courthousenews--2020-08-31--Texas Attorney General Sues County to Stop Mailing of Ballot Applications

HOUSTON ( CN ) — Texas ’ Republican attorney general on Monday sued the county clerk in Houston , a Democratic stronghold , seeking an order to stop him from mailing absentee ballot applications to the county ’ s 2.37 million registered voters regardless of whether they qualify .
Harris County Clerk Chris Hollins refused to back down after Texas Elections Director Keith Ingram warned him Thursday he had until noon Monday to call off his plan to send the applications to all registered voters .
Texas has strict rules on absentee voting .
Only people over 65 , those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ county and the disabled qualify and the Texas Supreme Court clarified earlier this year that fear of contracting Covid-19 at a polling site does not meet the criteria .
“ An official application from your office will lead many voters to believe they are allowed to vote by mail , when they do not qualify , ” Ingram told Hollins in a letter Thursday .
Ingram also said eligible mail voters could be disenfranchised if the mass application mailing delays them getting their ballot in on time to be counted .
According to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election only around 100,000 voters in Harris County , the state ’ s largest by population , voted by mail , which makes sense because only 10.9 % of its 4.7 million residents are over age 65 and 6.5 % of people younger than 65 are disabled .
“ In addition , the number of voters eligible but confined [ in jail ] or absent from the county on election day is necessarily limited , ” the complaint states .
Paxton claims Hollins ’ plan is an invitation for fraud as people who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ convicted of a felony or moved out of the county could be mailed applications .
“ At best , applications sent to these individuals will simply go unused .
More likely , these excess applications will become ripe material for voter fraud , ” the lawsuit states .
Hollins , a Democrat , told local media last week his office will include detailed eligibility guidance with the applications and let voters decide for themselves if they qualify .
Upon taking office in June as head of elections in the country ’ s third-most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ensure polling sites are evenly distributed throughout the county .
His predecessor Diane Trautman , who resigned in May for health reasons , was blamed for a flawed plan for the March primary in which some Democrats waited up to five hours to cast their ballots while machines designated for Republicans sat unused .
Texas ’ Republican leaders are in lockstep with President Donald Trump in their opposition to mail-in voting .
Though Trump himself votes by mail , he claims fraudsters could throw the election if absentee voting is expanded .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of State Ruth Hughes earlier this year , seeking to expand absentee-voting eligibility to all registered voters due to concerns the coronavirus would keep people away from the polls .
They said Paxton ’ s lawsuit is another attempt to stop Texans from voting .
“ Republicans will stop at nothing to stop Texans from exercising their right to vote .
If Texas Republicans could , the eligibility for vote by mail would be : are you voting for Donald Trump ?
” Texas Democratic Party spokesman Abhi Rahman said in an email @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Democrat in a statewide race since the 1990s and no Democratic presidential candidate has carried the state since Jimmy Carter in 1976 , the major cities of Dallas , Houston , San Antonio and Austin are majority Democrat .
Hillary Clinton beat Trump by more than 160,000 votes in Harris County in the 2016 election , and the latest polls have Democratic presidential nominee Biden and Trump in a dead heat in Texas leading up to November ’ s election .
Paxton seeks a temporary restraining order to stop Hollins from mailing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ County ’ s registered voters .
The Harris County Republican Party also joined another lawsuit Monday challenging Hollins ’ plan .

Texas’ Republican attorney general on Monday sued the county clerk in Houston, a Democratic stronghold, seeking an order to stop him from mailing absentee ballot applications to the county’s 2.37 million registered voters regardless of whether they qualify.
HOUSTON (CN) — Texas’ Republican attorney general on Monday sued the county clerk in Houston, a Democratic stronghold, seeking an order to stop him from mailing absentee ballot applications to the county’s 2.37 million registered voters regardless of whether they qualify.
Harris County Clerk Chris Hollins refused to back down after Texas Elections Director Keith Ingram warned him Thursday he had until noon Monday to call off his plan to send the applications to all registered voters.
Texas has strict rules on absentee voting. Only people over 65, those in jail, people out of the county and the disabled qualify and the Texas Supreme Court clarified earlier this year that fear of contracting Covid-19 at a polling site does not meet the criteria.
“An official application from your office will lead many voters to believe they are allowed to vote by mail, when they do not qualify,” Ingram told Hollins in a letter Thursday.
Ingram also said eligible mail voters could be disenfranchised if the mass application mailing delays them getting their ballot in on time to be counted.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton made good on Ingram’s threats Monday, suing Hollins in Harris County District Court.
According to the lawsuit, in the 2016 presidential election only around 100,000 voters in Harris County, the state’s largest by population, voted by mail, which makes sense because only 10.9% of its 4.7 million residents are over age 65 and 6.5% of people younger than 65 are disabled.
“In addition, the number of voters eligible but confined [in jail] or absent from the county on election day is necessarily limited,” the complaint states.
Paxton claims Hollins’ plan is an invitation for fraud as people who have died, been disqualified by being convicted of a felony or moved out of the county could be mailed applications.
“At best, applications sent to these individuals will simply go unused. More
likely, these excess applications will become ripe material for voter fraud,” the lawsuit states.
Hollins, a Democrat, told local media last week his office will include detailed eligibility guidance with the applications and let voters decide for themselves if they qualify.
Upon taking office in June as head of elections in the country’s third-most populous county, Hollins said he would ensure polling sites are evenly distributed throughout the county.
His predecessor Diane Trautman, who resigned in May for health reasons, was blamed for a flawed plan for the March primary in which some Democrats waited up to five hours to cast their ballots while machines designated for Republicans sat unused.
Texas’ Republican leaders are in lockstep with President Donald Trump in their opposition to mail-in voting. Though Trump himself votes by mail, he claims fraudsters could throw the election if absentee voting is expanded.
The Texas Democratic Party unsuccessfully sued Texas Secretary of State Ruth Hughes earlier this year, seeking to expand absentee-voting eligibility to all registered voters due to concerns the coronavirus would keep people away from the polls.
They said Paxton’s lawsuit is another attempt to stop Texans from voting.
“Republicans will stop at nothing to stop Texans from exercising their right to vote. If Texas Republicans could, the eligibility for vote by mail would be: are you voting for Donald Trump?” Texas Democratic Party spokesman Abhi Rahman said in an email.
Though Texas has not voted for a Democrat in a statewide race since the 1990s and no Democratic presidential candidate has carried the state since Jimmy Carter in 1976, the major cities of Dallas, Houston, San Antonio and Austin are majority Democrat.
Hillary Clinton beat Trump by more than 160,000 votes in Harris County in the 2016 election, and the latest polls have Democratic presidential nominee Biden and Trump in a dead heat in Texas leading up to November’s election.
Paxton agreed late Monday not to seek a temporary restraining order. The case will go straight to a temporary injunction hearing and the parties will pick a hearing date by Sept. 9.


courthousenews--2020-08-31--Relief Closer for California Renters, Landlords as Protection Bill Clears Senate

SACRAMENTO , Calif. ( CN ) — With a statewide moratorium on eviction and foreclosure cases set to expire Tuesday , the California Senate passed an eleventh-hour tenant protection bill lawmakers hope will avert a crisis as they press for more economic relief from the federal government .
Assembly Bill 3088 is the product of feverish negotiations between Governor Gavin Newsom , legislators , and landlord groups critical of an earlier measure by Assembly member David Chiu , D-San Francisco , that they said would encourage tenants to withhold rent without proof of financial hardship resulting from the Covid-19 pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , along with a Senate proposal more favorable to larger landlords that doles out sellable tax credits to cover rent losses while suspending evictions for tenants who have worked out agreements to repay rent in installments .
The compromise measure staves off evictions through Jan. 31 , 2021 , as long as tenants pay 25 % of their rent from Sept. 1 onward .
Landlords will not be able to evict tenants for unpaid rent from March through August 2020 , though they can sue tenants in small claims court for the debt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will have to swear to pandemic-related financial distress under penalty of perjury , and “ high-income ” renters making at least 130 % of a county ’ s median income will have to submit actual proof they lost their job or income .
While AB 3088 does not immunize landlords from foreclosures or force banks to offer mortgage forbearance , it extends protections embodied in the California Homeowner Bill of Rights to owners of properties with four units or less .
The California Apartment Association , a lobbying group representing landlords , hailed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ approach ” to Chiu ’ s AB 1436 .
“ We ’ ve been working around the clock with lawmakers and the governor ’ s office to make sure the legislation is fair and balanced , ” Debra Carlton , the group ’ s executive vice president of state public affairs said in a statement Friday after the bill ’ s unveiling .
“ Our goal has been to provide both help for tenants who are truly affected by Covid-19 , as well as compensation for landlords , especially mom and pop owners @ @ @ @ @ @ @ months without rent payments.
” Landlords will also be able to evict problem tenants , which was a major sticking point for Carlton ’ s group .
In an interview this month , she noted , “ We ’ ve had cases just not move forward where a tenant threatened to behead a landlord , where tenants were throwing huge parties and inviting tons of other people .
There are tenants who are using their units as Airbnb and not paying the landlord.
” The new law , dubbed the Tenant , Homeowner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Act of 2020 , preempts tenant-protection ordinances passed by cities throughout California .
Though the bill grandfathers in municipal ordinances already enacted , it does not allow cities to extend them after they expire .
Lawmakers have called it an imperfect and temporary fix as thousands of California renters find themselves falling behind on rent .
The UCLA Lewis Center for Regional Policy Studies and the USC Lusk Center for Real Estate released a report Friday forecasting a desperate situation in Los Angeles County , where some 40,000 households — about 2 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in three months .
Chiu said Friday that while AB 3088 does not go as far as he would have liked , it leaves the door open for legislators to revisit the issue next legislative session .
Negotiations came down to the wire as emergency rules suspending eviction and foreclosure proceedings sunset on Sept. 1 .
“ The choice was between this proposal and nothing , ” Chiu said in a statement that also urged the federal government to “ step up ” and provide another round of stimulus .
“ States can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” he said .
“ It is our profound hope that a new federal administration will provide economic relief for struggling tenants and landlords — the ultimate solution to this problem.
” In urging colleagues for an “ aye ” vote on the Senate floor Monday , Senator Anna Caballero , a Democrat representing Salinas and the Central Valley , echoed Chiu ’ s characterization of the bill as a stop-gap measure .
“ AB 3088 is a temporary solution .
If we all had a crystal ball we ’ d know when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , what ’ s going to happen to the economy , when people are going to get back to work , ” she said .
“ None of that is possible at this time.
” She said once the bill is signed by Newsom , a working group will convene to “ look at ways to direct future federal and state money to tenants , landlords , and homeowners.
” Co-author Senator Steven Bradford , a Democrat from Los Angeles said , “ This measure is simply a six-month bridge for both tenants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ end all , be all to the crisis .
It will keep tenants and landlords viable and afloat for the next six months.
” Republican Senator Andreas Borgeas from Fresno said he has serious concerns about the bill ’ s overall lack of “ legal teeth ” in helping landlords deal with creditors .
“ There ’ s probably going to be contract , private property , and federal preemption issues .
This thing is fraught with problems , ” he said .
He reluctantly voted for the bill with the admonition that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fellow lawmakers create a tax credit for landlords .
“ This ends in January .
It can not go beyond that , ” Borgeas said .
“ I know there are those who want this to go beyond the pandemic or until everyone is economically back on their feet but that isn ’ t sustainable.
” Having cleared the Senate floor by vote of 33-2 , the bill will go to back to the Assembly for a full vote Monday evening .

