amicus travel

Deals of the Week   Mediterranean Magic   Up to 50% OFF

All Tours Operated By Amicus Travel Mongolia

Discover the best Amicus Travel Mongolia adventures in one convenient place. TourRadar offers 1 Amicus Travel Mongolia tours. You can find the perfect trip spanning across day to day itineraries with great low prices.

1 Amicus Travel Mongolia trips

In-depth Cultural Family Explorer +1

Mongolia Naadam Festival - Gobi Desert Tour

"All went good; you can only supply better food, but all the rest is ok." Eugenio, traveled in July 2023

Discover TourRadar

• Rwanda Safari
• East Coast Australia Tours
• Northeast India 7 day tours
• Bhutan Budget tours
• Yala National Park tours
• Central Europe Beach tours
• G Adventures—Travel like a G

• About Dick Durbin
• Committee Assignments
• About Illinois
• Federal Agency Assistance
• Flag Requests
• Visit Washington, D.C.
• Internships
• Scheduling Request
• BIF Competitive Grant Funding
• Protecting the Right to Abortion
• Coronavirus (COVID-19) Update
• Sponsored Legislation
• Voting Record
• The Chicago HEAL Initiative
• FY25 Congressionally Directed Spending Disclosures
• Press Releases
• Photo Gallery
• Video Gallery

Senator Dick Durbin

Durbin reveals omissions of gifted private travel to justice clarence thomas from harlan crow.

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL), Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, today released exclusively obtained information from Harlan Crow on his gifts of free luxury travel to Justice Clarence Thomas, which was omitted from Justice Thomas’ financial disclosure, despite last week’s amendment to his 2019 financial disclosure report. A report on the Senate Judiciary Committee Majority’s Supreme Court ethics investigation will be released later this summer.

In documents obtained by the Committee as a result of the subpoena authorization for information from Harlan Crow on November 30, 2023, Crow revealed travel and gifts that Justice Thomas has failed to disclose to date, including:

• May 2017 private jet travel from St. Louis, MO, to Kalispell, MT, and return flight to Dallas, TX;
• March 2019 private jet travel from Washington, DC, to Savannah, GA, and back; and
• June 2021 private jet travel from Washington, DC, to San Jose, CA, and back.

The documents also showed private jet travel for the recently-disclosed July 2019 trip to Indonesia; an eight-day yacht excursion for the recently-disclosed July 2019 trip to Indonesia; and private jet travel for the recently-disclosed July 2019 trip to Santa Rosa, California, all of which Thomas failed to disclose in his amendment to his 2019 financial disclosure report last week. Additionally, Crow’s documents show different dates for the July 2019 Indonesia trip, further calling into question the accuracy of the details Justice Thomas decides to disclose.

Recent reporting found that Justice Thomas has accepted nearly $4.2 million worth of gifts over two decades on the Court—a total nearly ten times the value of all gifts received by his fellow justices during the same time.

“Nearly $4.2 million in gifts and even that wasn’t enough for Justice Thomas, with at least three additional trips the Committee found that he has failed to disclose to date,” said Durbin. “The Senate Judiciary Committee’s ongoing investigation into the Supreme Court’s ethical crisis is producing new information—like what we’ve revealed today—and makes it crystal clear that the highest court needs an enforceable code of conduct, because its members continue to choose not to meet the moment.”

Durbin continued, “As a result of our investigation and subpoena authorization, we are providing the American public greater clarity on the extent of ethical lapses by Supreme Court justices and the need for ethics reform. Despite an approval rating near all-time lows and never-ending, self-inflicted scandals, Chief Justice Roberts still refuses to use his existing authority to implement an enforceable code of conduct. Until he acts, we will continue our push for the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act to become law.”

Despite Justice Thomas’s continued refusal to disclose private jet and yacht travel retroactively in his disclosure amendments, the financial disclosure statute (5 U.S.C. 13104(a)(2)(A)) has always clearly stated that only “food, lodging, or entertainment received as personal hospitality of an individual need not be reported.” Gifts of transportation are required to be disclosed by law.

Documentation of Justice Thomas’s previously undisclosed trips is available here .

Durbin has repeatedly called for the  passage of the  Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency (SCERT) Act,  legislation that the Senate Judiciary Committee advanced last July. The bill would require Supreme Court justices to adopt a binding code of conduct, create a mechanism to investigate alleged violations of the code of conduct and other laws, improve disclosure and transparency when a justice has a connection to a party or amicus before the Court, and require justices to explain their recusal decisions to the public.

Judiciary Committee Democrats asked unanimous consent for the Senate to pass the SCERT Act on the Senate floor last night. The request was objected to by Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans. 

Durbin has been calling on the Supreme Court to adopt an enforceable code of conduct for more than a decade. He first sent a  letter to the Chief Justice on this issue more than 12 years ago. 

For full background on Durbin’s and the Senate Judiciary Committee’s efforts to deliver Supreme Court ethics reform for the American people and their ongoing investigation into the Supreme Court’s ethical crisis,  visit this page  that includes a timeline, releases, correspondence, and information on the  SCERT Act .

