Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

What is a trigger law?

Anti-abortion protest at the Supreme Court

Proponents and opponents of abortion rights gather outside the Supreme Court on Wednesday.

Nicholas Kamm/AFP via Getty Images

If the Supreme Court’s draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade becomes an official court decision, states will be free to legislate abortion issues as they see fit. Abortions will immediately become illegal in 13 states that have passed “trigger laws” tied to a court decision.

What does that mean?


A trigger law is designed to take effect when certain conditions are met. The legislative maneuver is in the news this week because more than a dozen states, mostly in the South and the Plains, have laws that would ban or restrict abortions as soon as the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision is overturned.

Trigger laws are now solely the province of legislatures that oppose abortion. For example, a handful of states will automatically shut down their Medicaid expansion if certain conditions change at the federal level.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, the following states have trigger laws that would restrict, if not ban, abortions:

  • Arkansas
  • Idaho
  • Kentucky
  • Louisiana
  • Mississippi
  • Missouri
  • North Dakota
  • Oklahoma
  • South Dakota
  • Tennessee
  • Texas
  • Utah
  • Wyoming

Nine states, some overlapping with the above list, already had abortion ban laws on the books prior to Roe, and those laws would once again be in effect if the the court acts as expected:

  • Alabama
  • Arizona
  • Arkansas
  • Michigan
  • Mississippi
  • Oklahoma
  • Texas
  • West Virginia
  • Wisconsin

If these laws go into effect, millions of people would be barred from having an abortion unless Congress passes legislation making abortion legal nationwide. However, any such bill would need 60 votes to overcome a Senate filibuster (which is not going to happen). The alternative would be to change or eliminate the filibuster rule so legislation can be passed by a simple majority vote. But centrist Democrats Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema remain opposed to changing the filibuster rules.


Read More

Pritzker uses State of the State to defend immigrants, says Chicago targeted by federal actions

Governor JB Pritzker delivers his FY2027 state budget proposal at the Illinois State Capitol in Springfield, Ill. on Wednesday, Feb. 18th, 2026.

Angeles Ponpa, Illinois Latino News

Pritzker uses State of the State to defend immigrants, says Chicago targeted by federal actions

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. — Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker used part of his State of the State address Wednesday to criticize federal immigration enforcement actions and contrast Illinois’ approach with federal policy.

The annual address largely centered on the governor’s proposed state budget and affordability agenda, but Pritzker devoted his last remarks to immigration, framing the issue as a broader test of national values.

Keep ReadingShow less
Warrantless home searches sparked the American Revolution – now ICE wants to bring them back

ICE agents search a home on January 28, 2026, in Circle Pines, Minnesota.

(Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

Warrantless home searches sparked the American Revolution – now ICE wants to bring them back

In 1761, James Otis Jr., a 36-year-old lawyer, ignited an early spark of the American Revolution when he resigned his post as Massachusetts Advocate General to represent merchants challenging the British use of overly broad warrants. Though he lost the case, his speech electrified the colonies: John Adams later wrote that Otis’s argument was the moment when “the Child Independence was born.”

That struggle over arbitrary warrants is no longer a historical footnote, now that the federal government is reviving the very practice Otis condemned. An internal ICE memo dated May 12, 2025, authorizes agents to enter homes solely on the basis of an “administrative warrant,” without prior judicial approval. The memo acknowledged that this marked a departure from historic ICE practices but claimed that DHS had “recently determined that the U.S. Constitution…[did] not prohibit relying on administrative warrants”.

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. Capitol.
Ken Burns’ The American Revolution highlights why America’s founders built checks and balances—an urgent reminder as Congress, the courts, and citizens confront growing threats to democratic governance.
Photo by Andy Feliciotti on Unsplash

Partial Shutdown; Congress Asserts Itself a Little

DHS Shutdown

As expected, the parties in the Senate could not come to an agreement on DHS funding and now the agency will be shut down. Sort of.

So much money was appropriated for DHS, and ICE and CBP specifically, in last year's reconciliation bill, that DHS could continue to operate with little or no interruption. Other parts of DHS like FEMA and the TSA might face operational cuts or shutdowns.

Keep ReadingShow less