With a statewide moratorium on eviction and foreclosure cases set to expire Tuesday, the California Senate passed an eleventh-hour tenant protection bill lawmakers hope will avert a crisis as they press for more economic relief from the federal government.
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (CN) — With a statewide moratorium on eviction and foreclosure cases set to expire Tuesday, the California Legislature passed an eleventh-hour tenant protection bill lawmakers hope will avert a crisis as they press for more economic relief from the federal government.
Assembly Bill 3088 — which Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law late Monday — is the product of feverish negotiations between Newsom, legislators, and landlord groups critical of an earlier measure by Assembly member David Chiu, D-San Francisco, that they said would encourage tenants to withhold rent without proof of financial hardship resulting from the Covid-19 pandemic.
That bill is off the table, along with a Senate proposal more favorable to larger landlords that doles out sellable tax credits to cover rent losses while suspending evictions for tenants who have worked out agreements to repay rent in installments.
Having moved off the Senate floor by a vote of 33-2 Monday afternoon, AB 3088 made it over its last legislative hurdle by a within two hours of the midnight deadline.
The compromise measure staves off evictions through Jan. 31, 2021, as long as tenants pay 25% of their rent from Sept. 1 onward. Landlords will not be able to evict tenants for unpaid rent from March through August 2020, though they can sue tenants in small claims court for the debt starting March 1, 2021.
Tenants will have to swear to pandemic-related financial distress under penalty of perjury, and "high-income" renters making at least 130% of a county’s median income will have to submit actual proof they lost their job or income.
While AB 3088 does not immunize landlords from foreclosures or force banks to offer mortgage forbearance, it extends protections embodied in the California Homeowner Bill of Rights to owners of properties with four units or less.
The California Apartment Association, a lobbying group representing landlords, hailed AB 3088 as a ‘more sensible approach” to Chiu’s AB 1436.
“We’ve been working around the clock with lawmakers and the governor’s office to make sure the legislation is fair and balanced,” Debra Carlton, the group’s executive vice president of state public affairs said in a statement Friday after the bill's unveiling. “Our goal has been to provide both help for tenants who are truly affected by Covid-19, as well as compensation for landlords, especially mom and pop owners, at risk of foreclosure after several months without rent payments.”
Landlords will also be able to evict problem tenants, which was a major sticking point for Carlton’s group. In an interview this month, she noted, “We've had cases just not move forward where a tenant threatened to behead a landlord, where tenants were throwing huge parties and inviting tons of other people. There are tenants who are using their units as Airbnb and not paying the landlord.”
The new law, dubbed the Tenant, Homeowner, and Small Landlord Relief and Stabilization Act of 2020, preempts tenant-protection ordinances passed by cities throughout California. Though the bill grandfathers in municipal ordinances already enacted, it does not allow cities to extend them after they expire.
Lawmakers have called it an imperfect and temporary fix as thousands of California renters find themselves falling behind on rent. The UCLA Lewis Center for Regional Policy Studies and the USC Lusk Center for Real Estate released a report Friday forecasting a desperate situation in Los Angeles County, where some 40,000 households — about 2% of renters — have not paid rent in three months.
“This bill is far from perfect,” Chiu said Monday evening. “Many tenant protections I fought for in AB 1436 are not in this bill, but we must put in temporary protections to get us through the next five months.”
He called it “the least we can do,” just before it cleared the Assembly floor by a 56-8 vote.
Negotiations came down to the wire as emergency rules suspending eviction and foreclosure proceedings sunset on Sept. 1.
In urging colleagues for an “aye” vote on the Senate floor Monday, Senator Anna Caballero, a Democrat representing Salinas and the Central Valley, echoed Chiu’s characterization of the bill as a stop-gap measure.
“AB 3088 is a temporary solution. If we all had a crystal ball we’d know when the Covid pandemic is going to end, what’s going to happen to the economy, when people are going to get back to work,” she said. “None of that is possible at this time.” She said once the bill is signed by Newsom, a working group will convene to "look at ways to direct future federal and state money to tenants, landlords, and homeowners.”
Co-author Senator Steven Bradford, a Democrat from Los Angeles said, “This measure is simply a six-month bridge for both tenants and landlords. This bill is no end all, be all to the crisis. It will keep tenants and landlords viable and afloat for the next six months.”
Republican Senator Andreas Borgeas from Fresno said he has serious concerns about the bill’s overall lack of “legal teeth” in helping landlords deal with creditors.
"There’s probably going to be contract, private property, and federal preemption issues. This thing is fraught with problems," he said.
He reluctantly voted for the bill with the admonition that eviction relief not be extended and that fellow lawmakers create a tax credit for landlords.
“This ends in January. It cannot go beyond that,” Borgeas said. “I know there are those who want this to go beyond the pandemic or until everyone is economically back on their feet but that isn't sustainable.”


courthousenews--2020-08-31--Fifth Circuit Urged to Expand Mail-In Voting in Texas

NEW ORLEANS ( CN ) — A Fifth Circuit panel heard arguments Monday over a Texas law that limits mail-in voting to people 65 and older , with an attorney for the state Democratic Party arguing the restriction constitutes discrimination .
Texas Solicitor General Kyle Hawkins argued on behalf of Governor Greg Abbott , Attorney General Ken Paxton and Secretary of State Ruth R. Hughes , the Republican defendants in a lawsuit filed in April by Texas Democrats .
He defended the law at issue , saying that allowing the elderly to vote by mail does not take rights away @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ doesn ’ t abridge anyone else ’ s right to vote.
” The Texas Legislature “ carefully crafted ” election laws “ to reject universal mail balloting ” out of fear of possible voter fraud , he said , adding that “ courts should not rewrite state election laws over the objections of state officials a mere nine weeks before a major national election.
” But Chad Dunn , general counsel for the Texas Democratic Party , disagreed and called the law discriminatory .
“ What the state can ’ t do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people based on their age get a voting benefit while others ” do not , Dunn told the judges .
Addressing Republican officials ’ stated concern over voter fraud , Dunn asked why the votes of people 65 and older are different than those of anyone else .
“ What makes those votes so much more valuable , that they ’ re worthy of potential voter fraud , that the others get excluded from it ?
The state put on no evidence of widespread voter fraud , ” he said .
“ Look @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we know , from economics to political science , is the more difficult you make it to vote , the fewer people do so.
” He pointed to Wisconsin ’ s primary election in April , during which some people stood in line for hours amid the worsening Covid-19 outbreak .
“ The state ’ s [ guidelines ] for polling in November do not require people to wear masks .
So now we ’ re asking people to go and vote , in person , potentially standing behind someone in line and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
” Dunn asked .
Dunn concluded his arguments by saying “ we don ’ t have constitutional rights unless we practice them.
” “ At the end of the day , this case is about a fair electoral system , where people don ’ t have to go through undue burdens only in order to vote , ” he said , arguing that Texas limiting mail-in voting to only people 65 and older is a violation of voting rights .
Hawkins reiterated during rebuttal that when the state gave the option of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it didn ’ t take away anyone else ’ s rights.
” Election Day is Nov. 3 .
Sept. 19 is the deadline for election officials to mail ballots to those who qualify to vote by mail .
Absentee ballots have to arrive to election administrators ’ offices by Oct. 22 .
Early voting begins Oct. 13 and ends Oct. 30 .
Monday ’ s hearing was held by teleconference due to Covd-19 .
After audio of the hearing permanently froze , an official with the Fifth Circuit said more than 250 people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was made up of U.S .
Circuit Judges Carolyn Dineen King , Carl Stewart and Leslie Southwick – appointed by Jimmy Carter , Bill Clinton and George W. Bush , respectively .
It was not clear how the judges would rule , but Stewart said the panel would try to move quickly .

