Bridget Bade On Abortion

Bade Allowed The Enforcement Of A Near-Total Abortion Ban In Idaho

BADE LIFTED AN INJUNCTION, ALLOWING IDAHO TO ENFORCE ITS NEAR-TOTAL ABORTION BAN

Bade Was Part Of A 9th Circuit Panel Which Allowed Parts Of Idaho’s Near-Total Ban On Abortion To Go Into Effect After Lifting An Injunction From A Lower Court. According to Politico, “A federal appeals court has lifted a lower court ruling that prevented the State of Idaho from enforcing aspects of its near-total ban on abortion. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order Thursday granting Idaho officials’ request to put the injunction against the law on hold while the state appeals the lower judge’s decision. The ruling is a blow to the Biden administration’s effort to use a federal law mandating emergency room treatment to soften the impact of the Supreme Court’s decision last year to overturn the federal constitutional right to abortion established in Roe v. Wade in 1973. The Justice Department filed suit against Idaho last August, arguing that the state’s tough abortion law was likely to discourage physicians from providing emergency treatment to pregnant patients who need an abortion to preserve their life or health. U.S. District Court Judge B. Lynn Winmill agreed that the state law appeared to run afoul of the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, passed in 1986. Winmill, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, issued a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the abortion ban against medical providers and hospitals in situations where the patient’s life or health is in jeopardy. However, a 9th Circuit panel consisting of three appointees of President Donald Trump said Thursday that the Idaho Supreme Court has since clarified its interpretation of the Idaho statute, so the two laws no longer appear to be in conflict. ‘The Supreme Court of Idaho clarified that the text of the exception means what it says: If a doctor subjectively believes, in his or her good faith medical judgment, that an abortion is necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman, then the exception applies,’ Judge Lawrence VanDyke wrote in an order joined by Judges Bridget Bade and Kenneth Lee.” [Politico, 9/28/23] 

Bade Ruled That Idaho’s Abortion Ban Applied To Emergency Room Doctors 

Bade Joined An Opinion Ruling That Emergency Room Doctors Were Not Protected From Prosecution For Performing Abortions In Idaho. According to the Idaho Capital Sun, “Emergency room doctors in Idaho are no longer protected from prosecution under the state’s abortion ban after the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed an order that had been in effect since August 2022. The court granted the Idaho Legislature’s appeal after U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, made the decision and refused to reconsider it in May. The case stems from the U.S. Department of Justice’s lawsuit against the state of Idaho, and the injunction went into effect one day before the abortion ban, which applies to all stages of pregnancy, became law. […] The three appeals court judges, all of whom were appointed by former President Donald Trump, said recent legislative actions and other court rulings have invalidated the original arguments in the lawsuit. The opinion is authored by Judge Lawrence VanDyke and joined by Judges Bridget S. Bade and Kenneth K. Lee.” [Idaho Capital Sun, 9/29/23] 

The 9th Circuit Subsequently Overruled Bade

The Injunction Was Put Back Into Place After Review By The Full 9th Circuit. According to CBS News, “A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit then allowed the law to be fully enforced while litigation continued. But the full 9th Circuit, which reviewed the panel’s ruling, reinstated the district court’s order in October.” [CBS News, 4/24/24]

2024: The Case Remained Pending Before The Supreme Court. According to CBS News, “The Supreme Court on Wednesday appeared divided as it wrestled with a case pitting Idaho’s near-total ban on abortion against a federal law that requires hospitals to provide stabilizing care to patients experiencing medical emergencies. The dispute between the Biden administration and Idaho officials in the case known as Moyle v. United States was the second involving abortion that the court has heard in the span of a month. But it marks the first time since the court’s decision overturning Roe v. Wade in June 2022 that the justices have considered a state law restricting access to the procedure.” [CBS News, 4/24/24] 

IDAHO’S ABORTION BAN THREATENED DOCTORS THAT ASSIST IN PERFORMING AN ABORTION WITH PRISON 

Idaho’s Abortion Ban Threatens Doctors Who Assist In Performing An Abortion With Up To Five Years In Prison And The Loss Of Their Medical License. According to Reuters, “Idaho’s so-called abortion ‘trigger’ law, adopted in 2020, automatically took effect upon Roe’s reversal. The state law bans nearly all abortions unless needed to prevent a mother’s death, threatening doctors who violate it with two to five years in prison and loss of their medical license.” [Reuters, 4/24/24] 

Bridget Bade On LGBTQ Rights

Bade Failed To Advocate For The LGBTQ Community As A Student Leader

As A Member Of Student Government, Bade Was Named In A Lawsuit Alleging Discrimination Against LGBTQ Students

