
How a Florida court took unusual steps to limit abortion access for minors
TALLAHASSEE – A Florida appeals court took an unusual legal step when it earlier this month struck down as unconstitutional a law allowing minors to get abortions without parental consent.
Florida youth have for decades been able to petition a judge for permission to have an abortion without their parents' knowledge.
This May, a pregnant 17-year-old initiated one of those cases. When a lower court judge denied her the waiver for an abortion, she appealed.
The Fifth District Court of Appeal took up the appeal. But instead of focusing solely on the teen's case, the court used it to weigh major constitutional questions — a move that one judge acknowledged is rare.
The court's decision effectively stops most minors from being able to have abortions unless their parent gives consent, further restricting Florida's already limited pathways to abortion and setting up a possible question for the Florida Supreme Court.
The move was celebrated by Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier and other conservatives. But abortion access advocates have decried it, saying the court went into the case with an outcome in mind and found its way to it.
'Judicial overreach doesn't even begin to describe it,' said Amy Myrick, senior counsel of U.S. litigation at the Center for Reproductive Rights.
Before the appeals court judges got all the details about the teen's case, they drafted an order asking her lawyers to answer four legal questions.
The questions had nothing to do with the minor's specific circumstances but were more broadly about the judicial waiver process itself, including whether the parents of minors got due process.
Then, in a move that some observers said was unusual, the court invited Florida's Republican Attorney General James Uthmeier to weigh in on the legal questions the judges raised.
Uthmeier joined the case as an opponent and argued that the judicial waiver process violates parents' rights. (Usually, in the judicial waiver process, the minor makes the petition and the judge decides if the girl is 'sufficiently mature' to decide whether to terminate her pregnancy. There are normally no other outside parties involved besides the minor's lawyers.)
'When you're reaching out to do a whole bunch of stuff you don't need to do to resolve a case, it's usually because you're trying to get a big legal conclusion about it,' said Mary Ziegler, a reproductive law expert at UC Davis School of Law.
Mat Staver, the chairman of the conservative anti-abortion group Liberty Counsel, said it wasn't unusual for the courts to give notice to the attorney general when a constitutional provision is being questioned, and said it was 'very appropriate' for the appeals court to do so.
Uthmeier last year, while he was still Gov. Ron DeSantis' chief of staff, was the chairperson of a political committee that opposed a proposed amendment to protect abortion rights in Florida. That amendment ultimately failed in November's election.
Uthmeier has also pushed against the idea of minors getting abortions without parental consent. A few months before weighing in on the Florida case, Uthmeier filed a brief encouraging the U.S. Supreme Court to reevaluate what rights minors have and what rights their parents have when it comes to abortion, arguing that there was a common law tradition of parents having rights over their children.
Florida's bypass process has been used less frequently after the six-week abortion ban went into effect last year. In 2024, courts saw 130 petitions filed across the state, most of which were granted.
A judge on the Fifth District Court of Appeal acknowledged that the court's decision to weigh in on the constitutionality of the law, rather than resolve it more simply, was unusual.
The court also said that it was possibly the 'first and only' time it would be able to address the question, 'which has thus far evaded review despite being posed in an untold number of prior cases.'
In a concurring opinion in the recent Fifth District case, Judge John MacIver said the court thought it was appropriate to address the constitutional questions because parents whose kids have abortions without their knowledge would not be able to challenge the law themselves since, 'by design,' the law blocks those parents from being informed.
The justices' actions were primed by a move last year by the First District Court of Appeal. That court said it couldn't review abortion waiver cases because there was no party opposing the minor.
'The only opportunity for a defense of those fundamental rights came about here because the Attorney General of Florida was invited to brief as amicus and instead sought intervention,' MacIver said.
Of the three judges in the Fifth District who heard the case, two were appointed by DeSantis — MacIver and Jordan Pratt, who authored the decision and used to work at a conservative religious liberty law firm that has represented anti-abortion parties.
Pratt this week was nominated by President Donald Trump to a federal judgeship.
The third justice, Brian Lambert, was appointed by former Gov. Rick Scott. No judge dissented.
After the court's ruling, there are limited circumstances where minors can still use the waiver process, such as if they are the victim of child abuse, said Elizabeth Ling, an attorney with the abortion access group If/When/How.
'For the vast majority of people who are under 18 in the state of Florida, the judicial bypass or the judicial waiver process is no longer an option,' Ling said.
With the ruling in place, pregnant minors in Florida's foster system find themselves in uncharted territory.
Florida law prohibits the Department of Children and Families from ever authorizing an abortion — meaning that foster kids have no other option but to use the judicial waiver process if they want to terminate their pregnancy.
Ling said that because the ruling leaves the avenue only for victims of child abuse, it could create a split process for foster kids. Youth who are in the system because of abuse could access the waiver process, but foster youth who are in the system for other reasons may not be able to.
Ling said research shows that young people largely involve a parent with news of their pregnancy, and said when people seek otherwise, they 'have thought very deeply and carefully' about it.
She said young people are now 'being forced to choose between either having the abortion or their safety and their wellness.'
The appeals court said it anticipated future Florida Supreme Court review of the question of whether the judicial waiver law complies with a parent's due process rights.
If the Florida high court does hear the case, earlier precedent could mean it sides with people trying to dismantle the judicial waiver process. Last year, the Florida Supreme Court said the state constitution doesn't guarantee a right to an abortion.
Ziegler said if the judicial waiver case does move to the Florida Supreme Court, it could be a way for anti-abortion advocates to argue about fetus' rights in their briefing in the hopes that justices would seize on it and include it in a ruling.
If the court determines that fetuses have more rights, it could lead to further restrictions on abortion.
'They want to get on the Florida Supreme Court on personhood,' Ziegler said.
Of the seven state Supreme Court justices, five have been appointed by DeSantis. Some have known anti-abortion views.
Staver, the chairman of the conservative anti-abortion group Liberty Counsel, said the recent case striking down judicial waivers was 'perhaps the first step' in the direction of looking at a right to life for fetuses in the Florida Constitution — as well as affirming parental rights more broadly.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Fox News
21 minutes ago
- Fox News
Booker, Cruz spar over threats to US judges in fiery Senate spat
Sens. Cory Booker, D-N.J., and Ted Cruz, R-Texas., sparred Tuesday over the uptick in threats made to federal court judges during President Donald Trump's second term. Their heated standoff comes as federal judges have issued a record number of injunctions against the flurry of executive actions by the president. The testy exchange took place during a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee hearing titled "The Supposedly Least Dangerous Branch: District Judges v. Trump." Cruz, the subcommittee chair, used his remarks at the outset of the hearing to take aim at Democrats on the subcommittee, who he said were "utterly silent" about judicial threats under the Biden administration, including after threats were made against conservative Supreme Court justices. Cruz took aim at Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., for "unleashing" protesters who gathered outside the homes of Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh prior to their decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization – the landmark ruling that overturned a 50-year-old abortion rights precedent – which he later said was ironic given the current "pearl-clutching" stance of Democrats on the panel. His remarks sparked a quick rebuke from Booker, who said, "Something you said is actually dangerous, and it needs to be addressed." "This implication that there was silence [from Democrats on the panel] at a time there were threats on people's houses is absolutely absurd," he continued. "I remember the rhetoric and the comments, the concern from [Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del.]," Booker said. "I actually distinctly remember you, chairman, on more than one occasion, condemning those attacks on Republican-appointed jurists." "To say things like that just feeds the partisanship in this institution, and it feeds the fiery rhetoric. And it's just plain not true," Booker added. In response, Cruz argued the "angry mobs" that appeared outside the homes of conservative Supreme Court justices prior to their decision in Dobbs were in violation of U.S.C. Section 1507. That law prohibits picketing outside the homes of judges or justices' homes in a way that could influence their decision or otherwise obstruct justice. Despite the protests, Cruz said, the Biden-led Justice Department "prosecuted nobody." "I really appreciate that you have now shifted the accusation you made earlier," Booker shot back. "Your accusation was that we were silent in the face of protests at Supreme Court justices' homes. Again, we joined together in a bipartisan way, not only to condemn that but to pass legislation to extend round-the-clock security protection. So if you're saying we didn't criticize –" he started before Cruz interjected. "Did the Biden DOJ go out and arrest a single person under this law?" the Texas lawmaker asked. Booker attempted to respond before Cruz interrupted again, "Did the Biden DOJ arrest even one [person]? Again, the answer is no." Booker attempted once more to respond before Cruz interrupted again, prompting Booker to raise his voice. "I did not interrupt you, sir, I would appreciate it if you would let me finish," he told Cruz. "I am sick and tired of hearing the kind of heated partisan rhetoric, which is one of the reasons why