Remove Court Decisions Remove Kentucky Remove Legal Remove Statute
article thumbnail

Federal appeals court upholds Indiana law mandating reporting of abortion complications

JURIST

Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky filed a complaint arguing that the law is unconstitutionally vague. The US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana agreed and issued a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the law. A three-judge panel of the appellate court reversed the lower court decision in a 2-1 split.

Statute 288
article thumbnail

Abortion Battle Enters Second Phase

The Crime Report

Wade, o pponents of abortion are pushing for stricter bans at state levels—even criminalizing women who travel outside their states where abortion remains legal. So-called “trigger” laws have already gone into effect in states where anti-abortion statutes are already on the books have been activated by the decision.

Felony 59
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Trending Sources

article thumbnail

Challenges to a Washington state legislative district

SCOTUSBlog

The legality of LD-15, which had an approximately 51.5% Both cases are now before the Supreme Court. Because of the wrinkles of the court’s jurisdictional statutes, Garcia comes from the three-judge district court directly to the Supreme Court as an appeal over which the court has mandatory jurisdiction.

Court 86
article thumbnail

Are Collective Net Zero Targets Anticompetitive?

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

Two principal federal antitrust statutes govern agreements among competitors: the Sherman Act of 1890, which prohibits monopolization and unlawful trade restraints, and the Clayton Act of 1914, which identifies additional prohibited conduct, including with respect to interlocking directorates, and mergers and acquisitions.

Finance 102
article thumbnail

June 2021 Updates to the Climate Case Charts

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

Supreme Court held that the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals erred when it concluded that its review of the remand order in Baltimore’s climate change case against fossil fuel companies was limited to determining whether the defendants properly removed the case under the federal officer removal statute.

Court 42