After The Student Government At Arizona State University Refused To Fund The Gay And Lesbian Student Organization, The Organization Sued Alleging Violations Of The First And Fourteenth Amendments. According to Bade’s Questions For The Record (QFRs) for her nomination to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, “According to publicly available filings, you were a named defendant in a 1987 lawsuit brought by the lesbian and gay student organization at Arizona State University (ASU). That student organization alleged that it was denied funding by the student government ‘because of the perceived sexual orientation of [the organization’s] members and because the subject matter of its educational programming often deals with issues related to sexual orientation.’ The complaint alleged that ASU, its administration, and the student government violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments by denying funding to student groups that they deemed ‘controversial,’ thereby effectively discriminating against groups based on the content of their speech.” [Bade QFRs – nomination to the ninth court of appeals, 10/31/18]

The Lawsuit Alleged That As Executive Vice President Of Student Government, Bade Was Asked To Reopen Appropriations For The Group And Was Advised That Denying The Funding Violated The Gay And Lesbian Students’ Rights. According to Bade’s Questions For The Record (QFRs) for her nomination to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, “You were the Executive Vice President of the student government at the time. Although you did not serve in the student senate, which passed the funding bills that excluded the gay and lesbian student group, the lawsuit alleged that you approved one or more of these exclusionary funding bills. Further, an affidavit appended to the complaint filed in the case alleged that ASU’s Vice President for Student Affairs asked you and the student government’s other executive officers ‘to reopen the appropriations process and was informed by [you] that such action would be impossible.’ You also later received a memo from the Vice President for Student Affairs conveying advice from ASU’s General Counsel that denying funding to the lesbian and gay student organization was unconstitutional and asking the student government to reconsider the denial of funding.” [Bade QFRs – nomination to the ninth court of appeals, 10/31/18]

• Bade Denied Responsibility For The Exclusionary Funding. According to Bade’s Questions For The Record (QFRs) for her nomination to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, “The question states that I ‘approved one or more of these exclusionary funding bills.’ That is not an accurate description of my role in undergraduate student government. As vice president of the student body, I served as chair of the student senate. I did not have authority or responsibility for approving or denying funding bills, or any other bills the student senate passed. Only the student body president had the authority to sign or veto bills from the student senate. Therefore, I did not play any role in reviewing bills from the student senate.” [Bade QFRs – nomination to the ninth court of appeals, 10/31/18]

Bridget Bade On Crime

Bade Refused To Provide Relief In A Case Where A Juvenile Was Handed A Life Sentence Without Parole 

Bade Denied Review Of A Case Where A Minor Was Given A Functional Life Sentence Without Parole, Despite Such Sentences Being Ruled A Violation Of The Eighth Amendment

The Supreme Court Ruled In Miller v. Alabama That Juvenile Life Without Parole Sentences Violated The Eighth Amendment’s Provisions Against Cruel And Unusual Punishment. According to Oyez, “Writing for a 5-4 majority, Justice Elena Kagan reversed the Arkansas and Alabama Supreme Courts’ decisions and remanded. The Court held that the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment forbids the mandatory sentencing of life in prison without the possibility of parole for juvenile homicide offenders. Children are constitutionally different from adults for sentencing purposes. While a mandatory life sentence for adults does not violate the Eighth Amendment, such a sentence would be an unconstitutionally disproportionate punishment for children.” [Oyez, Accessed 6/26/24]

In The Case Laird v. Ryan, Bade Recommended Denying Review Of A Case Where A Juvenile Was Given A 154-Year Sentence Because The Sentence Was Not Technically A Life Sentence. According to Bade’s Questions For The Record (QFRs) for her nomination to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, “In 2018, you recommended the denial of a habeas petition of an individual who committed murder as a juvenile. The petitioner argued that his 154-year life sentence for first degree murder and other crimes was essentially a life sentence without parole and violated the Eighth Amendment pursuant to Graham v. Florida and Miller v. Alabama. In your recommendation, you wrote that ‘[b]ecause there is no clearly established Supreme Court precedent holding that an aggregate sentence that is functionally equivalent to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole violates the Eighth Amendment,’ the petitioner was not entitled to habeas corpus relief. The district court adopted your recommendation.” [Bade QFRs – nomination to the ninth court of appeals, 10/31/18]

Bridget Bade On Sexual Assault

Bridget Bade Blamed A Sexual Assault Victim For Delayed Reporting Of Her Sexual Assault

Bade Penned An Opinion That Discredited A Victim Of Sexual Assault And Blamed Her For Not Reporting Her Assault Sooner

In The Case Vo v. Barr, A Vietnamese Asylum Seeker Delayed Reporting Her Sexual Assault By Vietnamese Police, Causing The Immigration Judge To Determine That She Had Adverse Credibility. According to the Petition For Review Of Order in the case Vo v. Barr by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, “Hong Vo, a citizen of Vietnam, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (‘BIA’) dismissing her appeal from the order of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying an application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). […] The BIA affirmed the IJ’s adverse credibility determination based on three inconsistencies: (1) the date of Vo’s second arrest; (2) whether Vo’s mother was present at the police station after her initial release; and (3) Vo’s failure to disclose, prior to her hearing before the IJ, allegations of sexual assault by Vietnamese police.” [Petition for Review of Order – Vo v. Barr, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, 8/21/20]

The Ninth Circuit Court Of Appeals Found That Delaying Disclosure Of Her Sexual Assault Was Not Proper Grounds For An Adverse Credibility Determination, Ordering The Case To Be Reconsidered. According to the Petition For Review Of Order in the case Vo v. Barr by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, “Vo’s omission of the assault does not support the adverse credibility determination for three reasons. First, Vo’s failure to disclose the sexual assault prior to her hearing testimony was not a true inconsistency but rather a further elaboration of the abuse she suffered in custody. Cf. Kin v. Holder, 595 F.3d 1050, 1057 (9th Cir. 2010) (upholding an adverse credibility finding where the petitioners ‘omitted any mention of their participation in a demonstration that is the entire basis for their claim’ (emphasis added). Second, the BIA relied on the IJ’s finding that Vo’s ‘omission of such a significant fact [was] not reasonable, just because she hadn’t told anybody before.’ That is not a proper basis for an adverse credibility determination. ‘We have previously held that the assumption that the timing of a victim’s disclosure of sexual assault is a bellwether of truth is belied by the reality that there is often delayed reporting of sexual abuse.’ Mousa v. Mukasey, 530 F.3d 1025, 1027 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). Finally, the BIA found that ‘[Vo] could not explain how her family would gain access to the information outlined in her declaration and asylum application.’ But this finding has no basis in the record; the IJ never asked Vo to explain how her family in America would obtain her declaration. Therefore, the alleged inconsistency cannot serve as substantial evidence for finding Vo not credible.” [Petition for Review of Order – Vo v. Barr, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, 8/21/20]

Bade Dissented From The Court In This Case, Arguing That Vo’s Fear For Her Mother’s Safety Was Not A Compelling Explanation Of Her Delayed Disclosure For Her Sexual Assault. According to Bade’s dissent in the Petition For Review Of Order in the case Vo v. Barr by the ninth circuit court of appeals, “I disagree with the majority’s reasons for rejecting the agency’s finding. To my knowledge, we have never announced a rule that the omission of a sexual assault allegation cannot support an adverse credibility determination. Instead, we have held that the agency should excuse such an omission when the petitioner ‘provide[s] a compelling explanation for her failure to mention her [sexual assault] at an earlier time in the proceedings.’ […] Vo did not provide a compelling explanation here.” [Petition for Review of Order, Bade Dissent – Vo v. Barr, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, 8/21/20]

Bridget Bade On Workers

Bade Stood Up For Big Business And Against Low-Wage Workers 

In A Dissenting Opinion, Bade Would Have Made A Walmart Employee Making $11.50 An Hour Pay Walmart’s Legal Fees After Suing Them For Age Discrimination

A District Judge Ordered A Walmart Employee Who Made $11.50 An Hour To Pay Thousands Of Dollars To Pay Walmart’s Legal Fees. According to Forbes, “A federal appeals court this week vacated an order requiring a former Walmart worker who lost his age discrimination lawsuit against the corporation to pay a portion of Walmart’s costs. U.S. District Judge R. Gary Klausner had ordered Warren Mauran, who sued Walmart for age discrimination after he was fired, to pay Walmart a total of $6,012.80 in costs. […] At the time of his termination, Mauran worked at a Pasadena area Walmart store earning $11.50 an hour.” [Forbes, 10/9/19]

The Ninth Circuit Court Of Appeals Voided The Directive To Pay The Legal Fees On A 2-1 Panel Split. According to Forbes, “A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit based in San Francisco, CA, voided the charge in a split 2-to-1 decision. The majority ruled that Klausner abused its discretion when it granted Walmart’s application for costs as the prevailing party in the case.” [Forbes, 10/9/19]

Bade Was The Single Dissenter, Arguing That The Worker Ought To Pay Walmart’s Legal Fees. According to Forbes, “The third judge on the panel, Bridget Shelton Bade, dissented, stating Mauran should have to pay because he had not sufficiently ‘rebutted the presumption for awarding costs to the prevailing party.’” [Forbes, 10/9/19]