we have such divisions in this country," Booker continued, prompting Cruz to laugh openly in response. "The attacks we see from the president of the United States of America, trolling and dragging judges through is what we should be talking about," Booker said. "I'm simply taking issue with the claim that you made at the top, that people on the Democratic side of the aisle do not care about the safety and the security of judges and said nothing," he continued, adding that the notion that his Democrat colleagues said nothing in the face of Supreme Court justice threats "is a patent lie." The two continued arguing before Cruz said, "Let the record reflect that Spartacus did not answer the question and did not tell us whether the criminal law" under U.S.C. Section 1507 should be enforced, "because he knows the answer is yes." The hearing comes as the number of threats against federal judges has spiked during Trump's second term, which has seen hundreds of federal lawsuits filed in courts across the country seeking to either pause or halt the flurry of sweeping executive orders and actions taken by the president. Trump has repeatedly criticized what he called "activist judges," prompting Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts to issue a rare public warning. The U.S. Marshals Service said last week that it has investigated more than 370 threats against federal judges since Trump's inauguration in January, which is a sharp rise from 2024, when 509 people were investigated during the entire year. Democrats on the panel used Tuesday's hearing to renew requests for the Justice Department and FBI to investigate an uptick in anonymous "pizza deliveries" sent to federal judges, which can be used as a threat or warning to let judges know their home address is known.


The Hill
24 minutes ago
- The Hill
Santa Ono rejected for University of Florida presidency amid conservative backlash
ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. (AP) — Longtime academic Santa Ono was rejected Tuesday for the University of Florida presidency by the state university system board amid sharp criticism from political conservatives about his past support for diversity, equity and inclusion programs and other initiatives they view as unacceptable liberal ideology. The Florida Board of Governors, which oversees the state's universities, voted 10-6 against Ono, who was most recently president of the University of Michigan. The University of Florida Board of Trustees had voted unanimously in May to approve Ono as the school's 14th president, and it is unprecedented for the governors to reverse such an action. Now the search will start all over. Ono's proposed contract included a number of ideological requirements, such as how well he stopped programs that focus on diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI. He was to cooperate with Gov. Ron DeSantis' Office of Government Efficiency — similar to the office created by President Donald Trump — and appoint other university officials and deans who are 'firmly aligned' with Florida's approach. Several prominent conservatives raised questions about Ono before the vote over pro-Palestinian protests, climate change efforts, gender ideology and DEI programs at the University of Michigan and his previous academic positions. These actions, Republican U.S. Sen. Rick Scott of Florida said on the X social platform, show 'he is willing to appease and prioritize far-left activists over ensuring students are protected and receive a quality education.' Others raising objections include Donald Trump Jr. and Florida GOP U.S. Reps. Byron Donalds, Greg Steube and Jimmy Patronis. Donalds is a Republican candidate for governor. Writing in Inside Higher Ed, Ono said he supported DEI initiatives at first because they aim was 'equal opportunity and fairness for every student.' 'But over time, I saw how DEI became something else — more about ideology, division and bureaucracy, not student success,' Ono wrote, adding that he eventually limited DEI offices at Michigan. 'I believe in Florida's vision for higher education.' DeSantis, a Republican who has pushed reforms in higher education to eliminate what he calls 'woke' policies such as DEI, did not take a public stand on Ono but did say at a recent news conference that some of his statements made the governor 'cringe.' Ono faced similar pointed questions at Tuesday's meeting — especially from former Republican state House speakers Paul Renner and Jose Oliva — leading board member Charles Lydecker to object to the procedure. 'We have never used this as a forum to interrogate. This is not a court of law. Candidly, this process does not seem fair to me,' Lydecker said. Oliva, however, questioned how to square Ono's many past statements about hot-button cultural issues with his more conservative stance now that he sought the Florida job. 'Now we are told to believe you are now abandoning an entire ideological architecture,' Oliva said. 'We are asking someone to lead our flagship university. I don't understand how it becomes unfair.' Steube, writing on X, praised the board for its decision. 'Great news for my alma mater and the state of Florida! The Board of Governors heard us loud and clear: Santa Ono was the wrong choice for UF,' the congressman said. Ono was to replace Kent Fuchs, who became the school's temporary, interim president last summer after ex-U.S. Sen. Ben Sasse stepped down. Sasse left the U.S. Senate, where he had represented Nebraska, to become the university's president in 2023. Sasse announced in July he was leaving the job after his wife was diagnosed with epilepsy. Later reports surfaced that Sasse gave six former staffers and two former Republican officials jobs with salaries that outstripped comparable positions and spent over $1.3 million on private catering for lavish dinners, football tailgates and extravagant social functions in his first year on the job. Ono is also the former president of the University of British Columbia and the University of Cincinnati.


Newsweek
24 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Trump's Approval Rating With Key Group Jumps, Polls Show
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump's approval rating has jumped 7 percent in a week with Hispanic voters, The Economist and YouGov polls show. Why It Matters Trump has routinely touted positive approval ratings and polls during news conferences and campaign rallies throughout his political career. When the president returned to the White House in January, he coasted in with positive numbers. However, his approval ratings then dipped significantly amid sweeping tariff announcements. Trump later walked back the tariffs by announcing a 90-day pause for the majority. Slipping in polls could ultimately hinder Trump's political clout in an already highly polarized climate and potentially hurt Republican chances in the upcoming 2026 midterms. What To Know In a poll released on Tuesday, the president has a 38 percent approval rating with Hispanics. The poll was conducted from May 30 to June 2, involving over 1,600 U.S. adult citizens. The poll's margin of error is 3.2 percent. Last week, in a poll taken from May 23 to May 26, Trump's approval rating among Hispanics was 31 percent. The poll was taken among 1,660 U.S. adult citizens, too, with a margin of error of 3.2 percent. This is the highest Trump's approval rating has been with the key voting group since a poll taken from March 30 to April 1 showed him with a 43 percent approval rating with Hispanics. This poll's margin of error was 3.3 percent. Other polls have also shown the president's approval rating recently surging with Hispanic voters. An InsiderAdvantage poll of 1,000 likely voters taken from May 17 to 19 shows Trump's approval rating with Hispanics at 59.6 percent. The poll's margin of error was 3.09 percent. A previous survey from April 30 and May 1 among 1,200 likely voters showed that 38.4 percent of Hispanics approved of the job the president was doing. The poll's margin of error was 2.83 percent. President Donald Trump is seen arriving to deliver remarks at the National Memorial Day Observance at the Memorial Amphitheatre in Arlington National Cemetery in Arlington, Virginia, on May 26, 2025. (Photo by SAUL LOEB /... President Donald Trump is seen arriving to deliver remarks at the National Memorial Day Observance at the Memorial Amphitheatre in Arlington National Cemetery in Arlington, Virginia, on May 26, 2025. (Photo by SAUL LOEB / AFP) More What People Are Saying Political analyst Craig Agranoff told Newsweek via text message Tuesday: "The recent increase in Trump's approval rating among Hispanic U.S. adults, as reflected in the latest poll, likely stems from a combination of factors. His administration's messaging on economic opportunity and job creation may be resonating with segments of the Hispanic community, particularly those prioritizing financial stability." Agranoff continued, "Additionally, targeted outreach efforts and policy positions that align with cultural or social values held by some Hispanic voters could be contributing to this uptick. "It's critical to note that approval ratings can fluctuate due to short-term events or media cycles, and this rebound from previous months warrants closer scrutiny to determine if it reflects a durable shift or a temporary response to specific policy actions or rhetoric," Agranoff concluded. What Happens Next Weekly polls charting the president's approval rating are published frequently by numerous pollsters and media outlets.