A Fifth Circuit panel heard arguments Monday over a Texas law that limits mail-in voting to people 65 and older, with an attorney for the state Democratic Party arguing the restriction constitutes discrimination.
NEW ORLEANS (CN) — A Fifth Circuit panel heard arguments Monday over a Texas law that limits mail-in voting to people 65 and older, with an attorney for the state Democratic Party arguing the restriction constitutes discrimination.
Texas Solicitor General Kyle Hawkins argued on behalf of Governor Greg Abbott, Attorney General Ken Paxton and Secretary of State Ruth R. Hughs, the Republican defendants in a lawsuit filed in April by Texas Democrats.
He defended the law at issue, saying that allowing the elderly to vote by mail does not take rights away from any other group of people and “doesn’t abridge anyone else’s right to vote.”
The Texas Legislature “carefully crafted” election laws “to reject universal mail balloting” out of fear of possible voter fraud, he said, adding that “courts should not rewrite state election laws over the objections of state officials a mere nine weeks before a major national election.”
But Chad Dunn, general counsel for the Texas Democratic Party, disagreed and called the law discriminatory.
“What the state can’t do by statute is say a bracket of people based on their age get a voting benefit while others” do not, Dunn told the judges.
Addressing Republican officials’ stated concern over voter fraud, Dunn asked why the votes of people 65 and older are different than those of anyone else.
“What makes those votes so much more valuable, that they’re worthy of potential voter fraud, that the others get excluded from it? The state put on no evidence of widespread voter fraud,” he said.
“Look,” Dunn added, “everything we know, from economics to political science, is the more difficult you make it to vote, the fewer people do so.”
He pointed to Wisconsin’s primary election in April, during which some people stood in line for hours amid the worsening Covid-19 outbreak.
“The state’s [guidelines] for polling in November do not require people to wear masks. So now we’re asking people to go and vote, in person, potentially standing behind someone in line and subject themselves to the current pandemic circumstances?” Dunn asked.
Dunn concluded his arguments by saying “we don’t have constitutional rights unless we practice them.”
“At the end of the day, this case is about a fair electoral system, where people don’t have to go through undue burdens only in order to vote,” he said, arguing that Texas limiting mail-in voting to only people 65 and older is a violation of voting rights.
Hawkins reiterated during rebuttal that when the state gave the option of mail-in voting to the elderly, “it didn’t take away anyone else’s rights.”
Election Day is Nov. 3. Sept. 19 is the deadline for election officials to mail ballots to those who qualify to vote by mail. Absentee ballots have to arrive to election administrators’ offices by Oct. 22. Early voting begins Oct. 13 and ends Oct. 30.
Monday’s hearing was held by teleconference due to Covd-19. After audio of the hearing permanently froze, an official with the Fifth Circuit said more than 250 people had been listening in.
The panel was made up of U.S. Circuit Judges Carolyn Dineen King, Carl Stewart and Leslie Southwick – appointed by Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, respectively. It was not clear how the judges would rule, but Stewart said the panel would try to move quickly.


courthousenews--2020-08-31--Italy Off the Table for Colombian Warlord Facing Removal

( CN ) — Not waiting for an extradition request , U.S. officials is reportedly deporting former Colombia paramilitary chief Salvatore Mancuso to a homeland where the convicted warlord believes he will be assassinated .
Mancuso ’ s removal has been in the works since he completed a 12-year sentence in the United States for cocaine trafficking .
In April the Department of Homeland Security ordered Mancuso ’ s removal to Italy , where he also has citizenship , but El Tiempo reported Sunday that the former commander of the United Self Defense Forces of Colombia , or AUC , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ South American home .
The news broke only days after Justice Department attorneys reaffirmed at a federal court hearing in a Washington , D.C. , that Mancuso would be sent to Italy no later than Sept. 4 .
Mancuso ’ s attorneys initiated that hearing by claiming that their client was being detained past the 90-day window .
Two people familiar with the proceedings told the Associated Press that U.S. officials substituted Colombia for Italy as the removal destination based on a provision in the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act that allows the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for an alien ’ s removal if it is deemed that carrying out the order would be “ prejudicial to the United States.
” The officials spoke to the AP on condition of anonymity .
Mancuso ’ s attorneys will have two weeks to appeal the deportation order .
One of them , Hector Mora , wrote to Homeland Security in March that his client would likely be tortured or assassinated if returned to Colombia , a country where Mancuso has been convicted of hundreds of war crimes related to more than 1,500 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ He is the target of many powerful groups and individuals that were incriminated , criticized and exposed throughout his cooperation with the U.S. government , the cooperation with the Colombian judiciary , and his multiple statements , ” Mora wrote .
Those statements in 2005 were about the Colombian Congress ’ electability , appointed to their positions with the help of paramilitary support .
Those comments triggered judicial investigations ending with dozens of elected officials ’ indictments and their imprisonment .
Among other testimony , Mancuso told the Colombian Supreme Court that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been planned at the direction of former President Alvaro Uribe .
Though the government of Colombian President Ivan Duque purportedly submitted four requests for Mancuso ’ s extradition , none were ever validated .
The Colombian Press said Foreign Minister Claudia Blum admitted just last week that the claims about two such requests by Peace Commissioner Miguel Ceballos were false .
Mancuso has been in federal custody since 2008 following an extradition to the U.S. along with 14 other warlords that stalled truth and reconciliation efforts in Columbia .
Under a 2003 peace @ @ @ @ @ @ @ militia leaders who confess their crimes are limited to eight years .
Mancuso ’ s lawyers argue he has more than fulfilled through various testimony .
The Department of Homeland Security did not immediately return a request for comment .

Not waiting for an extradition request, U.S. officials is reportedly deporting former Colombia paramilitary chief Salvatore Mancuso to a homeland where the convicted warlord believes he will be assassinated.
(CN) — Not waiting for an extradition request, the U.S. is reportedly deporting former Colombia paramilitary chief Salvatore Mancuso to a homeland where the convicted warlord believes he will be assassinated.
Mancuso’s removal has been in the works since he completed a 12-year sentence in the United States for cocaine trafficking. In April the Department of Homeland Security ordered Mancuso’s removal to Italy, where he also has citizenship, but El Tiempo reported Sunday that the former commander of the United Self Defense Forces of Colombia, or AUC, is now slated to return to his South American home.
The news broke only days after Justice Department attorneys reaffirmed at a federal court hearing in a Washington, D.C., that Mancuso would be sent to Italy no later than Sept. 4.
Mancuso’s attorneys initiated that hearing by claiming that their client was being detained past the 90-day window.
Two people familiar with the proceedings told the Associated Press that U.S. officials substituted Colombia for Italy as the removal destination based on a provision in the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act that allows the attorney general to disregard the country designated for an alien's removal if it is deemed that carrying out the order would be “prejudicial to the United States.” The officials spoke to the AP on condition of anonymity.
Mancuso’s attorneys will have two weeks to appeal the deportation order.
One of them, Hector Mora, wrote to Homeland Security in March that his client would likely be tortured or assassinated if returned to Colombia, a country where Mancuso has been convicted of hundreds of war crimes related to more than 1,500 counts of murder or forced disappearance,
“He is the target of many powerful groups and individuals that were incriminated, criticized and exposed throughout his cooperation with the U.S. government, the cooperation with the Colombian judiciary, and his multiple statements,” Mora wrote.
Those statements in 2005 were about the Colombian Congress’ electability, appointed to their positions with the help of paramilitary support. Those comments triggered judicial investigations ending with dozens of elected officials’ indictments and their imprisonment. Among other testimony, Mancuso told the Colombian Supreme Court that a 1997 massacre at El Aro had been planned at the direction of former President Alvaro Uribe.
Though the government of Colombian President Ivan Duque purportedly submitted four requests for Mancuso’s extradition, none were ever validated. The Colombian Press said Foreign Minister Claudia Blum admitted just last week that the claims about two such requests by Peace Commissioner Miguel Ceballos were false.
Mancuso has been in federal custody since 2008 following an extradition to the U.S. along with 14 other warlords that stalled truth and reconciliation efforts in Columbia. Under a 2003 peace deal Mancuso negotiated, prison terms for militia leaders who confess their crimes are limited to eight years. Mancuso’s lawyers argue he has more than met the requirements through various testimony.
The Department of Homeland Security did not immediately return a request for comment.


courthousenews--2020-08-31--California Courts Covid Update

California Courts Covid Update

Aug. 28 , 2020 : Notice to attorneys regarding new portal Aug. 25 , 2020 : Ex parte applications and @ @ @ @ @ comply with Local Family Rule 5 , effective Oct. 1 .
Aug. 25 , 2020 @ @ @ @ @ for status conference and other Family Law matters must comply , effective Oct. 1

The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.


courthousenews--2020-08-31--Panel Refuses to Revive Lawsuit Linking Child Cancer to Aerospace Plant

