U.S. District Judge Nancy Brasel on Wednesday dismissed a challenge to Minnesota abortion laws that claimed abortion infringes upon parental rights.

The lawsuit, first brought forward in November 2024 by several plaintiffs, including the Women’s Life Care Center and the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates, argued that “unwanted” and “involuntary” abortions take away parental rights and violate the 14th Amendment. Brasel heard a motion from the state to dismiss the lawsuit on July 11.

As Brasel put it, plaintiffs were seeking to institute procedures where an abortion decision receives the same court review as a termination of parental rights under Minnesota’s child protection statutes.

In her judgment dismissing the case, Brasel said the plaintiffs are arguing for a right between a “pregnant mother and an unborn child” that has not been recognized under the Constitution.

“The intellectually honest approach in this case would be for Plaintiffs to acknowledge that they are seeking to establish a new fundamental right under the Fourteenth Amendment’s substantive due process clause,” she wrote. “Plaintiffs are perfectly entitled to try and establish such a right. But they have continued to argue that such a right already exists in case law, which is simply not true.”

Brasel also said plaintiffs failed to properly identify which Minnesota laws related to abortion are being challenged in the suit.

“Plaintiffs repeatedly invoke the phrase ‘Minnesota’s abortion laws’ as the focus of their lawsuit. But they get no more specific than that … One possible target could be the series of post‐Dobbs laws passed by the Minnesota Legislature, including the PRO Act. But Plaintiffs disclaim that they challenge those laws. … There is still no statute, regulation, or case that Plaintiffs identify. The core of their challenge is to the legal regime of abortion in Minnesota, writ large.”

Minnesota has several legal protections for abortion dating back to 1995, when the Minnesota Supreme Court decided in Doe v. Gomez that the Minnesota Constitution guarantees the right to an abortion. The Minnesota Legislature also passed the “Pro Act” in 2023, following the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision overturning Roe. v. Wade, which had established the constitutional right to abortion. The act codified in state statute the right to make decisions about reproductive health.

Attorney General Keith Ellison said on Wednesday that anti-abortion groups are looking for “every possible gap in the armor protecting abortion access in our state.”

“This latest attack on abortion access in Minnesota is a reminder that anti-choice interest groups are constantly seeking new ways to ban abortion or make reproductive health care services harder to obtain,” he said. “For decades, those anti-choice interest groups worked to erode the abortion protections provided by Roe v. Wade until they finally found a way to eliminate those protections entirely. Now, they are trying the exact same thing at the state level.”

Harold Cassidy, attorney for the plaintiffs, said Wednesday that he plans to appeal the ruling. He said the “errors” of the District Court are clear and that he is confident his appeal will prevail.

“In the end, the rights of the mothers in Minnesota will be protected,” he told Forum News Service. “The way they’re abused under Minnesota law must be brought to an end. There is coercion that must stop. The abuse of women must stop. Men forcing women to have abortions against their will must stop.”

“And the law of Minnesota not only … makes it possible, the way that the state constitution has been interpreted, makes it mandatory,” he added.

 

DULUTH, Minn. — Alexander Cole wasn’t surprised when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency fired him by email Friday afternoon.

The 29-year-old Superior, Wis., resident was among the six employees at the EPA’s Great Lakes Toxicology and Ecology Division Laboratory in Duluth placed on leave July 3 for signing a “Declaration of Dissent” criticizing the Trump administration’s politicization of the agency.

The leave period was initially supposed to be two weeks long so EPA could investigate the employees, but the agency kept extending it until it reached nearly two months.

Shortly after 3 p.m. Friday, Travis Voyles, the EPA’s associate deputy administrator, sent Cole, who had worked as a biologist at the lab since July 2024, an email informing him his employment would end later that day and instructing him to return EPA property by mail.

“I have determined that your continued employment is not in the public interest,” Voyles wrote in the letter reviewed by the Duluth News Tribune. “For this reason, you are being removed from your position with the Agency and the federal civil service effective 5:00 p.m. EST, August 29, 2025.”

According to Cole, he and another probationary employee were fired Friday, while the other four Duluth employees placed on leave received either a one-week extension of leave or a “notice of proposed removal” to tenured EPA staff, essentially the first step in the termination process that allows the employee the opportunity to respond before a final decision is made.

