|
|
|
Supreme Court allows Arkansas to enforce abortion restrictions
State Law Issues |
2018/06/11 00:26
|
The Supreme Court is allowing Arkansas to put into effect restrictions on how abortion pills are administered. Critics of a challenged state law say it could effectively end medication abortions in the state.
The justices did not comment Tuesday in rejecting an appeal from the Planned Parenthood affiliate in Arkansas that asked the court to review an appeals court ruling and reinstate a lower court order that had blocked the law from taking effect. The law says doctors who provide abortion pills must hold a contract with another physician who has admitting privileges at a hospital and who would agree to handle complications.
The law is similar to a provision in Texas law that the Supreme Court struck down in 2016. The U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the court order barring enforcement of the law, but put its ruling on hold while Planned Parenthood appealed to the Supreme Court.
The legal fight over the law is not over, but the state is now free to enforce it, at least for the time being. Planned Parenthood has said that if the law stands, Arkansas would be the only state where women would not have access to a pair of drugs that end pregnancies: mifepristone, which makes it difficult for a fetus to attach to the uterine wall, and misoprostol, which causes the body to expel it, similar to a miscarriage.
The organization offers pills to end pregnancies at clinics in Fayetteville and Little Rock but says it cannot find any Arkansas obstetrician willing to handle hospital admissions. Preventing women from obtaining medication abortions would create an undue burden on their right to an abortion, Planned Parenthood says. Undue burden is the standard set by the Supreme Court to measure whether restrictions go too far in limiting women who want an abortion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court allows Ohio, other state voter purges
Court Updates |
2018/06/10 00:27
|
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states can clean up their voting rolls by targeting people who haven't cast ballots in a while.
The justices rejected, by a 5-4 vote Monday, arguments in a case from Ohio that the practice violates a federal law intended to increase the ranks of registered voters. A handful of other states also use voters' inactivity to trigger a process that could lead to their removal from the voting rolls.
Justice Samuel Alito said for the court that Ohio is complying with the 1993 National Voter Registration Act. He was joined by his four conservative colleagues. The four liberal justices dissented.
Partisan fights over ballot access are being fought across the country. Democrats have accused Republicans of trying to suppress votes from minorities and poorer people who tend to vote for Democrats. Republicans have argued that they are trying to promote ballot integrity and prevent voter fraud.
Under Ohio rules, registered voters who fail to vote in a two-year period are targeted for eventual removal from registration rolls, even if they haven't moved and remain eligible. The state said it only uses the disputed process after first comparing its voter lists with a U.S. postal service list of people who have reported a change of address. But not everyone who moves notifies the post office, the state said.
So the state asks people who haven't voted in two years to confirm their eligibility. If they do, or if they show up to vote over the next four years, voters remain registered. If they do nothing, their names eventually fall off the list of registered voters.
"Combined with the two years of nonvoting before notice is sent, that makes a total of six years of nonvoting before removal," Alito wrote.
Justice Stephen Breyer, writing in dissent, said the 1993 law prohibits removing someone from the voting rolls "by reason of the person's failure to vote. In my view, Ohio's program does just that."
In a separate dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said Congress enacted the voter registration law "against the backdrop of substantial efforts by states to disenfranchise low-income and minority voters." The court's decision essentially endorses "the very purging that Congress expressly sought to protect against," Sotomayor wrote.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court to consider fraud investigator in NFL concussion case
Attorney Interview |
2018/06/10 00:26
|
A federal judge in Philadelphia is scheduled to hear arguments in the NFL's request for a special investigator to look into what the league says are fraudulent claims in a $1 billion concussion settlement.
The league last month cited an independent study it said found that more than 400 claims had been recommended for denial based on evidence of fraud by attorneys, doctors and former players.
Plaintiffs' lawyers contend the league is not awarding settlement funds fast enough. So far, $227 million in claims have been awarded.
The league says attempts to scam the system are responsible for delays. The NFL has asked that the investigator be granted subpoena power.
League officials say a special investigator would help ensure the integrity of the settlement. Arguments are scheduled for Wednesday.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Judge allows Palin's son therapeutic court for proceedings
Legal World News |
2018/06/08 00:26
|
The eldest son of former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin will go through Alaska's therapeutic court system in a criminal case accusing him of assaulting his father last year at the family home.
State District Judge David Wallace on Tuesday approved Track Palin's request to formally transfer his case to Veterans Court, which gives eligible veterans the option of enrolling in mental health treatment programs instead of a traditional sentence.
The judge also barred the media from using cameras or other recording devices during that proceeding after Track Palin's attorney filed a motion seeking to prohibit or limit media access. Wallace said he will formally rule on the matter later.
The motion to limit media access was filed Friday by Track Palin's attorney, Patrick Bergt, in an effort to ensure the case does not become a distraction to other veterans in the system.
Veterans Court program rules say veterans opt in by agreeing to plead guilty or not guilty to at least one charge.
Bergt declined to say if his client is making such a plea to get into the program, adding he can't comment on specifics of the case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Law Firm News RSS Feed