Judge dismisses lawsuit challenging federal rules to accommodate abortions for workers

CHICAGO — A  lawsuit filed by 17 states  challenging federal rules entitling workers to time off and other  accommodations for abortions  lacks standing, a federal judge in Arkansas ruled on Friday.

Republican attorneys general from each state, led by Arkansas and Tennessee, sued the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in April,  days after the agency published rules  for employers and workers to implement the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, a 2022 law requiring many employers to make “reasonable accommodations” for pregnant or postpartum employees.

In addition to more  routine pregnancy workplace accommodations  like time off for prenatal appointments, more bathroom breaks, or permission to carry snacks, the rules say that workers can ask for time off to obtain an abortion and recover from the procedure.

The lawsuit filed in federal court in Arkansas argued the regulations go beyond the scope of the 2022 law that passed with bipartisan support.

Eastern District of Arkansas U.S. District Judge D.P. Marshall, Jr., who was appointed to the bench by former President Barack Obama, denied the states’ request for a nationwide preliminary injunction on the federal rules, which are scheduled to go into effect on Tuesday.

“The States’ fear of overreach by one branch of the federal government cannot be cured with overreach by another,” Friday’s ruling says.

Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin said in a statement provided by a spokesperson that he is “disappointed in the court’s ruling” and “am considering all legal options and remain confident we will ultimately be successful.”

The other states that joined the lawsuit are Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah and West Virginia.

The EEOC regulations are also being challenged in another federal lawsuit in Louisiana that is still awaiting a ruling. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, along with other religious groups, have filed a separate lawsuit over the abortion provision in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. That case has been consolidated with a lawsuit filed by the attorneys general of Louisiana and Mississippi, which also asks the judge to postpone the enforcement of the EEOC rules pending the outcome of the case.

The American Civil Liberties Union and more than 20 labor and women’s advocacy groups, including A Better Balance, a non-profit that spearheaded the 10-year campaign for the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act’s passage, filed amicus briefs in both cases arguing the EEOC rules should take effect as scheduled, calling them key to the successful implementation of law.

“Today’s ruling in Tennessee v. EEOC is a victory for millions of pregnant and postpartum workers across the country, because it allows the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) regulations to go into effect next week, providing important clarity about how the law works in practice,” said Dina Bakst of A Better Balance.

In their briefs, the groups cited dozens of examples of pregnant workers who have reached out to advocacy groups or filed lawsuits claiming that employers have continued to deny them accommodations in violation of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.

“The relief sought in this case is completely overboard and would have harmed literally millions of people,” said Gillian Thomas, a senior staff attorney in the ACLU’s Women’s Rights Project, referring to the lawsuit in Arkansas. “The law has been in place for a year and employers are violating it in the most egregious way right and left and clearly need guidance.”

The EEOC in its regulations said it was conforming to decades of legal precedent establishing that pregnancy anti-discrimination laws include abortion.

Abortion rights defenders have also hailed the protection under the EEOC rules as especially critical in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling that overturned the constitutional right to abortion. Women in states with strict abortion restrictions increasingly have to travel far to obtain the procedure, needing time off to do so.

The Associated Press

In NCLA Amicus Win, Tenth Circuit Clears Path to Toppling Intrusive Dog Kennel Inspection Regime

Scott johnson, harlene hoyt, covey find kennel, llc v. justin smith, d.v.m., in his official capacity as animal health commissioner at the kansas department of agriculture.

June 11, 2024 11:00 ET | Source: New Civil Liberties Alliance New Civil Liberties Alliance

Washington, D.C., June 11, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has reversed a district court decision in Johnson v. Smith that upheld a Kansas state law authorizing intrusive warrantless searches for dog training and handling businesses. The New Civil Liberties Alliance filed an amicus curiae brief explaining that the warrantless-search law infringes the Appellants’ Fourth Amendment rights “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” While the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the Appellants’ claim that the state law violates their right to travel, it remanded the case to the lower court to determine whether the Fourth Amendment authorizes warrantless searches of dog training and handling businesses—the issue we briefed. NCLA expects the district court to now overturn the law.

Married couple Scott Johnson and Harlene Hoyt, of Winfield, KS, own and operate their licensed Brittany Spaniel training and handling business Covey Find Kennel, LCC, out of a facility next to their home. To maintain the license, the Kansas Pet Animal Act requires one of them to be present at the property for an unannounced physical search on 30 minutes’ notice from an inspector. It permits the Kansas Department of Agriculture to trespass on their property, invade their privacy, and severely hamper their right to travel without first showing probable cause to a judge. NCLA believes this licensing and warrantless search regime violates the Fourth Amendment.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas dismissed Johnson and Hoyt’s lawsuit last year, incorrectly ruling that precedent excepting “closely regulated” businesses from Fourth Amendment protection against warrantless, privacy-invading searches applies to their dog training and handling business. The Tenth Circuit concluded that it lacked sufficient information to decide whether businesses like Covey Find Kennel are closely regulated and thus exempt from the search warrant requirement. The district court’s broad application of what is supposed to be a narrow exception would allow such intrusions to become commonplace across a wide range of Kansas industries. It would extend the exception to virtually every regulated industry. NCLA appreciates that the Tenth Circuit overturned the district court’s error in expanding the exception. Now, the district court should clarify that the narrow “closely regulated business” exception does not apply to training and handling dogs.

