The Supreme Court Just Hinted It Maybe Won’t Overturn Roe?

…according to the push alert I just got from the New York Times.

Jeff Malet/Zuma

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

The assumption going ever since Brett Kavanugh was confirmed has been that the Supreme Court would overturn Roe at the first chance it got. The swing Justice, with the retirement of Anthony Kennedy, became John Roberts, an arch conservative but also the closest thing the court has to a political lily blowing in the judicial wind. 

This is all still true, but there has been a development:

The Supreme Court on Thursday blocked a Louisiana law that its opponents say could have left the state with only one doctor in a single clinic authorized to provide abortions.

The vote was 5 to 4, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joining the court’s four-member liberal wing.

According to the NYT push alerts that I received on my phone a few minutes ago, this seems to indicate that Roberts might not be so quick to join the anti-Roe brigade and upend everything. But according to my colleagues at Mother Jones who know more about this than I do but are not near a computer right now and cannot write this post themselves, this doesn’t mean Roe is safe. It merely gives a reason for hope. 

People didn’t expect Roberts to side this way, but it doesn’t mean he’ll do it again. 

But for now, good news!


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend