JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) — The Alaska Supreme Court is weighing a case that is expected to determine who can provide abortion care in the state.
The court heard arguments Wednesday in a 2019 case challenging the constitutionality of a law that states only a doctor licensed by the State Medical Board can perform an abortion in Alaska.
The law, dating to the 1970s, was struck down as unconstitutional by Superior Court judge Josie Garton last year, a victory for the group that brought the challenge, Planned Parenthood Great Northwest, Hawaii, Alaska, Indiana, Kentucky. The state appealed Garton's ruling.
Planned Parenthood has argued there is no medical justification for the restriction and that it unfairly burdens those seeking an abortion by limiting the pool of those qualified to provide care. In 2021, Garton granted the group’s request to allow advanced practice clinicians — health care workers, such as nurse practitioners and physician assistants — to provide medication abortion pending her decision in the underlying case. They have continued to do so and since the 2024 ruling also have been able to provide procedural abortions, Planned Parenthood says.
Advanced practice clinicians routinely provide care similar in risk and complexity to that of providing abortion services, and in 25 states can provide medication abortion, attorneys for Planned Parenthood said in court documents. Planned Parenthood's advanced practice clinicians seek to provide abortion care in just the first trimester, the attorneys said.
Since Garton's 2021 decision, advanced practice clinicians have been providing “nearly all” medication abortions in Alaska, and Planned Parenthood clinics in the state have been able to offer medication abortion each day they've been open, the attorneys wrote. Before that, doctors hired by Planned Parenthood on a per diem basis — at the clinics on limited days — were able to offer medication abortions perhaps once or twice a week at each clinic, they wrote.
A vital statistics report released by the state this year shows that the total number of abortions in Alaska has been fairly consistent — 1,229 in 2021, 1,247 in 2022, 1,222 in 2023 and 1,224 last year. The report says that could include cases where medication was provided to manage a miscarriage, but without providing a number. It also says reasons for ending pregnancies are not reported to the state.
The U.S. Supreme Court in 2022 overturned a federal right to abortion, leaving it up to each state to regulate.
Access to health care has been a longstanding concern in Alaska, with travel — sometimes covering hundreds of miles — required for many residents. Compounding that are ongoing challenges to recruit and keep medical providers.
Most Alaska communities are not connected to the state’s main road system, and health care in many small communities is often limited, requiring residents to fly to larger cities, such as Anchorage or Seattle, for more options or for specialized care. Roundtrip flights can easily cost hundreds of dollars. In remote communities, fog or poor weather can cause flight delays.
Planned Parenthood has two clinics in Alaska, in Anchorage and Fairbanks. It closed its clinic in Juneau last year.
The Alaska Supreme Court has long interpreted the right to privacy in the state’s constitution as encompassing abortion rights.
But attorneys for the state argued in court filings that Planned Parenthood did not show that the law at the center of the legal challenge had “inhibited women in Alaska from exercising their right to choose an abortion.” Planned Parenthood could have hired more doctors but chose not to, wrote the attorneys, including Laura Wolff, an assistant attorney general.
“Even if an occasional patient were prevented from getting an abortion, the physician-only law is not unconstitutional as applied to all women who are not significantly affected by the law because the law has a plainly legitimate sweep,” the filing states.
Wolff and Camila Vega, an attorney representing Planned Parenthood, argued their respective sides in court Wednesday. The court did not indicate when it might rule.
FILE - Bear sculptures sit outside the Boney Courthouse, where the Alaska Supreme Court hears cases, in downtown Anchorage, Alaska, Sept. 10, 2024. (AP Photo/Mark Thiessen, File)
WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing arguments at 10 a.m. ET over the constitutionality of President Donald Trump’s order to end birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to someone in the country illegally or temporarily.
The birthright citizenship order, which Trump signed on Jan. 20, 2025, the first day of his second term, is part of his Republican administration’s broad immigration crackdown.
Trump plans to be in attendance. He will be the first sitting president to attend oral arguments at the nation’s highest court.
Every lower court to have considered the issue has found the order illegal and prevented it from taking effect. A definitive ruling by the nation’s highest court is expected by early summer.
Here’s the latest:
Sauer, Trump’s top Supreme Court lawyer, is at the lectern, defending the president’s birthright citizenship order. Trump is in the courtroom.
On American Samoa, an island cluster in the South Pacific roughly halfway between Hawaii and New Zealand, native-born children are considered “U.S. nationals” — a distinction that gives them certain rights and obligations while denying them others.
American Samoans are entitled to U.S. passports and can serve in the military. Men must register for the Selective Service. They can vote in local elections in American Samoa but cannot hold public office in the U.S. or participate in most U.S. elections.
Those who wish to become citizens can do so, but the process costs hundreds of dollars and can be cumbersome. In 2022, the Supreme Court rejected an appeal seeking to extend birthright citizenship to American Samoa.
