The court rejected the abortion “gag rule” case and added arbitration and habeas corpus cases

breaking news

The Supreme Court announced that it will challenge Mississippi’s ban on abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy (see also article) Here) Occupies the dominant range of Monday’s orders.but In the same set of orders, The Justice also dismissed three cases – American Medical Association v. Becerra, Oregon v Becera with Becerra v. Baltimore Mayor and City Council – Raised issues related to abortion – especially a regulation issued by the Trump administration in 2019 prohibiting clinics receiving federal family planning funds from providing abortion referrals. Acting for US Attorney General Elizabeth Prelogar and lawyers who challenged the regulations (sometimes referred to as “taboo rules”) Had asked the court to dismiss these cases in March Because the Biden administration is canceling the rules. However, a group of state and conservative medical groups argued that the dispute was still an on-the-spot dispute and asked the court to allow them to intervene to defend the rule.

The justices at the end of last month The Biden administration asks More information on whether it intends to enforce the rule outside of Maryland (the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has blocked its enforcement) until the new rulemaking process is completed, and how the government will respond to challenge the rule if a new lawsuit is filed outside of Maryland .

The court explained in a brief order on Monday that according to the Biden administration’s commitment to continue to enforce the statute outside of Maryland (at least until the government replaces the statute with its own new rules), the court will not reject the motion. Intervene in the case and dissolve the case from the file. However, if the Biden administration fails to defend the rule while the rule is in effect, states and medical groups may return to court, including the possibility of including the Supreme Court if necessary.

Judges Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch said they could have allowed states and conservative medical groups to intervene and would reject The motion to dismiss the case.

Other grants on Monday

In addition to the abortion case in Mississippi, the court added two other cases to the file for its next Badgerow v. Walters, The justice agreed to decide whether the Federal Court has the power to confirm or revoke an arbitration award in accordance with the provisions of Articles 9 and 10 of the Federal Arbitration Act. Articles 9 and 10 stipulate the procedures for the enforcement and cancellation of arbitration awards. The only basis for this power is that the fundamental dispute involves federal issues. This issue arose in a dispute between the Louisiana financial adviser and the owner of the company she worked for. An arbitration panel of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority ruled and rejected the consultant’s request. When the consultant went to the state court to reverse the ruling, saying that the owner had obtained the ruling against her by fraud, the owner transferred the case to the federal court and asked the judge to confirm the ruling.

The district court rejected the consultant’s motion to return the case to the state court and confirmed the arbitration award; the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit agreed, and the district court appropriately rejected the consultant’s motion to retry the case. The consultant then went to the Supreme Court, which agreed to aggravate the trial on Monday.

The judges also approved Arizona’s request for review of a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which gave a death row inmate a new hearing to review his lawyer’s failure to provide adequate representation and demand that another Evidence of a new trial for a death row prisoner 25 years after his initial conviction. The state came to the Supreme Court earlier this year and asked the justices to weigh the impact of the court’s decision. 2012 cases According to the general rule, the federal court cannot consider evidence outside of the state court record when reviewing the state prisoner’s request for relief after conviction. The judge will listen to oral arguments in the case, Shinn v Ramirezwith Badgerow in autumn.

Call on the government to comment

The judge seeks the opinion of the federal government In a lawsuit against Union Pacific Railroad An engineer slipped and fell on an oily platform on a locomotive. Engineer Bradley LeDure suffered injuries to his spine, shoulder and head and required multiple surgeries. He was later declared permanently disabled from railway work. The court asked the Federal Government No. 20-807 to weigh the issues raised by the Locomotive Inspection Act and the Federal Employer’s Responsibility Act, the latter providing the only remedy for railway workers injured at work. Judge Amy Coney Barrett participated in the case as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and withdrew the consideration of LeDure’s petition.

Obvious refusal to review

The judges rejected James Calvert’s petition for review, A prisoner in Texas, was sentenced to death for the murder of his ex-wife. Judge Sonia Sotomayor issued a statement on the court’s decision not to hear the Calvert case. She recounted Calvert’s testimony at a sentencing hearing for a former correctional officer, which involved an incident in which he was not pierced into the eye by a Calvert prisoner with a pencil. The state argued that officers’ testimonies and brain scans could be introduced to show the extent to which the pencil penetrated the officer’s brain to show “the chance of a prisoner experiencing violence in prison”. Sotomayor wrote that Calvert put forward a “serious argument that the state relies on instances of violence committed by unrelated prisoners to prove that he poses a future danger”, depriving him of the right to personal sentencing. However, Sotomayor went on to say that she agreed to the decision not to accept the Calvert case because the case “does not meet the traditional standards approved by the court.”

The Supreme Court also refused to review Lloyd Harris case, She was sentenced to life imprisonment in 2016 for the rape and murder of a 15-year-old girl in 1996. Not long after her body was found in the forest area where Harris lived at the time, Harris became the main suspect in the girl’s murder, but in 2000, the prosecutor refused to prosecute him. Although the state did not find any new evidence, the state filed a prosecution 16 years later-during this period, Harris claimed that another suspect and a forensic analyst in the murder case died, the evidence was lost, and the witnesses disappeared. , He lost the ability to make statements. An alibi. After deliberating the case at 13 consecutive meetings, the judge on Monday dismissed Harris’ request without reservation, the decision to determine which standard court should apply to the indictment’s claim that the delay in the indictment violated the Constitution’s due process clause. Because this delay impaired the ability of the defendant. Defend yourself.

The next private meeting of the justices is scheduled to be held on May 20 (Thursday), and the order of the meeting will be held at 9:30 am on May 24 (Monday).

This article is Originally published on the court Hao Hao.

Source link