ATLANTA ( CN ) — The family of a 20-year-old woman who died after developing a brain tumor as a child can not sue the Florida aerospace company they claim exposed her to radioactive chemicals , an 11th Circuit panel ruled Monday .
A unanimous three-judge panel of the Atlanta-based appeals court upheld a Florida federal court ’ s order tossing out the 2014 lawsuit brought by the family of Cynthia Santiago , ruling that state law required the family to file their lawsuit against Pratt & Whitney within four years of Santiago ’ s 2009 cancer diagnosis .
During @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in April , an attorney for the Santiago family argued that the lower court applied the wrong statute when deciding whether the case was time-barred .
Santiago was diagnosed with brain cancer in November 2009 at the age of 13 while living in The Acreage , a Palm Beach County community which has become notorious for its elevated levels of brain cancer among children and teens .
Santiago and her family lived in a home located about 10 miles from an undeveloped tract of land owned by Pratt & Whitney .
The company @ @ @ @ @ @ @ site , which contaminated the soil .
According to the family ’ s complaint , Pratt & Whitney excavated tens of thousands of tons of contaminated soil from the area between 1993 and 2000 .
The soil was later sold as fill soil and used in the construction and development of The Acreage community .
The family says runoff from the contaminated soil leached into The Acreage ’ s water supply , eventually exposing Santiago to a radioactive isotope known as radionuclide .
More than a dozen children developed brain cancer in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2001 and 2009 .
A subset of the cases were designated as an official pediatric cancer cluster by Florida health department officials in 2009 .
When Santiago turned 18 in March 2014 , she sued Pratt & Whitney in Florida federal court .
Her family took up the case after her death , alleging that the company caused Cynthia ’ s wrongful death through negligence and trespass .
On Monday , the 11th Circuit rejected the family ’ s attempts to revive the lawsuit , finding that a discovery-tolling provision in the Comprehensive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of 1980 , a federal statute abbreviated as CERCLA , does not apply in the case because the lawsuit was filed months after Cynthia turned 18 and discovered the cause of her cancer .
The panel found that CERCLA ’ s tolling provision applies only to actions brought under state law for personal injuries which are “ caused or contributed to by exposure to any hazardous substance.
” The family ’ s lawsuit instead qualifies as a public liability action arising under the Price-Anderson Act , the court held .
“ The trouble @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actions can not be ‘ brought under state law , ’ as § 9658 requires .
Because this action was instead brought exclusively under federal law — the PAA — the Santiagos can not avail themselves of CERCLA ’ s discovery-tolling provision , ” Senior U.S .
Circuit Judge Stanley Marcus , a Bill Clinton appointee , wrote on behalf of the panel .
“ Congress left no room for the Santiagos ’ argument — instead , as we have explained , Congress directed that all public liability actions must be brought only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
An attorney representing the Santiago family did not immediately respond to a request for comment .
Marcus was joined on the panel by U.S .
Circuit Judge Robert Luck , a Donald Trump appointee , and Chief U.S .
Circuit Judge Ed Carnes , a George H.W .
Bush appointee .

The family of a 20-year-old woman who died after developing a brain tumor as a child cannot sue the Florida aerospace company they claim exposed her to radioactive chemicals, an 11th Circuit panel ruled Monday.
ATLANTA (CN) — The family of a 20-year-old woman who died after developing a brain tumor as a child cannot sue the Florida aerospace company they claim exposed her to radioactive chemicals, an 11th Circuit panel ruled Monday.
A unanimous three-judge panel of the Atlanta-based appeals court upheld a Florida federal court’s order tossing out the 2014 lawsuit brought by the family of Cynthia Santiago, ruling that state law required the family to file their lawsuit against Pratt & Whitney within four years of Santiago’s 2009 cancer diagnosis.
During oral arguments before the Atlanta-based appeals court in April, an attorney for the Santiago family argued that the lower court applied the wrong statute when deciding whether the case was time-barred.
Santiago was diagnosed with brain cancer in November 2009 at the age of 13 while living in The Acreage, a Palm Beach County community which has become notorious for its elevated levels of brain cancer among children and teens.
Santiago and her family lived in a home located about 10 miles from an undeveloped tract of land owned by Pratt & Whitney. The company conducted research and development tests on the site, which contaminated the soil.
According to the family’s complaint, Pratt & Whitney excavated tens of thousands of tons of contaminated soil from the area between 1993 and 2000. The soil was later sold as fill soil and used in the construction and development of The Acreage community.
The family says runoff from the contaminated soil leached into The Acreage’s water supply, eventually exposing Santiago to a radioactive isotope known as radionuclide.
More than a dozen children developed brain cancer in the community of less than 40,000 people between 2001 and 2009. A subset of the cases were designated as an official pediatric cancer cluster by Florida health department officials in 2009.
When Santiago turned 18 in March 2014, she sued Pratt & Whitney in Florida federal court. Her family took up the case after her death, alleging that the company caused Cynthia’s wrongful death through negligence and trespass.
On Monday, the 11th Circuit rejected the family’s attempts to revive the lawsuit, finding that a discovery-tolling provision in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, a federal statute abbreviated as CERCLA, does not apply in the case because the lawsuit was filed months after Cynthia turned 18 and discovered the cause of her cancer.
The panel found that CERCLA’s tolling provision applies only to actions brought under state law for personal injuries which are “caused or contributed to by exposure to any hazardous substance.” The family’s lawsuit instead qualifies as a public liability action arising under the Price-Anderson Act, the court held.
“The trouble with the argument is that public liability actions cannot be ‘brought under state law,’ as § 9658 requires. Because this action was instead brought exclusively under federal law -- the PAA -- the Santiagos cannot avail themselves of CERCLA’s discovery-tolling provision,” Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Stanley Marcus, a Bill Clinton appointee, wrote on behalf of the panel.
“Congress left no room for the Santiagos’ argument -- instead, as we have explained, Congress directed that all public liability actions must be brought only under federal law,” Marcus wrote.
An attorney representing the Santiago family did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Marcus was joined on the panel by U.S. Circuit Judge Robert Luck, a Donald Trump appointee, and Chief U.S. Circuit Judge Ed Carnes, a George H.W. Bush appointee.


courthousenews--2020-08-31--California Lawmakers Throw Small Newspapers a Labor-Law Lifeline

SACRAMENTO , Calif. ( CN ) — California newspapers struggling through the pandemic and ensuing recession will have extra time to comply with a new labor law forcing the industry to transform its workforce under a bill approved by lawmakers Monday .
The Assembly overwhelmingly voted to send the Save Local Journalism Act to Governor Gavin Newsom , calling it badly needed relief particularly for smaller , ethnic outlets that have seen a significant drop in advertising revenue since the pandemic stalled the state ’ s economy nearly six months ago .
Lawmakers said giving the industry an additional year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ carriers off contracts and on as employees was necessary to prevent wholesale closures of niche outlets that provide critical information across California .
“ I ’ m particularly concerned about the future of ethnic media , ” said the bill ’ s author , Assemblywoman Blanca Rubio , D-Baldwin Park .
“ African American , Latino , Asian and other ethnic newspapers could be the first to go .
In addition , some counties in the state may become news deserts with no paper of record.
” Already devastated by a persistent trend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back to the Great Recession , the Covid-19 pandemic has further hindered California newspapers of all sizes .
According to an analysis by the California News Publishers Association , ethnic and community newspapers suffered a 56 % average monthly loss in advertising revenue between April and June , while daily newspapers saw a 48 % drop .
To stay afloat , newspapers across the country have resorted to major layoffs and some have shuttered newsrooms or stopped offering print versions completely .
Rubio ’ s bill is intended to give the industry additional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a landmark labor law passed in 2019 .
That law , by Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez , D-San Diego , was one of the most high-profile bills of the 2019 legislative session and aligned labor unions and Democrats against the gig economy and the minority Republican Party .
Gonzalez said it was time for the Legislature to codify the ruling in Dynamex v. Superior Court and bring much-needed clarity to state employment law .
As a result , cash-strapped newspapers were suddenly left wondering how they could afford to go on a hiring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ employees .
Distribution costs are often one of the largest items in the average outlet ’ s budget and a recent analysis estimated the average monthly increase for California newspapers could rise 60-85 % under the new law .
In addition to the exemption that would allow newspapers to continue contracting with carriers until 2022 , Rubio ’ s bill would require the Department of General Services to do an annual recap of how and where state agencies spent their advertising dollars .
The goal is to encourage more advertising and grow agencies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ papers .
Assemblyman Al Muratsuchi , D-Torrance , noted the sudden drop in advertising dollars and said it forced a community paper in his district , the Easy Reader , to fire reporters .
He also highlighted the pandemic ’ s strain on the Rafu Shimpo , the oldest Japanese American newspaper in the U.S. in publication since 1903 .
“ We need to figure out a way to help our community newspapers , our ethnic newspapers to survive , ” said Muratsuchi .
The Assembly ultimately voted 60-2 to send AB 323 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before passionate resistance from Gonzalez , who said the Dynamex decision was specifically intended to protect professions like newspaper carriers .
She was the only Assembly member to speak in opposition and claimed the one-year extension for the newspapers was unethical .
“ Nobody else is speaking up for [ newspaper carriers ] ; they have no lobby , they have no union , they have nobody to represent their views , ” said Gonzalez on the Assembly floor .
Gonzalez claimed carriers often make as little as $ 3 per hour and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of their routes are determined by the newspapers , they should be reclassified as employees immediately .
Gonzalez urged her colleagues to join her in fighting for the apparent underdog .
“ I understand the pressure of the newspaper industry .
God knows they will write a lot of op-eds if we don ’ t do this , ” Gonzalez said .
“ I will sleep well tonight because a group of individual workers who has nobody to speak for them , and never has , is not going to get my vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Senate and Assembly in the last 24 hours , the bill advances to Newsom who has until Sept. 30 to sign or veto AB 323 .
Under recent amendments taken by the proponents , AB 323 will only become operative if a companion measure that removes the cap on the number of submissions freelancers can send to an outlet is also passed Monday .
Senators unanimously approved the companion measure — written by Gonzalez — Monday afternoon .
Assembly Bill 2257 carves out further exemptions to AB 5 for musicians , fine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ landscape architects , multimedia journalists and others .
The bills now heads to the Assembly for a vote Monday evening .
Republicans proposed at least eight amendments to AB 2257 that would have expanded exemptions to tattoo artists , franchise owners and some freelance photographers .
Senator Shannon Grove , a Republican from Bakersfield , proposed an amendment to repeal AB 5 entirely but the move was soundly tabled by Democrats as were the other amendments .
Grove said she hopes Democrats will take up the Republican amendments during next year ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ R-Bieber , said in the session he supports AB 2257 but that more is needed to repair the harm created by AB 5 .
“ The carveouts need to stop , ” said Dahle .
“ There is some good work in [ AB 2257 ] but those left behind will still be suffering .
It ’ s about freedom.
” Over in the state Senate , lawmakers approved another journalism bill prohibiting law enforcement officers from arresting , assaulting or obstructing reporters covering protests and marches that are declared unlawful assemblies .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , D-Santa Rosa , shields journalists from financial penalties and citations for reporting on protests and allows them to contact a supervisor if they ’ re detained .
McGuire said the bill would apply to credentials journalists and reporters carrying broadcast equipment , noting that more than 500 reporters nationwide have been arrested or assaulted so far in 2020 while covering protests .
“ This is a balanced approach in helping establish protection for First Amendment rights and ensuring reporters hold all of us in government accountable , ” McGuire said .
Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during Monday ’ s session , saying the bill could overburden officers during stressful situations and may lead to partisan , unreputable reporters getting behind police lines .
“ It seems like every Tom , Dick , and Harry puts on a badge and says they ’ re media when they just have a Facebook page , ” said Borgeas , asking how the bill would better define the reporter role .
“ This would be putting law enforcement in a difficult position that could be exacerbating a volatile and fluid situation.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Newsom — was approved 32-2 , with Democrats overwhelmingly supporting and Republicans largely abstaining .
Monday ’ s votes came as lawmakers worked furiously to clear a pandemic-induced backlog on the final day of the legislative session .

California newspapers struggling through the pandemic and ensuing recession will have extra time to comply with a new labor law forcing the industry to transform its workforce under a bill approved by lawmakers Monday.
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (CN) — California newspapers struggling through the pandemic and ensuing recession will have extra time to comply with a new labor law forcing the industry to transform its workforce under a bill approved by lawmakers Monday.
The Assembly overwhelmingly voted to send the Save Local Journalism Act to Governor Gavin Newsom, calling it badly needed relief particularly for smaller, ethnic outlets that have seen a significant drop in advertising revenue since the pandemic stalled the state’s economy nearly six months ago.
Lawmakers said giving the industry an additional year to crunch the numbers and bring newspaper carriers off contracts and on as employees was necessary to prevent wholesale closures of niche outlets that provide critical information across California.
“I’m particularly concerned about the future of ethnic media,” said the bill’s author, Assemblywoman Blanca Rubio, D-Baldwin Park. “African American, Latino, Asian and other ethnic newspapers could be the first to go. In addition, some counties in the state may become news deserts with no paper of record.”
Already devastated by a persistent trend of declining subscription and advertising revenues dating back to the Great Recession, the Covid-19 pandemic has further hindered California newspapers of all sizes.
According to an analysis by the California News Publishers Association, ethnic and community newspapers suffered a 56% average monthly loss in advertising revenue between April and June, while daily newspapers saw a 48% drop. To stay afloat, newspapers across the country have resorted to major layoffs and some have shuttered newsrooms or stopped offering print versions completely.
Rubio’s bill is intended to give the industry additional breathing room as it attempts to comply with a landmark labor law passed in 2019.
That law, by Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, D-San Diego, was one of the most high-profile bills of the 2019 legislative session and aligned labor unions and Democrats against the gig economy and the minority Republican Party. Gonzalez said it was time for the Legislature to codify the ruling in Dynamex v. Superior Court and bring much-needed clarity to state employment law.
As a result, cash-strapped newspapers were suddenly left wondering how they could afford to go on a hiring spree and bring paper carriers on as employees. Distribution costs are often one of the largest items in the average outlet’s budget and a recent analysis estimated the average monthly increase for California newspapers could rise 60-85% under the new law.
In addition to the exemption that would allow newspapers to continue contracting with carriers until 2022, Rubio’s bill would require the Department of General Services to do an annual recap of how and where state agencies spent their advertising dollars. The goal is to encourage more advertising and grow agencies’ marketing presence in weekly and ethnic papers.
Assemblyman Al Muratsuchi, D-Torrance, noted the sudden drop in advertising dollars and said it forced a community paper in his district, the Easy Reader, to fire reporters. He also highlighted the pandemic’s strain on the Rafu Shimpo, the oldest Japanese American newspaper in the U.S. in publication since 1903.
“We need to figure out a way to help our community newspapers, our ethnic newspapers to survive,” said Muratsuchi.
The Assembly ultimately voted 60-2 to send AB 323 to Governor Gavin Newsom, but not before passionate resistance from Gonzalez, who said the Dynamex decision was specifically intended to protect professions like newspaper carriers. She was the only Assembly member to speak in opposition and claimed the one-year extension for the newspapers was unethical.
“Nobody else is speaking up for [newspaper carriers]; they have no lobby, they have no union, they have nobody to represent their views,” said Gonzalez on the Assembly floor.
Gonzalez claimed carriers often make as little as $3 per hour and argued that because the scope and timing of their routes are determined by the newspapers, they should be reclassified as employees immediately. Gonzalez urged her colleagues to join her in fighting for the apparent underdog.
“I understand the pressure of the newspaper industry. God knows they will write a lot of op-eds if we don’t do this,” Gonzalez said. “I will sleep well tonight because a group of individual workers who has nobody to speak for them, and never has, is not going to get my vote on this bill.”
After clearing both the Senate and Assembly in the last 24 hours, the bill advances to Newsom who has until Sept. 30 to sign or veto AB 323. Under recent amendments taken by the proponents, AB 323 will only become operative if a companion measure that removes the cap on the number of submissions freelancers can send to an outlet is also passed Monday.
Senators unanimously approved the companion measure — written by Gonzalez — Monday afternoon. Assembly Bill 2257 carves out further exemptions to AB 5 for musicians, fine artists, translators, freelance writers, landscape architects, multimedia journalists and others.
The bills now heads to the Assembly for a vote Monday evening.
Republicans proposed at least eight amendments to AB 2257 that would have expanded exemptions to tattoo artists, franchise owners and some freelance photographers. Senator Shannon Grove, a Republican from Bakersfield, proposed an amendment to repeal AB 5 entirely but the move was soundly tabled by Democrats as were the other amendments.
Grove said she hopes Democrats will take up the Republican amendments during next year’s legislative session.
Sen. Brian Dahle, R-Bieber, said in the session he supports AB 2257 but that more is needed to repair the harm created by AB 5.
“The carveouts need to stop,” said Dahle. “There is some good work in [AB 2257] but those left behind will still be suffering. It’s about freedom.”
Over in the state Senate, lawmakers approved another journalism bill prohibiting law enforcement officers from arresting, assaulting or obstructing reporters covering protests and marches that are declared unlawful assemblies.
Senate Bill 629 by Senator Mike McGuire, D-Santa Rosa, shields journalists from financial penalties and citations for reporting on protests and allows them to contact a supervisor if they’re detained.
McGuire said the bill would apply to credentials journalists and reporters carrying broadcast equipment, noting that more than 500 reporters nationwide have been arrested or assaulted so far in 2020 while covering protests.
“This is a balanced approach in helping establish protection for First Amendment rights and ensuring reporters hold all of us in government accountable,” McGuire said.
Republican Sen. Andreas Borgeas of Fresno voiced concern during Monday’s session, saying the bill could overburden officers during stressful situations and may lead to partisan, unreputable reporters getting behind police lines.
"It seems like every Tom, Dick, and Harry puts on a badge and says they’re media when they just have a Facebook page," said Borgeas, asking how the bill would better define the reporter role. “This would be putting law enforcement in a difficult position that could be exacerbating a volatile and fluid situation.”
The bill — which now heads to Newsom — was approved 32-2, with Democrats overwhelmingly supporting and Republicans largely abstaining.
Monday's votes came as lawmakers worked furiously to clear a pandemic-induced backlog on the final day of the legislative session.


Farm Wineries

ST. PAUL , Minn. — A federal court in Minnesota ruled in favor of two farm wineries challenging a statute @ @ @ @ @ wine “ with a majority of the ingredients grown or produced ” in the state @ @ @ @ @ violates the dormant Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution .


Anti-Panhandling Law

DENVER — Oklahoma City ’ s law restricting panhandling on street medians is unconstitutional , the Tenth Circuit ruled , @ @ @ @ @ not show that the ordinance is a “ constitutionally permissible time , place , and @ @ @ @ @ prohibited “ standing , sitting , or remaining for most purposes on certain medians .
@

Strictly Necessary Cookies Strictly Necessary Cookies Always active
These cookies are necessary for the website to function and cannot be switched off in our systems. They are usually only set in response to actions made by you which amount to a request for services, such as setting your privacy preferences, logging in or filling in forms. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not then work. These cookies do not store any personally identifiable information.


Absentee Ballots

NASHVILLE — A federal court in Tennessee denied community organizers and two would-be voters ’ request to enjoin the state @ @ @ @ @ allows election officials to reject absentee ballots if they determine the signature on the ballot @ @ @ @ @ signature contained in the voter ’ s registration record .


Casinos

SAN FRANCISCO — California law empowers the governor to concur in the U.S. Secretary of the Interior ’ s determination @ @ @ @ @ trust land , the state ’ s Supreme Court ruled in a case relating to @ @ @ @ @ Indians ’ request to build a casino in Yuba County , about 20 miles from @ @ @ @ @ .