An Alaska appeals court is weighing whether to dismiss criminal charges against an Alaska resident born in American Samoa after she was elected to a local school board.
Crowds watched from the sidewalks as Trump’s motorcade drove along Constitution and Independence Avenues, passing the Washington Monument and the National Mall on the way to the court building.
Justice Felix Frankfurter, a native of Austria, was the last of six justices who were born abroad. The current court is American from birth.
Still, the citizenship issue hits close to home for some justices.
Thomas and Ketanji Brown Jackson are descended from enslaved people who eventually had their citizenship established by the 14th Amendment.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s parents were born in Puerto Rico, where residents became citizens under a 1917 law enacted by Congress. The justice most closely tied to an immigrant is Alito, whose father was born in Italy.
Way back in 1841, former President John Quincy Adams represented a shipload of African men and women who had been sold into slavery in the famous Amistad case.
Former President William Howard Taft became chief justice nearly eight years after leaving the White House in 1913. Charles Evans Hughes left the Supreme Court for a presidential run in 1912, which he nearly won, then returned to the court in 1930 as chief justice.
In 1966, Richard Nixon argued his only Supreme Court case, which he lost.
Twenty-four Democratic state attorneys general put out a statement Wednesday morning saying they’re “proud to lead the fight against this unlawful order.”
While Democratic attorneys general have sued the Trump administration scores of times, the plaintiffs in this case are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and other civil rights groups.
The Democratic attorneys filed court papers supporting their position. Twenty-five of their Republican counterparts filed a friend-of-the-court brief backing the Trump administration.
The only state sitting this one out is New Hampshire.
More than 250,000 babies born in the U.S. each year would not be citizens, according to research from the Migration Policy Institute and Pennsylvania State University’s Population Research Institute.
The order would only apply going forward, the administration has said. But opponents have said a court ruling in Trump’s favor could pave the way for a later effort to take away citizenship from people who were born to parents who were not themselves U.S. citizens.
The president and first lady Melania Trump showed up for the court ritual marking the arrival of a new justice following the confirmations of Justice Neil Gorsuch in 2017 and Justice Brett Kavanaugh a year later.
The ceremony for Trump’s third appointee, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, was delayed a year because of the COVID-19 pandemic and Trump, who was no longer in office, did not attend.
Traditionally the president has avoided attending arguments to maintain distance between the government branches — since the executive officer’s presence is seen by many as a way to pressure the independent court to rule in their favor.
Given the unusual nature of it all — Trump’s presence in the courtroom spotlights how high the stakes are for him, as the court’s decision will have massive consequences on his longstanding promise to crack down on immigration.
Last year, Trump said that he badly wanted to attend a hearing on whether he overstepped federal law with his sweeping tariffs, but he decided against it, saying it would have been a distraction.
Adam Winkler, a constitutional law professor at UCLA, told the The Associated Press that Trump’s attending SCOTUS oral arguments signals how important the president views this case.
However, Trump’s presence “is unlikely to sway the justices,” Winkler said, adding that the SCOTUS justices “pride themselves in their independence, even if some agree with much of Trump’s agenda.”
The fanfare of Trump being in the courtroom will make for a different experience for the justices themselves, however, as “Trump’s presence will make the atmosphere a little bit more circus-like,” Winkler said.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer is making his ninth Supreme Court argument and second in as many weeks. Sauer’s biggest win to date was the presidential immunity decision that spared Trump from being tried for his effort to overturn the 2020 election.
Sauer was a Supreme Court law clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia early in his legal career.
ACLU legal director Cecillia Wang, the child of Chinese immigrants, is presenting her second argument to the Supreme Court. In the first Trump administration, a 5-4 conservative majority ruled against Wang’s clients in another immigration case.
It’s not an April Fool’s joke. Alito was born this day in 1950. Only Thomas, who turns 78 in June, is older than Alito among the nine justices.
In the post-pandemic era, the other justices allow the 77-year-old Thomas, the longest-serving member of the court, to pose a question or two before the free-for-all begins.
In a second round of questioning, the justices ask questions in order of seniority. Chief Justice John Roberts, whose center chair makes him the most senior, gets the first crack.
The justices have routinely gone beyond the allotted time since returning to the courtroom following the Covid-19 pandemic.
A buzzer and the court marshal’s cry, “All rise,” signal the justices’ entrance from behind red curtains. The livestream won’t kick in for several minutes, until after the ceremonial swearing-in of lawyers to the Supreme Court bar.
FILE - The U.S. Supreme Court is seen in Washington on Feb. 24, 2026. (AP Photo/Matt Rourke, File)
People arrive to walk inside the U.S. Supreme Court, on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, April 1, 2026. The Supreme Court justices will hear oral arguments today on whether President Donald Trump can deny citizenship to children born to parents who are in the United States illegally or temporarily. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