“I have no regrets about signing that letter, and I would sign it again,” Cole said in an interview with the News Tribune on Tuesday.

He said he signed it because the letter called out EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin and the Trump administration for leading an agency that no longer uses scientific findings to create or revoke regulations, which is “putting American health in danger,” Cole said.

“When I became a federal employee, or federal servant, I took an oath of office, and it was to uphold the Constitution and to uphold the EPA mission statement, which is to protect human health and the environment,” Cole said, echoing a social media post he made Saturday that quickly spread. “I’ve taken those oaths seriously, and have done so using the best science available.”

The move comes just weeks after the EPA said it would no longer recognize its labor unions and terminated all collective bargaining agreements.

“Without the union contract in place at EPA, EPA scientists are left without a defender in the workplace who could take on EPA’s attempts to fire staff for exercising their whistleblower or first amendment rights,“ Nicole Cantello, president of the American Federation of Government Employees Local 704, which represents some 1,000 EPA employees in the Midwest, said in an emailed statement Tuesday.

The notice of termination includes ways in which employees can appeal the firing, something Cole said he planned to do.

“I would like to return, even if it’s during this (Trump) administration,” said Cole, who earned his bachelor’s degree from the College of St. Scholastica and his doctorate in environmental science from Baylor University in Texas.

Cole said the investigation consisted of an emailed survey that asked where his EPA laptop was and “yes” or “no” questions on whether he viewed or signed the letter on agency time or equipment. Cole said he did not sign the letter using agency resources and did not view the letter on agency resources “to the best of my recollection.”

It’s unclear how many of the approximately 140 on leave have been fired. The EPA did not answer a question on how many were fired, but other news outlets have reported that approximately eight received termination notices Friday.

In a statement to the News Tribune on Tuesday, an EPA spokesperson said the letter of dissent included “inaccurate information” but did not respond to a question asking what in the letter was inaccurate.

“Following a thorough internal investigation, EPA supervisors made decisions on an individualized basis,” the spokesperson said. ”EPA does not comment on individual personnel matters. The petition — signed by employees using a combination of their titles and offices — contains inaccurate information designed to mislead the public about agency business.

“Thankfully, this represents a small fraction of the thousands of hard-working, dedicated EPA employees who are not trying to mislead and scare the American public.” “How is firing the people who keep Lake Superior and Minnesota’s waters clean and safe a good idea?” Smith said. “How does that benefit anyone? The sole reason they got fired is because they exercised their freedom of speech and dared to disagree with the Trump administration. I’m proud they had the guts to do it, to warn all of us. I don’t care who you voted for, you didn’t vote to fire scientists who keep our waters safe.”

Like much of the federal government, it’s been a turbulent eight months at the Duluth lab.

There had been speculation that the Trump administration would close the facility when plans to eliminate the Office of Research and Development, which oversees its operations, were announced earlier this year.

But on July 21, an EPA spokesperson said the Duluth lab and other research facilities would be spared.

The EPA also did not respond to the News Tribune’s question Tuesday seeking how many employees still work at the Duluth lab, which employed 176 people in April, according to a fact sheet.

Since then, however, funding ended for 25 early-career researchers when the EPA did not renew a contract and canceled a grant and federal staff have been urged to retire early or leave voluntarily.

Although Cole is beginning to look for other jobs, he said the Duluth lab has felt like “home” for him, both in the year he’s been there as a full-time employee and the time he spent there as a contracted early career researcher from 2018 to 2020.

Despite the challenges, he’s confident the remaining Duluth lab employees will continue to do good work.

“I have no doubt that the people doing the research there will be putting out world-class research,” Cole said.

By MARY CLARE JALONICK

WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican senators say they are prepared to change the chamber’s rules to get around the Democratic blockade of President Donald Trump’s nominees and are discussing a proposal to make it easier to confirm multiple nominees at once.

Related Articles

House rejects effort to censure New Jersey congresswoman over actions at detention center

Trump administration agrees to restore health websites and data

Democratic senator says classified meeting with intel agency is canceled after Loomer’s criticism

Trump suggests National Guard could go into New Orleans, a blue city in a red state

Chicago prepares for an influx of National Guard troops and immigration agents

The Democrats’ obstruction is “historic and unprecedented,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune said after meeting with his conference on Wednesday. “It is not something we can sustain.”

