- The Supreme Court allowed Kentucky's attorney general to defend a restrictive abortion law that was struck down as unconstitutional.
- Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron called the decision a "victory for the rule of law."
- Abortion-rights supporters blasted the Supreme Court's ruling.
The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that Kentucky's attorney general can defend a restrictive abortion law in a case that had been dropped by Democratic officials after the law was struck down by lower courts as unconstitutional.
The 8-1 decision was in response to a technical question of whether GOP Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron should be allowed to step in and defend a case after it had been dropped by Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear.
The law, known as HB 454, bans a standard abortion procedure called dilation and evacuation, most commonly used to end a pregnancy after 15 weeks. The Supreme Court did not consider the substance of the law, which passed in 2018 under then-Republican Gov. Matt Bevin, and was later blocked by lower federal courts.
Beshear, elected in 2019 to replace Bevin, dropped the case without further appeal. But newly elected Cameron, a Republican, wanted to continue to defend the law. A federal court declined his request to intervene, saying it was too late. So Cameron turned to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to review whether he should be allowed to take over.
The Supreme Court on Thursday cleared the path for him to do so. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a liberal, was the sole dissenter.
The court's majority "bends over backward to accommodate the attorney general's reentry into the case," she wrote. "I fear today's decision will open the floodgates for government officials to evade the consequences of litigation decisions made by their predecessors of different political parties, undermining finality and upsetting the settled expectations of courts, litigants, and the public alike."
The court heard arguments on the case last October, when some of the justices appeared inclined to support Cameron's position.
"There have been a lot of party changes. First the Republicans are in, then the Democrats are in, and they have different views on an abortion statute," Associate Justice Stephen Breyer said at the time. "We have an attorney general who think it's a pretty good statute. He wants to defend it."
"Why can't he just come in and defend the law?" Breyer asked the lawyer defending EMW Women's Surgical Center, a Louisville clinic that challenged the law.
The justices did not review the merits of the law, but abortion-rights supporters fear that their decision could eventually threaten abortion access in Kentucky.
The court "ruled that Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron can move forward with a last-ditch attempt to ban abortion in Kentucky," the American Civil Liberties Union said in a statement on Thursday in response to the decision. "The ban is currently blocked, and we'll be fighting to keep it that way."
Cameron on Thursday called the decision a "victory for the rule of law," saying in a statement: "We will proudly continue to carry the mantle for this important pro-life law by going back to the Sixth Circuit and litigating the case."
Thursday's ruling also comes as the court will make a significant decision on a major abortion case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which concerns a Mississippi law that ban abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. Mississippi has asked the court to uphold its law and overturn the landmark 1973 ruling Roe v. Wade, which guaranteed the constitutional right to an abortion up until around 24 weeks of pregnancy. A decision in that case is expected by June.