Ministerial Employees

CHICAGO — The First Amendment exception that prohibits enforcement of federal employment discrimination statutes against churches ’ decisions to hire @ @ @ @ @ not “ categorically bar all hostile environment discrimination claims ” made by such employees , @ @ @ @ @ finding that a gay man may pursue his sexual orientation hostile work environment claim against @ @ @ @


courthousenews--2020-09-01--11th Circuit Reduces Florida Inmate Access to Hepatitis C Treatment

ATLANTA ( CN ) — Tossing out a court order forcing Florida prisons to treat inmates suffering from the early effects of hepatitis C , an 11th Circuit panel Monday ruled that state prison officials are not constitutionally required to treat all inmates who suffer from the disease with expensive antiviral drugs .
In a 2-1 decision , a three-judge panel of the Atlanta-based federal appeals court ruled that a treatment plan providing direct-acting antiviral drugs for only those hepatitis-C-infected prisoners who have developed significant liver damage from the disease is constitutional .
The court heard oral arguments in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back an April 2019 order issued by Chief U.S. District Judge Mark Walker , a Barack Obama appointee , requiring Florida prisons to administer the new class of medications to inmates with hepatitis C within two years of their diagnosis , whether they show symptoms of liver damage or not .
With the district court ’ s order vacated , the treatment plan will provide drugs to only inmates who have an exacerbating condition like HIV , show signs of rapid progression , or develop significant liver scarring .
Inmates with lower levels @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be monitored .
The lawsuit that prompted the ruling was brought by three chronically ill hepatitis C-positive inmates — Carl Hoffer , Ronald McPherson , and Roland Molina — who sued the Secretary of the Florida Department of Corrections in May 2017 on behalf of a putative class in Florida federal court .
They alleged that the secretary ’ s treatment plan was deliberately indifferent to their serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment .
Hoffer died of liver failure from hepatitis C while the lawsuit was pending .
Before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s prisons allegedly had no program in place for mass acquisition of direct-acting antiviral drugs .
The preliminary and permanent injunctions in the case , won in 2017 and 2019 respectively , led prison officials to administer the medication to more than 4,000 inmates .
Although the drugs purportedly have a 90 % cure rate , they are exorbitantly costly .
Secretary of the Florida Department of Corrections Mark Inch estimated that a single 12-week course of direct-acting antiviral treatment costs between $ 25,000 and $ 37,000 per inmate .
The ruling points @ @ @ @ @ @ @ denying medical care to any hepatitis C-positive inmate .
The majority opinion says the process of monitoring the inmates for changes in their condition is itself a form of medical care .
“ The long and short of it is that diagnosing , monitoring , and managing conditions — even where a complete cure may be available — will often meet the ‘ minimally adequate medical care ’ standard that the Eighth Amendment imposes , ” U.S .
Circuit Judge Kevin Newsom , a Donald Trump appointee , wrote on behalf of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are receiving medical care — and because the adequacy of that care is the subject of genuine , good-faith disagreement between healthcare professionals — we are hard-pressed to find that the Secretary has acted in so reckless and conscience-shocking a manner as to have violated the Constitution , ” the ruling states .
The ruling also points out that the standard for deliberate indifference does not guarantee that inmates will be free from the cost considerations that figure into health care decisions for most Americans .
“ Every minute of every day , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and even life-altering — medical treatment because it ’ s just too expensive , ” Newsom wrote .
“ Healthcare can be expensive—sadly , sometimes prohibitively so .
What a topsy-turvy world it would be if incarcerated inmates were somehow immune from that cold — and sometimes cruel — reality.
” U.S .
Circuit Judge Beverly Martin , a Barack Obama appointee , penned a 25-page dissent , writing that she would have upheld the district court ’ s order .
Martin said she was concerned “ that recent decisions of this Court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ citizens to maintain their health and safety while they serve their sentences.
” Martin criticized the majority for giving cost “ too large a role in determining whether the Secretary is deliberately indifferent ” and argued that inmates suffering from the early stages of the disease are likely to become sicker when their treatment is delayed .
“ This record thus shows that symptoms are not indicative of the progression of the virus and the underlying damage to the liver .
This matters because the Secretary is proposing delaying treatment until a patient @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Martin wrote .
“ [ T ] he fact that a disease may progress slowly does not mean that prison officials may refuse to treat it , ” the dissenting opinion states .
Newsom was joined in the majority by Senior U.S .
Circuit Judge Bobby Baldock , a Ronald Reagan appointee sitting by designation from the 10th Circuit .

Tossing out a court order forcing Florida prisons to treat inmates suffering from the early effects of hepatitis C, an 11th Circuit panel Monday ruled that state prison officials are not constitutionally required to treat all inmates who suffer from the disease with expensive antiviral drugs.
ATLANTA (CN) — Tossing out a court order forcing Florida prisons to treat inmates suffering from the early effects of hepatitis C, an 11th Circuit panel Monday ruled that state prison officials are not constitutionally required to treat all inmates who suffer from the disease with expensive antiviral drugs.
In a 2-1 decision, a three-judge panel of the Atlanta-based federal appeals court ruled that a treatment plan providing direct-acting antiviral drugs for only those hepatitis-C-infected prisoners who have developed significant liver damage from the disease is constitutional.
The court heard oral arguments in the case in June.
The ruling rolls back an April 2019 order issued by Chief U.S. District Judge Mark Walker, a Barack Obama appointee, requiring Florida prisons to administer the new class of medications to inmates with hepatitis C within two years of their diagnosis, whether they show symptoms of liver damage or not.
With the district court’s order vacated, the treatment plan will provide drugs to only inmates who have an exacerbating condition like HIV, show signs of rapid progression, or develop significant liver scarring. Inmates with lower levels of scarring or no signs of scarring will be monitored.
The lawsuit that prompted the ruling was brought by three chronically ill hepatitis C-positive inmates — Carl Hoffer, Ronald McPherson, and Roland Molina — who sued the Secretary of the Florida Department of Corrections in May 2017 on behalf of a putative class in Florida federal court. They alleged that the secretary’s treatment plan was deliberately indifferent to their serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
Hoffer died of liver failure from hepatitis C while the lawsuit was pending.
Before the lawsuit was filed, Florida’s prisons allegedly had no program in place for mass acquisition of direct-acting antiviral drugs. The preliminary and permanent injunctions in the case, won in 2017 and 2019 respectively, led prison officials to administer the medication to more than 4,000 inmates.
Although the drugs purportedly have a 90% cure rate, they are exorbitantly costly. Secretary of the Florida Department of Corrections Mark Inch estimated that a single 12-week course of direct-acting antiviral treatment costs between $25,000 and $37,000 per inmate.
The ruling points out that Inch is not refusing or denying medical care to any hepatitis C-positive inmate. The majority opinion says the process of monitoring the inmates for changes in their condition is itself a form of medical care.
“The long and short of it is that diagnosing, monitoring, and managing conditions — even where a complete cure may be available — will often meet the ‘minimally adequate medical care’ standard that the Eighth Amendment imposes,” U.S. Circuit Judge Kevin Newsom, a Donald Trump appointee, wrote on behalf of the majority.
“Because the plaintiffs here are receiving medical care — and because the adequacy of that care is the subject of genuine, good-faith disagreement between healthcare professionals — we are hard-pressed to find that the Secretary has acted in so reckless and conscience-shocking a manner as to have violated the Constitution,” the ruling states.
The ruling also points out that the standard for deliberate indifference does not guarantee that inmates will be free from the cost considerations that figure into health care decisions for most Americans.
“Every minute of every day, ordinary Americans forgo or delay beneficial — and even life-altering — medical treatment because it’s just too expensive,” Newsom wrote. “Healthcare can be expensive—sadly, sometimes prohibitively so. What a topsy-turvy world it would be if incarcerated inmates were somehow immune from that cold — and sometimes cruel — reality.”
U.S. Circuit Judge Beverly Martin, a Barack Obama appointee, penned a 25-page dissent, writing that she would have upheld the district court’s order. Martin said she was concerned “that recent decisions of this Court will undermine the rights of our incarcerated citizens to maintain their health and safety while they serve their sentences.”
Martin criticized the majority for giving cost “too large a role in determining whether the Secretary is deliberately indifferent” and argued that inmates suffering from the early stages of the disease are likely to become sicker when their treatment is delayed.
“This record thus shows that symptoms are not indicative of the progression of the virus and the underlying damage to the liver. This matters because the Secretary is proposing delaying treatment until a patient reaches a more advanced stage,” Martin wrote.
“[T]he fact that a disease may progress slowly does not mean that prison officials may refuse to treat it,” the dissenting opinion states.
Newsom was joined in the majority by Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Bobby Baldock, a Ronald Reagan appointee sitting by designation from the 10th Circuit.


courthousenews--2020-09-01--Trump Administration Weakens Coal Plant Pollution Regulations

( CN ) — The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Monday finalized the weakening of Obama-era regulations on coal ash , claiming the rule change will reduce pollution from coal-fired power plants by over one million pounds every year as critics say it allows the continued dumping of lead , mercury and arsenic into waterways .
Proposed in 2019 , the finalized Steam Electric Reconsideration Rule weakens regulations on coal ash — the remnant of coal burned to generate electricity — and residue washed from smokestack filters .
Coal ash is one of the largest types of industrial waste generated in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 110 million tons were generated from 470 coal-fired plants in 2012 .
The change effectively guts the 2015 Effluent Limitation Guidelines imposed by the Obama administration that banned the discharges , which required the installation of membrane filtration — a more effective , but more expensive , pollution reduction technology — by 2023 .
Power companies have until the end of 2025 to comply with the changes finalized Monday , while coal-fired plants that are expected to shut down by 2028 are exempt .
Power companies can now discharge up to 10 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Administrator Andrew Wheeler — a former coal lobbyist — said the rule change offers “ flexibility ” on the phasing-in of the environmental regulations and “ will reduce pollution and save jobs ” in the meantime .
“ As a result , the new rule will save the U.S. power sector approximately $ 140 million annually while reducing pollution by nearly a million pounds per year over the 2015 rule , ” Wheeler said in a statement .
“ EPA ’ s revised steam electric effluent guidelines shows President Trump ’ s commitment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the environment.
” Betsy Southerland , the former director of science and technology at the EPA ’ s Office of Water during the Obama administration , flatly disagreed with Wheeler ’ s pollution reduction claim , stating he is assuming several of the power plants will volunteer to comply with the stronger standards .
She said the agency is only listening to the coal industry .
“ This rule is going to continue to let these coal-fired power plants pour these toxics into the nation ’ s rivers and streams , contaminating drinking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” she said .
The Sierra Club agreed , blasting the rule change as allowing most coal plants to keep “ dumping their toxic , industrial sludge ” into drinking water sources for millions of people .
“ The Trump EPA ’ s final rule is based on bogus science and a flagrantly partisan process — Wheeler allowed no in-person hearings and minimal opportunities for affected communities to weigh in , ” said Mary Anne Hitt , Sierra Club ’ s national director of campaigns .
“ Wheeler ’ s new rule @ @ @ @ @ @ @ approved weakened standards , and carves out giant-sized loopholes for certain coal plant polluters .
It ’ s nothing more than another attempt at a lifeline to an industry responsible for billions of pounds of pollution that contaminate our water year after year.
” Trump and Wheeler have faced intense criticism for proposing or finalizing a long list of EPA rule changes since the latter ’ s confirmation in 2018 .
The agency has revised regulations for the disposal of refrigerator appliances under the Clean Air Act , lifted protections on the dumping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ millions of miles of waterways , and allowed the sale of wood heating systems that fail clean air standards , among other changes .
The dizzying number of pro-industry changes prompted six former EPA heads from both Republican and Democratic administrations to issue an open letter three weeks ago calling for the agency to be overhauled after this year ’ s presidential election .
The former administrators wrote the “ actions during the Trump administration have further decreased public confidence in the agency ’ s credibility , undercut its historic dedication to high @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
”