Republicans have been talking about options for changing the rules since early August, when the Senate left for a monthlong recess after a breakdown in bipartisan negotiations over the confirmation process. Democrats have blocked nearly every single one of Trump’s nominees, forcing majority Republicans to spend valuable floor time on procedural votes and leaving many positions in the executive branch unfilled.

GOP senators discussed one proposal in a private meeting on Wednesday that would enable them to confirm large tranches of nominees “en bloc,” or several at once, if a majority of senators agree, according to multiple senators who attended the meeting.

Currently, the objection of a single senator forces multiple votes on most nominations. The rules change would likely only apply to executive branch nominations, not lifetime judicial appointments, and would exclude many of the most high-profile positions, such as Cabinet nominees, that require a longer debate time.

The rules change would require several floor votes and the support of a simple majority, so at least 51 out of the chamber’s 53 Republicans. But most GOP senators appear to be on board.

“Expect us to move forward with a plan that would enable us to clear the backlog of nominees,” Thune said after the GOP conference meeting. “It just flat has to happen.”

Republicans said after the meeting that they discussed proposals that they knew they would have to live with under Democratic presidents, as well.

“You always worry about what’s going to happen when the shoe is on the other foot, but this is historic obstruction,” said Wyoming Sen. John Barrasso, the No. 2 Republican.

The latest standoff comes as Democrats and Republicans have gradually escalated their obstruction of the other party’s executive branch and judicial nominees over the last two decades, and as Senate leaders in both parties have changed the rules every few years to confirm more nominees without bipartisan support.

In 2013, Democrats changed Senate rules for lower court judicial nominees to remove the 60-vote threshold for confirmations as Republicans blocked President Barack Obama’s judicial picks. In 2017, Republicans did the same for Supreme Court nominees as Democrats tried to block Trump’s nomination of Justice Neil Gorsuch.

While Senate Republicans blocked many of President Joe Biden’s nominees, forcing similar delays in confirmations, Democrats have blocked almost all of Trump’s picks. It’s the first time in recent history that the minority party hasn’t allowed at least some quick confirmations.

The delays have infuriated Trump, who told Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer to “GO TO HELL!” in a social media post after negotiations broke down over the process in early August.

Schumer said then that a rules change would be a “huge mistake,” especially as Senate Republicans will need Democratic votes to pass spending bills and other legislation moving forward.

Schumer said in a Wednesday statement that Republicans’ proposed plan “guts the Senate’s constitutional role of advice and consent, weakens our checks and balances, and guarantees that historically bad nominees will only get worse with even less oversight.”

But Republicans say they are loosely basing their plan on legislation proposed by Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar in 2023, as Republicans blocked Biden nominees, to streamline Senate confirmations by allowing up to 10 nominees to be considered at the same time.

“The slowdown of the confirmation process that we’ve seen in the Senate under the last several administrations is preventing key officials from taking up their positions,” Klobuchar said at the time. “This commonsense reform will help improve efficiency and make sure we’re able to fill positions that are vital to our national security, economic success, and more.”

Republicans said their proposal could go beyond 10 nominees at once, however — potentially clearing the way for Republicans to move more than 100 pending nominations in the coming weeks.

Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D., said Republicans are hoping to move “sooner, not later — we need to get caught up.”

By MATT BROWN and KEVIN FREKING

WASHINGTON (AP) — The House rejected a resolution to censure Rep. LaMonica McIver, D-N.J., and remove her from a committee that oversees immigration and national security as she faces federal charges stemming from a visit to an immigration detention facility.

Related Articles

Republicans are preparing to change Senate rules to speed Trump’s nominees

Trump administration agrees to restore health websites and data

Democratic senator says classified meeting with intel agency is canceled after Loomer’s criticism

Trump suggests National Guard could go into New Orleans, a blue city in a red state

Chicago prepares for an influx of National Guard troops and immigration agents

The House voted 215-207 to table the measure, a sign that some were uncomfortable moving forward with censure while McIver’s case is still pending in the courts. A trial in her case has been scheduled for November.