NCLA released the following statements:

“As NCLA argued, applying the narrow Fourth Amendment exception for closely regulated businesses to a facility training Brittany Spaniels is absurd. That dog won’t hunt. The court below should quickly spike this law.” — Mark Chenoweth, President, NCLA “The district court should apply U.S. Supreme Court precedent to reject this warrantless search regime. That outcome would prevent the Kansas legislature from using licensing requirements to override important constitutional protections.” — Andrew Morris, Senior Litigation Counsel, NCLA

For more information visit the amicus page here .

NCLA is a nonpartisan, nonprofit civil rights group founded by prominent legal scholar  Philip Hamburger to protect constitutional freedoms from violations by the Administrative State. NCLA’s public-interest litigation and other pro bono advocacy strive to tame the unlawful power of state and federal agencies and to foster a new civil liberties movement that will help restore Americans’ fundamental rights.

Related Links

• NCLA website
• NCLA YouTube

Contact Data

Judge dismisses lawsuit challenging federal rules to accommodate abortions for workers

• Show more sharing options
• Copy Link URL Copied!

A lawsuit filed by 17 states challenging federal rules entitling workers to time off and other accommodations for abortions lacks standing, a federal judge in Arkansas has ruled.

Republican attorneys general from each state, led by Arkansas and Tennessee, sued the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in April, days after the agency published rules for employers and workers to implement the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, a 2022 law requiring many employers to make “reasonable accommodations” for pregnant or postpartum employees.

In addition to more routine pregnancy workplace accommodations like time off for prenatal appointments, more bathroom breaks, or permission to carry snacks, the rules say that workers can ask for time off to obtain an abortion and recover from the procedure.

The lawsuit filed in federal court in Arkansas argued the regulations go beyond the scope of the 2022 law that passed with bipartisan support.

World & Nation

17 states challenge federal rules entitling workers to accommodations for abortion

Seventeen states are challenging new federal rules entitling workers to time off and other accommodations for abortions.

April 26, 2024

Eastern District of Arkansas U.S. District Judge D.P. Marshall Jr., who was appointed to the bench by former President Obama, on Friday denied the states’ request for a nationwide preliminary injunction on the federal rules, which are scheduled to go into effect Tuesday.

“The States’ fear of overreach by one branch of the federal government cannot be cured with overreach by another,” Friday’s ruling says.

Arkansas Atty. Gen. Tim Griffin said in a statement provided by a spokesperson that he is “disappointed in the court’s ruling” and “am considering all legal options and remain confident we will ultimately be successful.”

The other states that joined the lawsuit are Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah and West Virginia.

The EEOC regulations are also being challenged in another federal lawsuit in Louisiana that is still awaiting a ruling. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and other religious groups have filed a separate lawsuit over the abortion provision in a U.S. district court in Louisiana. That case has been consolidated with a lawsuit filed by the attorneys general of Louisiana and Mississippi, which also asks the judge to postpone the enforcement of the EEOC rules.

The American Civil Liberties Union and more than 20 labor and women’s advocacy groups, including A Better Balance, a nonprofit that spearheaded the 10-year campaign for the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act’s passage, filed amicus briefs in both cases arguing the EEOC rules should take effect as scheduled.

“Today’s ruling in Tennessee v. EEOC is a victory for millions of pregnant and postpartum workers across the country, because it allows the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act regulations to go into effect next week, providing important clarity about how the law works in practice,” said Dina Bakst of A Better Balance.

In their briefs, the groups cited dozens of examples of pregnant workers who have reached out to advocacy groups or filed lawsuits claiming that employers have continued to deny them accommodations in violation of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.

“The relief sought in this case is completely overboard and would have harmed literally millions of people,” said Gillian Thomas, a senior staff attorney in the ACLU’s Women’s Rights Project, referring to the lawsuit in Arkansas. “The law has been in place for a year and employers are violating it in the most egregious way right and left and clearly need guidance.”

The EEOC in its regulations said it was conforming to decades of legal precedent establishing that pregnancy anti-discrimination laws include abortion.

Abortion rights defenders have also hailed the protection under the EEOC rules as especially critical in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling that overturned the constitutional right to abortion. Women in states with strict abortion restrictions increasingly have to travel far to obtain the procedure, needing time off to do so.

Savage and Olson write for the Associated Press.

More to Read

Texas Supreme Court rejects challenge to state’s abortion law over medical exceptions

May 31, 2024

Supreme Court sounds wary of Idaho’s ban on emergency abortions for women whose health is in danger

April 24, 2024

Emergency rooms refused to treat pregnant patients, leaving one woman to miscarry in a lobby restroom

April 20, 2024

Start your day right

Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week.

You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.

More From the Los Angeles Times

Opinion: What a relief. The Supreme Court did the right thing on mifepristone

June 13, 2024

Column: The abortion pill is safe. Is your uterus?

Supreme Court upholds FDA’s approval of abortion pills for early pregnancies

Trump tells staunchly antiabortion group to stand up for ‘innocent life’

June 10, 2024

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• Personal Finance
• AP Investigations
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• AP Buyline Shopping
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Election Results
• Delegate Tracker
• AP & Elections
• Auto Racing
• 2024 Paris Olympic Games
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Personal finance
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

Judge dismisses lawsuit challenging federal rules to accommodate abortions for workers

FILE - An exam room is seen inside Planned Parenthood on March 10, 2023. A lawsuit filed by 17 states challenging federal rules entitling workers to time off and other accommodations for abortions lacks standing, a federal judge in Arkansas ruled on Friday, June 14, 2024 (AP Photo/Jeff Roberson, File)

• Copy Link copied

CHICAGO (AP) — A lawsuit filed by 17 states challenging federal rules entitling workers to time off and other accommodations for abortions lacks standing, a federal judge in Arkansas ruled on Friday.

Republican attorneys general from each state, led by Arkansas and Tennessee, sued the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in April, days after the agency published rules for employers and workers to implement the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, a 2022 law requiring many employers to make “reasonable accommodations” for pregnant or postpartum employees.

In addition to more routine pregnancy workplace accommodations like time off for prenatal appointments, more bathroom breaks, or permission to carry snacks, the rules say that workers can ask for time off to obtain an abortion and recover from the procedure.

The lawsuit filed in federal court in Arkansas argued the regulations go beyond the scope of the 2022 law that passed with bipartisan support.

Eastern District of Arkansas U.S. District Judge D.P. Marshall, Jr., who was appointed to the bench by former President Barack Obama, denied the states’ request for a nationwide preliminary injunction on the federal rules, which are scheduled to go into effect on Tuesday.

“The States’ fear of overreach by one branch of the federal government cannot be cured with overreach by another,” Friday’s ruling says.

Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin said in a statement provided by a spokesperson that he is “disappointed in the court’s ruling” and “am considering all legal options and remain confident we will ultimately be successful.”

The other states that joined the lawsuit are Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah and West Virginia.

The EEOC regulations are also being challenged in another federal lawsuit in Louisiana that is still awaiting a ruling. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, along with other religious groups, have filed a separate lawsuit over the abortion provision in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. That case has been consolidated with a lawsuit filed by the attorneys general of Louisiana and Mississippi, which also asks the judge to postpone the enforcement of the EEOC rules pending the outcome of the case.

The American Civil Liberties Union and more than 20 labor and women’s advocacy groups, including A Better Balance, a non-profit that spearheaded the 10-year campaign for the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act’s passage, filed amicus briefs in both cases arguing the EEOC rules should take effect as scheduled, calling them key to the successful implementation of law.

“Today’s ruling in Tennessee v. EEOC is a victory for millions of pregnant and postpartum workers across the country, because it allows the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) regulations to go into effect next week, providing important clarity about how the law works in practice,” said Dina Bakst of A Better Balance.

In their briefs, the groups cited dozens of examples of pregnant workers who have reached out to advocacy groups or filed lawsuits claiming that employers have continued to deny them accommodations in violation of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.

“The relief sought in this case is completely overboard and would have harmed literally millions of people,” said Gillian Thomas, a senior staff attorney in the ACLU’s Women’s Rights Project, referring to the lawsuit in Arkansas. “The law has been in place for a year and employers are violating it in the most egregious way right and left and clearly need guidance.”

The EEOC in its regulations said it was conforming to decades of legal precedent establishing that pregnancy anti-discrimination laws include abortion.

Abortion rights defenders have also hailed the protection under the EEOC rules as especially critical in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling that overturned the constitutional right to abortion. Women in states with strict abortion restrictions increasingly have to travel far to obtain the procedure, needing time off to do so.

The Associated Press’ women in the workforce and state government coverage receives financial support from Pivotal Ventures. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org .

Abortion advocates, opponents agree on one thing about SCOTUS ruling: The fight isn't over

Like many advocates across the country, Julia Kaye was watching closely to see if Thursday morning would be the day the Supreme Court would dramatically curb access to the widely used abortion drug mifepristone.

Kaye, a senior staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union's Reproductive Freedom Project, was relieved when she learned the high court had decided unanimously to toss the challenge brought by anti-abortion doctors and maintain the status quo for medication abortion. But, Kaye warned "the battle is far from over" because the court dismissed the case on procedural grounds, rather than address whether the Food and Drug Administration had overstepped its bounds when it loosened restrictions on the drug.

"These extremist attorneys general told the Supreme Court earlier this year that even if these plaintiffs lose, the states will either try to continue this case in Texas, or else bring copycat lawsuits in other jurisdictions," Kaye said.

Anti-abortion advocates, including Mark Harrington, president of Created Equal, agreed the battle over access to abortion pills was ongoing. Some conservatives expressed disappointment about the decision, vowing they would continue the fight in the courts and the public square.

