rid of campaign donation limits that restrict how much the super-rich can throw around.“We’re suffering the results: the voice of the average person is being drowned out.”TopicsWisconsinLaw (US)US politicsUS political financingfeaturesReuse this content More