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Monday finalized the weakening of an Obama-era regulation on coal ash, claiming the rule change will reduce pollution from coal-fired power plants by over one million pounds every year as critics say it allows the continued dumping of lead, mercury and arsenic into waterways.
(CN) — The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Monday finalized the weakening of Obama-era regulations on coal ash, claiming the rule change will reduce pollution from coal-fired power plants by over one million pounds every year as critics say it allows the continued dumping of lead, mercury and arsenic into waterways.
Proposed in 2019, the finalized Steam Electric Reconsideration Rule weakens regulations on coal ash — the remnant of coal burned to generate electricity — and residue washed from smokestack filters. Coal ash is one of the largest types of industrial waste generated in the country, with the EPA stating 110 million tons were generated from 470 coal-fired plants in 2012.
The change effectively guts the 2015 Effluent Limitation Guidelines imposed by the Obama administration that banned the discharges, which required the installation of membrane filtration — a more effective, but more expensive, pollution reduction technology — by 2023.
Power companies have until the end of 2025 to comply with the changes finalized Monday, while coal-fired plants that are expected to shut down by 2028 are exempt. Power companies can now discharge up to 10% of the bottom ash water.
EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler — a former coal lobbyist — said the rule change offers “flexibility” on the phasing-in of the environmental regulations and “will reduce pollution and save jobs” in the meantime.
“As a result, the new rule will save the U.S. power sector approximately $140 million annually while reducing pollution by nearly a million pounds per year over the 2015 rule,” Wheeler said in a statement. “EPA’s revised steam electric effluent guidelines shows President Trump’s commitment to advancing American energy independence and protecting the environment.”
Betsy Southerland, the former director of science and technology at the EPA’s Office of Water during the Obama administration, flatly disagreed with Wheeler’s pollution reduction claim, stating he is assuming several of the power plants will volunteer to comply with the stronger standards. She said the agency is only listening to the coal industry.
"This rule is going to continue to let these coal-fired power plants pour these toxics into the nation's rivers and streams, contaminating drinking water and fisheries for 2.7 million people," she said.
The Sierra Club agreed, blasting the rule change as allowing most coal plants to keep “dumping their toxic, industrial sludge” into drinking water sources for millions of people.
“The Trump EPA’s final rule is based on bogus science and a flagrantly partisan process — Wheeler allowed no in-person hearings and minimal opportunities for affected communities to weigh in,” said Mary Anne Hitt, Sierra Club’s national director of campaigns. “Wheeler's new rule pushes back compliance dates for their newly approved weakened standards, and carves out giant-sized loopholes for certain coal plant polluters. It’s nothing more than another attempt at a lifeline to an industry responsible for billions of pounds of pollution that contaminate our water year after year.”
Trump and Wheeler have faced intense criticism for proposing or finalizing a long list of EPA rule changes since the latter’s confirmation in 2018. The agency has revised regulations for the disposal of refrigerator appliances under the Clean Air Act, lifted protections on the dumping of pesticides, fertilizer and chemicals in millions of miles of waterways, and allowed the sale of wood heating systems that fail clean air standards, among other changes.
The dizzying number of pro-industry changes prompted six former EPA heads from both Republican and Democratic administrations to issue an open letter three weeks ago calling for the agency to be overhauled after this year’s presidential election. The former administrators wrote the “actions during the Trump administration have further decreased public confidence in the agency’s credibility, undercut its historic dedication to high ethical standards, and affected employee morale.”


courthousenews--2020-09-01--Family of Bluff Collapse Victims Sue California

SAN DIEGO ( CA ) — A deadly bluff collapse that killed three family members enjoying a summer day on a picturesque Southern California beach last year , “ was not a random act of nature , ” their families claim in a wrongful death lawsuit accusing California , the city of Encinitas and property management companies of negligence .
Last August , three women were killed when a bluff above Grandview Beach in Encinitas , California , collapsed , unleashing tons of sandstone on the sunbathers below , trapping them .
Anne Davis Clave , 35 , and her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hospitals August 2 , 2019 , while Elizabeth Charles , Clave ’ s aunt , died instantly under the rubble .
The trio and their families were apparently directed by the city lifeguard on duty to set up their beach belongings directly under the bluffs “ in the clear zone of danger.
” A lawsuit filed in San Diego Superior Court last week , made available Monday , revealed just how gruesome Clave ’ s death was .
“ One victim was buried so deep under rubble that heavy machinery was required for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and her body could only be recovered in pieces and fragments .
Her heart was never recovered , ” the family members claim in their 33-page lawsuit filed by Athea Trial Lawyers attorney Deborah Chang .
Plaintiff Pat Davis , whose wife Julie and daughter Anne both died that day , scrambled to make sure the duo could breathe before help arrived to lift the sandstone which crushed them .
The tragedy was preventable , the families claim .
They say it was caused by the infrastructure to support the public access stairway @ @ @ @ @ @ @ development whose poor storm drain management and irrigation — and invasive , non-native ice plant — caused the unstable sandstone bluffs overlooking the cliffs to collapse .
“ Defendants state of California and city of Encinitas were repeatedly warned by scientists and engineers of these dangers , and were explicitly told what was needed to mitigate the risks of block falls and cliff collapse , ” the families claim .
“ These defendants , however , failed to do even the bare minimum to keep families and beach-goers safe , and instead allowed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ risk of collapse over the years .
By doing so , defendants made the risk of collapse inevitable and created a time bomb for the beach-going public .
The only question was when it would occur and who would be injured or killed , ” they added .
Hoping to address the dangerous conditions of the cliffs , Representative Mike Levin , D-Calif. , secured $ 400,000 in federal funding earlier this year for the engineering phase of the project .
Despite the dangerous conditions , the beach is still open a year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ family , the conditions existing at Grandview Beach have not improved or been fixed , and remain a danger to every man , woman , and child who comes there .
A recent photo taken only a year after the tragedy shows that beachgoers still sit and lay directly under the cliffs in the direct presence of the lifeguards on duty — and totally unaware of the peril that surrounds them , ” the lawsuit states .
The families claim money is a primary reason the Encinitas beach remains open .
Acting through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the California Coastal Commission , the state of California opts to keep all its beaches open because “ they constitute some of the state ’ s greatest assets and directly contribute to what is equivalent to the world ’ s fifth largest economy , ” according to the lawsuit .
“ Keeping these beaches open is the primary priority of the California Coastal Commission , even at the cost of human lives , ” the women ’ s families claim .
According to the lawsuit , the tragedy was decades in the making @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Beach recognized the areas north and south of the public stairway — which was destroyed by a landslide the year prior — were “ prime candidates ” for future bluff erosion and explicitly prohibited the erection of seawalls at the beach in response .
There was no public access to the beach for years , as a geological survey was needed to determine the stability of the area to rebuild pedestrian access .
The survey , authored by Woodward-Clyde Consultants in 1988 , noted numerous points of weakness in the cliff area and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ installed to stabilize the cliff .
But when the public stairway was installed , only 35 feet of rock bolts and seawall were installed .
The 1991 application to demolish the remnants of the old stairway and build a new public access stairway was approved by the California Coastal Commission .
Because the state agency noted the area had been subject to extensive groundwater seepage , it approved the application to build the stairway with a reinforced retaining wall , flouting the General Plan for the beach .
A walkway leading to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which would require additional irrigation — was also approved by the Coastal Commission .
The project permit approved by the Coastal Commission was conditioned on an irrigation system located in the stairs being removed , non-native ice plants being removed and replaced with native plants , and annual erosion monitoring by the city of Encinitas .
None of the conditions have been met by the city , the families claim .
Compounding the problems caused by the seawall , public stairway and irrigation is improper stormwater management in the Seabluffe community on top @ @ @ @ @ @ @ complaint .
The families seek general and special damages .
The California Department of Justice did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday evening .