"They did not rule on the merits of the abortion pill or the FDA administration of the pill," Harrington said, the justices only ruled that the plaintiffs didn't have standing to sue.

Losing mifepristone 'would have been devastating'

Mifepristone, which was approved by the FDA nearly 25 years ago, was used in nearly two-thirds of abortions nationwide last year. The case had broad implications, and its scope was potentially farther reaching than the 2022 Dobbs ruling in terms of the states impacted. If the Supreme Court had ruled on the merits, Kaye said, access to the medication could have been stripped from people in every state, including in states where the procedure remains legal.

Kaye said the court could also have restricted access to the drug through the mail following a telehealth appointment, a format that has become a major pillar of abortion care.

"That would have been devastating, particularly for people of color, low-income patients, people living in rural areas and women in abusive households," Kaye said. "For these populations, having to pay for and arrange transportation and childcare, as well as time off work in order to travel long distances to obtain mifepristone would simply be impossible, and those patients would lose access to this essential health care altogether."

More: Welcome to Bristol, where America’s abortion debate is right on your doorstep

Some abortion advocates had prepared for the contingency that the court would restrict access to the pills. Amy Hagstrom Miller, president and CEO of Whole Woman's Health, said if the court had ruled differently, she planned to continue offering medication abortion at her clinics using a different drug regimen. She said she was relieved that wouldn't be necessary.

"Now we feel like not only can we continue to provide that care without disruption, but we could look at expanding our pills by mail program into more states so that we can give access to the abortion seekers without delay and without barriers," she said.

Though the decision was good news for Kelly Baden, vice president of public policy at the Guttmacher Institute, she said it is challenging to celebrate the victories given the ongoing threats to abortion access nationwide. She noted that the Supreme Court has yet to rule in another case that will determine if doctors  can provide emergency abortions  in states that banned the procedure after the court overturned Roe v. Wade.

"This decision is, again, welcome within the context that we're operating in, which is that abortion is totally abandoned in 14 states, restricted in others," she said. "But keeping things status quo is not enough to make me celebrate."

SCOTUS decision is 'deeply disappointing' for abortion opponents

Mifepristone is among "the most studied medications" prescribed in the United States, and evidence supporting the drug's safety and efficacy is "overwhelming," according to an amicus brief filed in support of the FDA by the American Medical Association, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Academy of Family Physicians and several other organizations. Experts have said mifepristone is safer than common drugs including  Tylenol and Viagra.

But anti-abortion advocates such as Andrea Trudden, vice president of communications at Heartbeat International, said that just because the case was "decided on a technicality," it does not mean the drug is safe. She said that 1 in 25 women will visit an emergency room after taking it. The FDA's label says between 2.9-4.6% of women visited the ER after taking the medication during clinical studies. Studies show major adverse reactions to the drug are "exceedingly rare," occurring in about 0.3% of cases,  according to the American Medical Association .

"While the decision may not have gone the way that we were looking for, it doesn't take away the fact that mifepristone does harm women, and the FDA was unilaterally taking away and stripping away those safeguards," Trudden said.

Ingrid Skop, an OB-GYN who serves as vice president and director of medical affairs at Charlotte Lozier Institute, an anti-abortion nonprofit, called the decision "deeply disappointing."

"As a practicing OB-GYN with over 30 years’ experience, I have seen firsthand that mail-order abortion drugs harm my patients, both mothers and their unborn children," Skop said in a statement. "Abortion advocates and corporate media ignore their stories as they shamelessly promote mail-order distribution of dangerous drugs without a single in-person doctor visit."

What's next for abortion access?

Kaye, from the ACLU, warned that despite the court's ruling, the threats to mifepristone and abortion access overall are not likely to end with this ruling. She said the ACLU will closely monitor new state laws restricting mifepristone, such as the law in Louisiana that reclassifies mifepristone and misoprostol as controlled substances.

Abortion access may hinge on the outcome of the 2024 election, she said, because a new administration could decide to use the 1873 Comstock Act "to not only strip away access to medication abortion through telemedicine, but in fact, to ban all abortion nationwide with the stroke of a pen, without even needing any Congressional action."

David Cohen, a professor of law at Drexel University, agreed, calling the Comstock Act "the number one issue facing abortion in this country right now." He said that though Thursday's decision "is a huge win" for abortion access, it's likely that more legal challenges will follow.

"It's an endless battle, right?" he said. "This battle will never end, no matter who wins in any one particular moment."

Contributing: Maureen Groppe and Christine Fernando, USA TODAY

Advertisement

Supported by

Senate Republicans Block Supreme Court Ethics Measure Pushed by Democrats

Democrats made what they knew was a doomed attempt as they faced pressure from the left to do more to try to hold the court accountable.

• Share full article

By Carl Hulse

Reporting from Washington

Senate Republicans on Wednesday blocked an effort by Democrats to quickly pass Supreme Court ethics and transparency legislation they had pushed forward in the wake of disclosures about justices taking unreported gifts and travel and other ethical issues surrounding the high court.

