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
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
Criminals Promised, Volume Delivered: Inside ICE’s Enforcement Model

An ICE agent holds a taser as they stand watch after one of their vehicles got a flat tire on Penn Avenue on February 5, 2026 in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

(Photo by Stephen Maturen/Getty Images)

Criminals Promised, Volume Delivered: Inside ICE’s Enforcement Model

Donald Trump ran on a simple promise: focus immigration enforcement on criminals and make the country safer. The policy now being implemented tells a different story. With tens of billions of dollars directed toward arrests, detention, and removals, the enforcement system has been structured to maximize volume rather than reduce risk. That design choice matters because it shapes who is targeted, how force is used, and whether public safety is actually improved.

This is not a dispute over whether immigration law should be enforced. The question is whether the policy now in place matches what was promised and delivers the safety outcomes that justified its scale and cost.

Keep ReadingShow less