Democratic lawmakers unanimously voted to table the resolution, which was sponsored by Rep. Clay Higgins, R-La. Five Republicans joined them and two others voted present. As the resolution was being read, some Democrats were incensed. “Liar,” some shouted; “Shame,” yelled one Democratic lawmaker. Many Republicans streamed out of the chamber before the vote concluded. Democrats cheered and hugged at the final tally’s reading.

“The censure attempt against me has failed. Rightfully so. It was a baseless, partisan effort to shut me up,” McIver wrote on social media after the vote. “I was not elected to play political games — I was elected to serve. I won’t back down. Not now. Not ever.”

Republicans sought to punish McIver for a confrontation with federal law enforcement during a congressional visit to a new immigration detention facility in Newark, N.J. McIver has pleaded not guilty to federal charges accusing her of assaulting and interfering with immigration officers outside the facility.

The censure resolution recounted how McIver is alleged to have interfered with Homeland Security Investigations officials’ ability to arrest an unauthorized visitor. It said she is alleged to have slammed her forearm into the body and forcibly grabbed an HSI officer. The resolution also said body camera and other video evidence supported the allegations made in the federal indictment.

The measure said such actions did not reflect credibly on the House and that her continued service on the House Homeland Security Committee was a significant conflict of interest. The committee’s portfolio includes oversight of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, which operates the detention center that McIver tried to enter.

The effort had the backing of GOP leadership. Some Republicans expressed dismay with the outcome.

“We have a member of Congress who assaulted an ICE officer. I don’t even know what we’re doing anymore,” said Rep. Byron Donalds of Florida.

Donalds said he did not know why some Republicans broke ranks to back the motion to table the censure resolution.

Democratic Rep. Yvette Clarke, chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, said the McIver vote was “a breath of fresh air in such a toxic environment.”

McIver won a special election last year after Democratic Rep. Donald Payne Jr. died in office. She won a full two-year term in November.

McIver was joined by two other New Jersey Democrats, Reps. Bonnie Watson Coleman and Rob Menendez, during a visit to a privately owned 1,000-bed facility that ICE is using as a detention center. Newark’s mayor, Democrat Ras Baraka, was arrested after officials determined he was not authorized to enter. That charge was later dropped. Baraka is suing over what he said was a malicious prosecution.

Parts of the confrontation can be seen on a nearly two-minute video clip from the visit released by the Department of Homeland Security.

The video shows McIver on the facility side of a chain-link fence just before Baraka’s arrest on the street side of the fence, where other people had been protesting. She and uniformed officials are seen going through a fence gate, and she joins others shouting that they should circle the mayor. The video then shows McIver in a tightly packed group of people and officers. At one point, her left elbow and then her right elbow push into an officer wearing a dark face covering and an olive green uniform with the word “Police” on it.

McIver was indicted on three counts of assaulting, resisting, impeding and interfering with federal officials. Two of the counts carry a maximum sentence of up to eight years in prison. The third is a misdemeanor with a maximum punishment of one year in prison.

Higgins said he would not have moved forward with the resolution if McIver had withdrawn from the Homeland Security panel pending a resolution of the federal charges against her. He said it was a conflict for her to serve on a panel with oversight authority over the agencies at the center of her criminal investigation.

“We didn’t expect it to fail. We knew it would be close, but it’s quite disappointing,” Higgins said.

The House has censured members on 28 occasions before, but the punishment has increasingly been delivered on a partisan basis in recent years.

Democrats retaliated just hours before the McIver vote with the introduction of a censure resolution against Rep. Cory Mills, R-Fla., who has been accused by a beauty pageant titleholder of threatening to release intimate videos and private images of her after she ended their romantic relationship, according to a report filed with law enforcement. Mills has denied the allegations.

Mills is also facing an ethics investigation into whether he violated campaign finance laws or held federal contracts while in office.

Democratic efforts to put the spotlight on Mills seemed to serve as a warning to Republicans that they were prepared to undertake similar censure resolutions in response to the targeting of McIver.

“There are colleagues on the other side of the aisle that have very serious charges against them, and we don’t want to have to unpack that for the American people,” Clarke said.