The unsuccessful outcome was predetermined, but represented an effort by Senate Democrats to show they were pressing the case against the court. It was also aimed at demonstrating the limits of their power given the narrow divide in the Senate and deep Republican opposition to Congress taking action to impose stricter ethics rules on the justices.

“The ethics crisis at the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, is unacceptable,” Senator Richard J. Durbin, the Illinois Democrat who chairs the Judiciary Committee, said in calling for the measure to be approved. “It is unsustainable and it’s unworthy of the highest court in the land.”

Republicans assailed the bill as a naked effort by Democrats to undercut the court because of ideological disagreements with its decisions, particularly with major rulings about to be handed down. They accused Democrats of trying to intimidate the justices.

“Let’s be clear: This is not about improving the court, this is about undermining the court,” said Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, who lodged the objection to taking up the bill. “This will be an unconstitutional overreach. This would undermine the court’s ability to operate effectively.”

The move by Democrats came as progressives have been ramping up their demands for more aggressive action in the Senate.

Following widespread media coverage of the ethical issues, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said last November that the court would follow a code of conduct similar to the one that all lower court judges must follow, “to uphold the independence and the integrity of the court.” However, it included no clear way to enforce the rules on justices, sparking criticism that it was hollow.

The Senate Judiciary Committee last summer approved the legislation written by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, after a series of media reports about both Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. taking trips paid for by billionaire benefactors and not reporting them on their disclosure forms. Justice Thomas last week amended his report to acknowledge luxury trips he took in 2019 that were paid for by his longtime conservative ally Harlan Crow.

Justice Alito has also been under scrutiny after The New York Times reported that a flag seen as sympathetic to the “Stop the Steal” movement was flown at his Virginia home. But he has refused to recuse himself from cases related to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, saying the flag was flown by his wife.

The legislation would impose new reporting rules and establish a process for filing ethics complaints against justices, with the complaints heard by a board of federal appeals court justices.

Mr. Graham said that concept was unworkable and would put lower court judges in the position of policing “their bosses.” The legislation also seeks to impose new requirements on recusal and public disclosure mandates on those filing amicus briefs in federal courts to show the financial backing for those making the arguments.

The fight over the court has badly divided the Judiciary Committee. Republicans argue the Democratic proposals are unconstitutional attempts to assert power over a separate branch of government.

Democrats say ample precedent exists for Congress playing a role in establishing rules for the court, but concede that their options are few, given blanket Republican opposition.

They are also trying to confirm about three dozen new federal judges by the end of the year and fear that upheaval over the court could slow that drive.

Carl Hulse is the chief Washington correspondent, primarily writing about Congress and national political races and issues. He has nearly four decades of experience reporting in the nation’s capital. More about Carl Hulse

• Senator Facebook
• Senator Twitter

Durbin Reveals Omissions of Gifted Private Travel to Justice Clarence Thomas from Harlan Crow

In exclusively obtained information from Harlan Crow as a result of Durbin and the Senate Judiciary Committee Majority’s Supreme Court ethics investigation and subpoena authorization, Durbin releases details of gifted private travel to Justice Thomas that Thomas has failed to disclose

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL), Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, today released exclusively obtained information from Harlan Crow on his gifts of free luxury travel to Justice Clarence Thomas, which was omitted from Justice Thomas’ financial disclosure, despite last week’s amendment to his 2019 financial disclosure report. A report on the Senate Judiciary Committee Majority’s Supreme Court ethics investigation will be released later this summer.

In documents obtained by the Committee as a result of the subpoena authorization for information from Harlan Crow on November 30, 2023, Crow revealed travel and gifts that Justice Thomas has failed to disclose to date, including:

• May 2017 private jet travel from St. Louis, MO, to Kalispell, MT, and return flight to Dallas, TX;
• March 2019 private jet travel from Washington, DC, to Savannah, GA, and back; and
• June 2021 private jet travel from Washington, DC, to San Jose, CA, and back.

The documents also showed private jet travel for the recently-disclosed July 2019 trip to Indonesia; an eight-day yacht excursion for the recently-disclosed July 2019 trip to Indonesia; and private jet travel for the recently-disclosed July 2019 trip to Santa Rosa, California, all of which Thomas failed to disclose in his amendment to his 2019 financial disclosure report last week. Additionally, Crow’s documents show different dates for the July 2019 Indonesia trip, further calling into question the accuracy of the details Justice Thomas decides to disclose.

Recent reporting found that Justice Thomas has accepted nearly $4.2 million worth of gifts over two decades on the Court—a total nearly ten times the value of all gifts received by his fellow justices during the same time.

“Nearly $4.2 million in gifts and even that wasn’t enough for Justice Thomas, with at least three additional trips the Committee found that he has failed to disclose to date,” said Durbin. “The Senate Judiciary Committee’s ongoing investigation into the Supreme Court’s ethical crisis is producing new information—like what we’ve revealed today—and makes it crystal clear that the highest court needs an enforceable code of conduct, because its members continue to choose not to meet the moment.”

Durbin continued, “As a result of our investigation and subpoena authorization, we are providing the American public greater clarity on the extent of ethical lapses by Supreme Court justices and the need for ethics reform. Despite an approval rating near all-time lows and never-ending, self-inflicted scandals, Chief Justice Roberts still refuses to use his existing authority to implement an enforceable code of conduct. Until he acts, we will continue our push for the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act to become law.”

Despite Justice Thomas’s continued refusal to disclose private jet and yacht travel retroactively in his disclosure amendments, the financial disclosure statute (5 U.S.C. 13104(a)(2)(A)) has always clearly stated that only “food, lodging, or entertainment received as personal hospitality of an individual need not be reported.” Gifts of transportation are required to be disclosed by law.

Documentation of Justice Thomas’s previously undisclosed trips is available here .

Durbin has repeatedly called for the  passage of the  Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency (SCERT) Act,  legislation that the Senate Judiciary Committee advanced last July. The bill would require Supreme Court justices to adopt a binding code of conduct, create a mechanism to investigate alleged violations of the code of conduct and other laws, improve disclosure and transparency when a justice has a connection to a party or amicus before the Court, and require justices to explain their recusal decisions to the public.

Judiciary Committee Democrats asked unanimous consent for the Senate to pass the SCERT Act on the Senate floor last night. The request was objected to by Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans. 

Durbin has been calling on the Supreme Court to adopt an enforceable code of conduct for more than a decade. He first sent a  letter to the Chief Justice on this issue more than 12 years ago. 

For full background on Durbin’s and the Senate Judiciary Committee’s efforts to deliver Supreme Court ethics reform for the American people and their ongoing investigation into the Supreme Court’s ethical crisis,  visit this page  that includes a timeline, releases, correspondence, and information on the  SCERT Act .

website-search

Business | U.S. Supreme Court poised to announce whether…

Share this:.

• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on X (Opens in new window)

Daily e-Edition

Evening e-Edition

• Real Estate
• Consumer Reviews

SUBSCRIBER ONLY

Business | u.s. supreme court poised to announce whether it will take up florida online-sports-betting case, a decision with ‘far-reaching repercussions’: the supreme court could decide as early as monday whether to take the case..

The justices may have already made their decision, but the public likely won’t know until this Monday or the following Monday whether the Supreme Court will hear the case, reject it, or reverse a lower court’s ruling that had previously paved the way for online sports betting in Florida. Any decision could have resounding consequences for online sports betting across the state and the rest of the country, possibly even halting it in its tracks.

“The outcome of this disposition, whether it’s to hear it or to not hear it, will have far-reaching repercussions extending beyond Florida’s borders,” said Daniel Wallach, a Hallandale Beach-based attorney and sports betting expert who recently filed an amicus curae brief in the case, asking the Supreme Court to either take it up or reverse it outright.

The challengers bringing the case before the court are known as West Flagler Associates, a group of pari-mutuels seeking to take away the Seminole Tribe’s monopoly on online sports betting in Florida. The monopoly was authorized by a gaming compact between the Tribe and Gov. Ron DeSantis back in 2021 that hinged on the idea that all online sports betting takes place on tribal lands because the servers are located there, the subject of a fierce debate over the last several years.

West Flagler’s attorneys had previously sued the Department of the Interior, arguing before a D.C. district court that the department should not have authorized online sports betting because it violates a federal statute known as the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. The act dictates that gambling occurs on tribal lands, and online betting does not, attorneys argued. But an appeals court overturned the ruling last September, a legal victory that ultimately culminated in the widespread launch of online sports betting in December. Now, West Flagler is seeking a reversal of that decision from the U.S. Supreme Court.

Statistically speaking, the Supreme Court is likely to deny the petition for writ of certiorari, as it rejects over 95% of cases that come before it most years. If the court decides not to hear the case, it would preserve online sports betting in Florida and support the legality of the Seminole Tribe’s monopoly on online betting under federal law. It could encourage tribes in other states to launch their own online sports betting operations and the expansion of all forms of online gambling in Florida, not just sports betting.

“This will possibly lead to a gold rush spreading across the country in which tribes and states can now include iGaming and online sports betting within their compacts,” Wallach said.

The national consequences of the case could become a reason to take it up, in order to clarify what states and tribes are allowed to do.

“As different jurisdictions make different decisions regarding the legality of sports betting, it is critical that this Court not allow the unlawful approach taken by Florida to become a model, or for the D.C. Circuit decision to create confusing and misleading precedent,” wrote Hamish Hume, an attorney for West Flagler, in the petition for certiorari filed in February.

The Supreme Court could also immediately reverse the appeals court’s decision that had allowed sports betting to return, perhaps the least likely outcome, but the most shocking one, as it would force the Hard Rock Bet app– and revenues paid to the state in the hundreds of millions of dollars– to a halt. That seems unlikely to happen, however; West Flagler has not requested it, though Wallach suggested it in his brief.

Finally, the Supreme Court could determine the case is worthy enough to take into consideration and begin deliberating on it. Both sides will have to present their best arguments regarding the extent to which federal law governs what Florida can do and the central question of where online gambling takes place. West Flagler is also arguing that the agreement between DeSantis and the Seminole Tribe is unconstitutional because it treats all other companies unfairly in comparison.

“May the governor of a State and an Indian tribe use a federal approval of an IGRA compact as a backdoor around state constitutional prohibitions against online sports gambling conducted off tribal lands, and thereby create a sports gambling monopoly for the tribe while making the same conduct a felony for everyone else?” West Flagler’s petition reads.

The court will release its decisions on petitions for certiorari Monday morning at 9:30 a.m. If Florida sports betting is not included, the court has likely decided to wait until next Monday, which could indicate interest in the case. It’s also possible, but unlikely, the court could delay deciding until its session starts again in September, Wallach said.

“I think Monday’s the day,” he said. “But if it’s not and we’re waiting another week, then it becomes intriguing.”

A spokesperson for the Seminole Tribe declined to comment ahead of the decision Monday.

More in Business

Travel | Commentary: Revenge travel not flying so high these days

Can money conquer death? How wealthy people are trying to live forever

Business | Most Americans are significantly stressed about money — here’s how it varies by demographic

Business | Tens of thousands of South Florida homeowners will be required to buy flood insurance. Are you on the list?

• Deutschland

• Mongolia Tours
• Tailor My Trip
• Tour Calendar
• Travel Guide
• Mongolia MICE Tour
• Car Rental & Transfer
• Mongolia Train Ticket
• Hotel Booking

Travel to Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia

International flights to ulaanbaatar, mongolia.

Chinggis Khaan International Airport outside of Ulaanbaatar (located just 18 km to the southwest of Ulaanbaatar) is the only airport in Mongolia that offers international flights. Direct flights are available from Berlin (German), Moscow (Russia), Beijing (China), Seoul (Korea), and Tokyo (Japan).

The following are several routes by air to Mongolia from various destinations:

• From USA, EAST ASIA, AUSTRALIA and NEW ZEALAND to SEOUL by major carriers and then to Ulaanbaatar with MIAT Mongolian Airlines (OM) or Korean Air (KAL)
• From EUROPE to MOSCOW (Russia) then to Ulaanbaatar with Aeroflot (SU) or MIAT Mongolian Airline (OM).
• From EUROPE, USA, EAST ASIA, AUSTRALIA and NEW ZEALAND to BEIJING (China) with the major carriers and then to Ulaanbaatar with MIAT (OM) or Air China (CA)
• From EUROPE, USA, EAST ASIA, AUSTRALIA and NEW ZEALAND to OSAKA (Japan) with major carriers and then to Ulaanbaatar with MIAT Mongolian Airlines (OM)
• From BERLIN and FRANKFURT to ULAANBAATAR by MIAT (OM) via Moscow
• From ISTANBUL, TURKEY to ULAANBAATAR by TURKISH AIRLINES (OM) 
• Beijing, China
• Seoul, Korea
• Moscow, Russia
• Berlin, German
• Tokyo, Japan
• Osaka, Japan

AIR CHINA: 

KOREAN AIR:

• Moskow, Russia

TURKISH AIRLINES:

• Istanbul, Turkey

INTERNATIONAL TRAIN FROM ULAANBAATAR

Trans Mongolian section of one of the world’s great train journeys – the Trans Siberian Railway goes through Russia, Mongolia and China. It is the last great train route via three countries and seven time zones from Moscow to Beijing for 9000 km and 6 days. Below we list the best trains along the Trans-Siberian railway. You should book your train ticket earlier than 30 days before the departure. Train times and prices are always changing, so we don’t guarantee that the information below is 100% correct. If you need the actual quote, please, use the inquire form below.

International Train Schedule

Our drivers are highly trained in driving in the city and Mongolian countryside. We take pride in our drivers who will provide not only safe and skilled driving but are friendly and courteous. We provide English speaking drivers and all of them are willing to work on weekend. The price is usually inclusive of additional driver fees, fuel and toll fees. We can supply car rental services daily, monthly or long term period with special offers.

How it works?

Let's plan your trip

Enquire now and a Travel expert will get back to you within 24 hours.

WE ARE MEMBER OF

Tour category.

• MONGOLIA TOURS
• PRIVATE TOURS
• GROUP GROUPS
• LUXURY TOURS
• TAILOR MY TRIP
• TRIP CALENDAR

DESTINATIONS

• ULAANBAATAR
• CENTRAL MONGOLIA
• SOUTHERN MONGOLIA
• NORTHERN MONGOLIA
• EASTERN MONGOLIA
• WESTERN MONGOLIA

TRAVEL GUIDE

• TRAVEL PLANNING
• BEST TIME TO VISIT
• TRAVEL TO MONGOLIA
• MONGOLIA VISA
• MONGOLIA TRAVEL FAQ

AMICUS TRAVEL

• TRAVELERS’ REVIEWS
• PARTNERS LOGIN
• HOW TO BOOK A TRIP
• TERMS & CONDITIONS

Sitemap      Link Exchange © Copyright by Amicus Mongolia