A deadly bluff collapse that killed three family members enjoying a summer day on a picturesque Southern California beach last year, “was not a random act of nature,” their families claim in a wrongful death lawsuit accusing California, the city of Encinitas and property management companies of negligence.
SAN DIEGO (CA) — A deadly bluff collapse that killed three family members enjoying a summer day on a picturesque Southern California beach last year, “was not a random act of nature,” their families claim in a wrongful death lawsuit accusing California, the city of Encinitas and property management companies of negligence.
Last August, three women were killed when a bluff above Grandview Beach in Encinitas, California, collapsed, unleashing tons of sandstone on the sunbathers below, trapping them.
Anne Davis Clave, 35, and her mother Julie Davis, 65 died at hospitals August 2, 2019, while Elizabeth Charles, Clave’s aunt, died instantly under the rubble. The trio and their families were apparently directed by the city lifeguard on duty to set up their beach belongings directly under the bluffs “in the clear zone of danger.”
A lawsuit filed in San Diego Superior Court last week, made available Monday, revealed just how gruesome Clave’s death was.
“One victim was buried so deep under rubble that heavy machinery was required for the paramedics to even reach her, and her body could only be recovered in pieces and fragments. Her heart was never recovered,” the family members claim in their 33-page lawsuit filed by Athea Trial Lawyers attorney Deborah Chang.
Plaintiff Pat Davis, whose wife Julie and daughter Anne both died that day, scrambled to make sure the duo could breathe before help arrived to lift the sandstone which crushed them.
The tragedy was preventable, the families claim. They say it was caused by the infrastructure to support the public access stairway and the “Seabluffe” urban condominium development whose poor storm drain management and irrigation — and invasive, non-native ice plant — caused the unstable sandstone bluffs overlooking the cliffs to collapse.
“Defendants state of California and city of Encinitas were repeatedly warned by scientists and engineers of these dangers, and were explicitly told what was needed to mitigate the risks of block falls and cliff collapse,” the families claim.
“These defendants, however, failed to do even the bare minimum to keep families and beach-goers safe, and instead allowed man-made changes to increase the instability and risk of collapse over the years. By doing so, defendants made the risk of collapse inevitable and created a time bomb for the beach-going public. The only question was when it would occur and who would be injured or killed,” they added.
Hoping to address the dangerous conditions of the cliffs, Representative Mike Levin, D-Calif., secured $400,000 in federal funding earlier this year for the engineering phase of the project. Despite the dangerous conditions, the beach is still open a year later.
“Most disturbing to the family, the conditions existing at Grandview Beach have not improved or been fixed, and remain a danger to every man, woman, and child who comes there. A recent photo taken only a year after the tragedy shows that beachgoers still sit and lay directly under the cliffs in the direct presence of the lifeguards on duty — and totally unaware of the peril that surrounds them,” the lawsuit states.
The families claim money is a primary reason the Encinitas beach remains open.
Acting through its Department of Parks and Recreation and the California Coastal Commission, the state of California opts to keep all its beaches open because “they constitute some of the state’s greatest assets and directly contribute to what is equivalent to the world’s fifth largest economy,” according to the lawsuit.
“Keeping these beaches open is the primary priority of the California Coastal Commission, even at the cost of human lives,” the women’s families claim.
According to the lawsuit, the tragedy was decades in the making.
The 1984 General Plan for Grandview Beach recognized the areas north and south of the public stairway — which was destroyed by a landslide the year prior — were “prime candidates” for future bluff erosion and explicitly prohibited the erection of seawalls at the beach in response.
There was no public access to the beach for years, as a geological survey was needed to determine the stability of the area to rebuild pedestrian access. The survey, authored by Woodward-Clyde Consultants in 1988, noted numerous points of weakness in the cliff area and recommended 80 feet of rock bolts be installed to stabilize the cliff.
But when the public stairway was installed, only 35 feet of rock bolts and seawall were installed.
The 1991 application to demolish the remnants of the old stairway and build a new public access stairway was approved by the California Coastal Commission. Because the state agency noted the area had been subject to extensive groundwater seepage, it approved the application to build the stairway with a reinforced retaining wall, flouting the General Plan for the beach.
A walkway leading to the stairway flanked by 10 palm trees — which would require additional irrigation — was also approved by the Coastal Commission.
The project permit approved by the Coastal Commission was conditioned on an irrigation system located in the stairs being removed, non-native ice plants being removed and replaced with native plants, and annual erosion monitoring by the city of Encinitas.
None of the conditions have been met by the city, the families claim.
Compounding the problems caused by the seawall, public stairway and irrigation is improper stormwater management in the Seabluffe community on top of the cliff, according to the complaint.
The families seek general and special damages. The California Department of Justice did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday evening.


courthousenews--2020-09-01--Tennessee Abortion Providers Challenge Medication Abortion Reversal Law

( CN ) — Saying it compels them to give inaccurate medical advice to their patients , a group of abortion providers Monday challenged a new state law that requires them to tell women seeking medication abortions that the procedure can be reversed .
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Medical Association have both rejected the claim that an abortion can be reversed , according to the 27-page lawsuit , which added the notion is “ wholly unsupported by reliable scientific evidence.
” In the lawsuit filed in federal court Monday , the group of Tennessee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the law unconstitutional because it compels speech and violates the 14th Amendment ’ s Equal Protection Clause .
With the law slated to go into effect in about a month , the abortion providers are asking the court to block its implementation .
According to the complaint , the law could push women towards initiating a medication abortion before they have fully made up their minds and cause them to undergo a medical procedure that ’ s “ potentially unsafe.
” “ The only foreseeable effect of providing patients with this information in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ State ’ s medically inaccurate disclosure may be misled into thinking that they need not have firmly decided to have an abortion prior to taking mifepristone , erroneously believing that the abortion can be ‘ reversed ’ if they later change their mind , ” the complaint states .
Since the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the regimen of mifepristone followed by misoprostol to abort an early pregnancy in 2000 , about 4 million women have used the procedure , the complaint states .
Tennessee ’ s law , which was passed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ post signs — printed in boldfaced type with letters at least three-quarters of an inch tall — that says a medication abortion may be reversible after a woman takes mifepristone but before she takes the second drug .
The provider must also tell patents seeking medication abortions that the procedure may be reversible .
Failure to do so could result in the abortion provider facing fines , a Class E felony and one to six years in prison .
The suit says two doctors in San Diego have said they can reverse a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by administering large doses of progesterone .
“ And while some data support the general safety of progesterone in pregnancy , other studies have raised concerns about possible associations with second-trimester miscarriage , stillbirth , and certain birth defects , ” the suit states .
Last month , a federal judge issued a temporary injunction blocking the state from implementing another portion of the same law .
The lawsuit was brought by attorneys with the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee , Planned Parenthood Federation of America , the ACLU and the Center @ @ @ @ @ @ @ four district attorneys general and Tennessee Attorney General Herbert Slatery III .
The suit also names heads of the Tennessee Department of Health , the state ’ s Board of Medical Examiners and the Board for Licensing Health Care Facilities .
According to the Guttmacher Institute , six states require abortion providers tell patients a medication can be reversed .
Two other states , Oklahoma and North Dakota , have had their abortion reversal laws enjoined by the courts .
In 2016 , Arizona lawmakers agreed to repeal the state ’ s abortion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a challenge to the law there .
The Tennessee Department of Health and the Attorney ’ s General Office did not immediately return requests for comment Monday .
Rebecca Terrell , executive director for one of the plaintiffs in the suit , Memphis Center for Reproductive Health , said the law breaks the trust between patient and physician .
“ Trust is the very foundation of our relationship with our patients , ” Terrell said in a statement .
“ They trust us to support their decisions , to provide evidence-based care , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ”

Saying Tennessee’s law compels them to give inaccurate medical advice to their patients, a group of abortion providers Monday challenged a new state law that requires them to tell women seeking medication abortions that the procedure can be reversed.
(CN) — Saying it compels them to give inaccurate medical advice to their patients, a group of abortion providers Monday challenged a new state law that requires them to tell women seeking medication abortions that the procedure can be reversed.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Medical Association have both rejected the claim that an abortion can be reversed, according to the 27-page lawsuit, which added the notion is “wholly unsupported by reliable scientific evidence.”
In the lawsuit filed in federal court Monday, the group of Tennessee abortion providers asked the court to find the law unconstitutional because it compels speech and violates the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.
With the law slated to go into effect in about a month, the abortion providers are asking the court to block its implementation.
According to the complaint, the law could push women towards initiating a medication abortion before they have fully made up their minds and cause them to undergo a medical procedure that’s “potentially unsafe.”
“The only foreseeable effect of providing patients with this information in advance is that patients who believe the State’s medically inaccurate disclosure may be misled into thinking that they need not have firmly decided to have an abortion prior to taking mifepristone, erroneously believing that the abortion can be ‘reversed’ if they later change their mind,” the complaint states.
Since the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the regimen of mifepristone followed by misoprostol to abort an early pregnancy in 2000, about 4 million women have used the procedure, the complaint states.
Tennessee’s law, which was passed in June, requires abortion providers to post signs — printed in boldfaced type with letters at least three-quarters of an inch tall — that says a medication abortion may be reversible after a woman takes mifepristone but before she takes the second drug. The provider must also tell patents seeking medication abortions that the procedure may be reversible.
Failure to do so could result in the abortion provider facing fines, a Class E felony and one to six years in prison.
The suit says two doctors in San Diego have said they can reverse a medical abortion after a woman takes mifepristone by administering large doses of progesterone.
“And while some data support the general safety of progesterone in pregnancy, other studies have raised concerns about possible associations with second-trimester miscarriage, stillbirth, and certain birth defects,” the suit states.
Last month, a federal judge issued a temporary injunction blocking the state from implementing another portion of the same law.
The lawsuit was brought by attorneys with the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the ACLU and the Center for Reproductive Rights.
The defendants include four district attorneys general and Tennessee Attorney General Herbert Slatery III. The suit also names heads of the Tennessee Department of Health, the state’s Board of Medical Examiners and the Board for Licensing Health Care Facilities.
According to the Guttmacher Institute, six states require abortion providers tell patients a medication can be reversed. Two other states, Oklahoma and North Dakota, have had their abortion reversal laws enjoined by the courts.
In 2016, Arizona lawmakers agreed to repeal the state’s abortion reversal law and a judge threw out a challenge to the law there.
The Tennessee Department of Health and the Attorney’s General Office did not immediately return requests for comment Monday.
Rebecca Terrell, executive director for one of the plaintiffs in the suit, Memphis Center for Reproductive Health, said the law breaks the trust between patient and physician.
“Trust is the very foundation of our relationship with our patients,” Terrell said in a statement. “They trust us to support their decisions, to provide evidence-based care, and to tell them the truth.”


Firearms

PHILADELPHIA — The Third Circuit upheld a determination that New Jersey ’ s statute banning large capacity firearm magazines , @ @ @ @ @ more than 10 rounds of ammunition , is constitutional .