Abortions in the United States increased in 2024 to an estimated 1.1 million, up from around 1.06 million in 2023 and 960,000 in 2022, according to new data from the Society of Family Planning’s WeCount project. The rise comes despite expanding restrictions in many states following the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade and ended nearly five decades of nationwide legal abortion access.⁠
⁠
A growing share of abortions are now being carried out through telehealth, a form of remote medical care where patients consult with clinicians online and receive prescribed pills by mail. By the final quarter of 2024, telehealth abortions accounted for 25% of all abortions, up from just 5% before the Dobbs ruling. Many of these were made possible by shield laws in Democratic-led states that protect providers who prescribe abortion medication to patients in states where abortion is banned.⁠
⁠
Three states have filed lawsuits to limit telehealth prescriptions of mifepristone, a drug commonly used in medication abortions. The Trump administration has argued those states lack legal standing.⁠
⁠
​​​🔗Head to our bio for the full story

Roughly two dozen states filed a lawsuit Tuesday against the Trump administration over sweeping cuts to AmeriCorps, the federal volunteer service program established in 1993. ⁠
⁠
The suit accuses the Department of Government Efficiency of unlawfully gutting the agency and terminating hundreds of millions in congressionally approved grants. Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser said the administration made “abrupt and drastic cuts to staff and volunteers and terminated grants.”⁠
⁠
AmeriCorps programs support more than 200,000 members annually, many of whom receive stipends and education benefits while working in community organizations, disaster relief, and public service projects.⁠
⁠
According to the complaint, at least 85% of staff were placed on administrative leave this month, and some 2,000 members of the National Civilian Community Corps were informed they would be dismissed early. Notices sent to grantees cited a shift in agency priorities.⁠
⁠
The White House defended the move by citing $40 million in improper payments attributed to documentation and coding errors. “President Trump has the legal right to restore accountability to the entire Executive Branch,” said Deputy Press Secretary Anna Kelly. ⁠
⁠
​​​🔗Head to our bio to download the Ground News app and read the full story as reported by 85 sources.

The Supreme Court lifted a lower court’s restriction on the Trump administration’s policy of deporting migrants to third countries, even when those individuals have no ties to the destination. The decision allows the administration to resume removals like a recent blocked flight to South Sudan, where immigration officials had stationed personnel in Djibouti while awaiting legal clarity. The majority provided no explanation, prompting a sharp dissent from the Court’s liberal justices.⁠
⁠
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, criticized the ruling, writing that the Court was “rewarding lawlessness.” She added, “Apparently, the Court finds the idea that thousands will suffer violence in farflung locales more palatable than the remote possibility that a District Court exceeded its remedial powers.” The case originated from a challenge filed by noncitizens alleging due process violations, with U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy issuing a nationwide injunction in April.⁠
⁠
Solicitor General D. John Sauer described the judge’s order as lacking a legal foundation and interfering with national security efforts to remove “some of the most heinous criminals.” The administration has argued that these deportations are lawful and critical to enforcement. While the injunction did not mandate return to the U.S., it required that migrants be given the opportunity to raise legal objections before removal. The matter now returns to an appeals court.⁠
⁠
​​​🔗Head to our bio for the full story

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear a challenge brought by Republican committees and Vice President JD Vance to federal campaign finance rules that limit spending coordinated between political parties and candidates. The case originated during Vance’s 2022 Senate campaign in Ohio and questions whether restrictions on such spending violate First Amendment protections. The court will take up the matter in its next term starting in October.⁠
⁠
The plaintiffs—including the National Republican Senatorial Committee, National Republican Congressional Committee, and former Congressman Steve Chabot—argue the limits “severely restrict political party committees from doing what the First Amendment entitles them to do: fully associate with and advocate for their own candidates for federal office.” The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the limits last year, citing a 2001 Supreme Court ruling. Lawyers for President Donald Trump’s administration supported the appeal and asked the court to appoint a third party to defend the existing law.⁠
⁠
The justices also approved a motion from the Democratic National Committee and related groups to intervene in defense of the spending limits. “The Republican Party has spent decades trying to eliminate statutory limits on political party expenditures that are coordinated with candidates’ campaigns,” attorney Marc Elias said. The challenge follows a broader trend in campaign finance litigation, including the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision, which struck down limits on independent expenditures by outside groups.⁠
⁠
​​​🔗Head to our bio for the full story