Now, the oral argument from march 4 of this year. Your argument this morning case 181323 juno medical Services First russo in the competition 181460 russo versus medical services. Mr. Chief justice and matt please the court that this case is about respect for the courts precedents. Four years ago the court held in whole Womans Health that the texas admitting privileges law imposed an undue burden on women seeking abortion. The louisiana law at issue here acts 620 is identified to the texas law and was expressly modeled on it. After a trial the District Court ruled it unconstitutional finding no material differences between this case and whole Womans Health. On burdens it found that axis 620 would lead louisiana with just one clinic and one doctor providing abortions. At the same time it found that axis 20 when do nothing for Womens Health. In reversing the District Courts decision the fifth circuit committed to fundamental errors. First, it usurped the role of the District Court and di
Was expressly modeled on it. After trial the District Court ruled 620 is unconstitutional finding no material differences between this case and Womens Health. Unburdened it found act 620 would leave louisiana with just one clinic and one doctor providing abortions. At the same time it found act 620 would do nothing for Womens Health. In reversing the District Court decision the fifth circuit committed two fundamental errors. First, it usurped the role of the District Court and disregarded all of its factual findings. Second the fifth circuit accepted legal arguments that this court rejected four years ago. Nothing has changed that would justify such a legal aboutface. Even more medical organizations joined the a and 8 is admitting privileges impose barriers to abortion with no benefit patients and this impact the states Eleventh Hour objection to thirdparty standing runs up against still more binding precedent. The court squarely held that it is waivable in the state liberally and stra
Against religious conduct released and stated in violation of the free exercise clause under Trinity Lutheran. The Montana Supreme Court disagrees and that court held boring schools did not violate the federal constitution. This board should reverse that judgment. Even respondents now concede that excluding Religious Schools from the program is unconstitutional they are viewed that the court avoided this discrimination by invalidating the entire program. This is wrong. The only reason the court invalidated the program was because it included Religious Schools and the courts remedy did not cure its discriminatory judgment nor should the remedy shielded judgment from review. Petitioners brought this lawsuit because they were denied scholarships based on religion and they are still being denied scholarships based on religion. If the court had shut down the program because it included muslim schools or africanamerican schools, theres no question that would be unconstitutional. We ask you t
They align with the current nationwide campaign for police reform. And he goes a step further on the, police accountability. It works to to certify officers for serious misconduct. Right now california doesnt have that in place. His recommendations come less than 24 hours after Police Unions put out a fullpage ad on sunday calling for Police Reforms and rooting out racist Police Officers. Unfortunately there is racism in our communities. The first step is to admit we have racist Police Officers working in our profession and how do we prevent them from going from department to department. It would basically list people that have gross misconduct whether it is racism, biases, just dont have the temperament to do the job so they dont go from agency to agency. He says that he appreciates the union speaking out and his recommendations are similar. He is urging local Law Enforcement agencies to adopt practices before sb 820 would require them to maintain those policies pick lets see if we ca
Outcome today i could not peopl the castro, they say the courts decision was monumental and has revitalized their efforts for full equality under the law. Many say they were prepared for a different outcome in light of the conservative makeup of the court. We did not know where it was going to land. And it being so clear and straightforward was a little bit of a surprise. Many say todays decision was a bright spot and what has so far been a terrible year with the pandemic of course and the anger unleash the Police Across the country. Reporter the Supreme Court ruled employers cannot fire or discriminate against members of the Lgbtq Community based on gender, identity and sexual orientation. The decision extends the federal protections of title vii of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to gay, lesbian and trans people. Today is a landmark victory for lgbtq equality decades in the making. It was the right step, this is something a lot of folks have been thinking about. Reporter carolyn weisin