Connect with us

World News

Texas Supreme Court: State may investigate gender-affirming care as child abuse – JURIST

Published

on

The Texas Supreme Court ruled Friday that state agencies in Texas can investigate gender-affirming care as child abuse, but that the Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) is not required to conduct such investigations. On February 18, Attorney General Ken Paxton issued an opinion stating that many forms of gender-affirming care “may legally constitute child abuse” under Texas law. On February 22, Governor Greg Abbott directed Texas state agencies to investigate gender-affirming care as child abuse in accordance with Paxton’s opinion. The ACLU and Lambda Legal filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Does, a family with a transgender daughter, and Dr. Megan Mooney, a doctor who provides care to transgender youth. On March 2, a district court implemented a temporary injunction to stop any investigation. . Texas took an interlocutory appeal, superseding the court order. However, an appeals court issued a temporary order on March 21 “restoring the temporary injunction in its entirety.” The state sought relief from the supreme court of that order. The supreme court recognized that, under Rule 29.3 of the Texas appellate procedure, the appellate court can make temporary orders “to preserve the status quo and prevent irreparable harm.” However, the rule “clearly limits the scope of available relief to what is necessary to preserve the rights of the parties.” Therefore, the supreme court ruled that the parts of the injunction that apply to “any and all persons” in Texas are invalid. in the final sentence of the letter, and we are not addressed to any,” although DFPS may have believed that it was obligated to follow the directive. As a result, the court explained:[W]We are left with (1) an appeals court order protecting only the plaintiffs against actions by DFPS and its Commissioner, and not against the Governor; (2) a non-binding Attorney General Opinion; (3) a non-binding statement from the Governor; and (4) a state agency, DFPS, with the same discretion to investigate allegations of child abuse as it had prior to the issuance of Attorney General’s Opinion No. KP-0401 and the Governor’s letter. The ACLU, the ACLU of Texas and Lambda Legal released a statement calling the decision “a victory.” The organizations commented, “[t]Although the court limited its order to the Doe family and Dr. Mooney, it reaffirmed that Texas law has not changed and that no mandated reporter or DFPS employee is required to take any action based on the Governor’s directive. and the opinion of the attorney general.”

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

World News

Indian court keeps journalist in police custody over tweet – JURIST

Published

on

The Delhi Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court on Tuesday ordered journalist and Alt News co-founder Mohammed Zubair to be held in police custody for four days. Zubair was arrested on Monday for the offenses of hurting religious sentiments and inciting enmity under Sections 153 and 295 of the Indian Penal Code. In 2018, Zubair posted a tweet showing a hotel whose name he changed from “Honeymoon Hotel” to “Hanuman Hotel”. Hanuman is a Hindu god. Delhi police arrested him based on a complaint about that tweet, which alleged that Zubair tweeted a “questionable image for the purpose of deliberately insulting the god of a particular religion.” accused for posting the tweet in question will be retrieved at the behest of the accused Mohammed Zubair from his residence in Bangalore, that the accused has not cooperated and (with) the disclosure statement recorded, four days PC (police custody) preventive detention of the accused will be concedes as the accused will be taken to Bangalore. Zubair’s arrest has been condemned by international organizations and national news organizations, including United Nations chief Antonio Guterres, Amnesty International, the Press Club of India and other media outlets.

Continue Reading

World News

US Supreme Court Grants Review of Federal Bankruptcy Case – JURIST

Published

on

On Monday, the US Supreme Court agreed to hear MOAC Mall Holdings v. Transform Holdco, a case examining appellate court jurisdiction over sales orders in federal bankruptcy proceedings. The case revolves around the sale and transfer of a lease for a store in a shopping center. In 1991, Sears obtained a lease for a store in the Mall of America in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The lease only cost Sears $10 a year and was supposed to last 100 years. Sears, however, went bankrupt in 2018. As part of federal bankruptcy proceedings, Sears sold its assets and the Mall of America lease was transferred to Transform Holdco LLC, a corporation formed by Sears’ new owners. Mall of America sought to prevent the transfer because they claim that Transform Holdco LLC does not intend to occupy the leased facilities but to sublet them to other companies. Transform Holdco LLC argues that the long-term lease constitutes a substantial portion of the value Sears was sold for in the bankruptcy proceeding. The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit transferred the lease as it was deemed “integral” to a court-approved bankruptcy sale. Mall of America filed a petition with the US Supreme Court, arguing that a remedy is available that would not affect the validity of the sale. Therefore, according to Mall of America, the appellate court should be allowed to intervene. Transform Holdco LLC responds that no such remedy exists, and that the Second Circuit’s ruling should stand. The US Supreme Court must now determine whether federal bankruptcy law limits appeals on sales orders deemed “comprehensive,” even when a remedy is available that will not affect the validity of the sale. The court is set to hear oral arguments in the case next term.

Continue Reading

World News

US appeals court to rehear challenge to Biden’s COVID-19 vaccine executive order – JURIST

Published

on

The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued an order on Monday stating that the court will rehear Feds for Medical Freedom v. Biden, a challenge to President Joe Biden’s 2019 executive order that required federal employees to get vaccinated against COVID-19 or face termination. In late May and early June, America First Legal Foundation, America’s Frontline Doctors, Airline Employees For Freedom Health, and an additional group of vaccine plaintiffs filed four amicus briefs in favor of a new full hearing. The plaintiffs in Rodden v. Fauci also filed a class action lawsuit made up of federal employees who contracted COVID-19, developed COVID-19 antibodies, “but remain subject to the federal employee vaccination mandate.” The Rodden plaintiffs argue that Biden and the “agencies he directs have no power to direct the personal medical decisions of federal employees,” and therefore this executive order is like an illegal government mandate. In addition, the group asserts that the panel’s refusal to review executive employment decisions is unlawful and thus protects “the exercise of unlawful governmental power.” In January 2022, a Texas judge blocked Biden’s executive order. Other state judges have also blocked enforcement of the COVID-19 vaccine mandate. In December 2021, a Georgia judge blocked the COVID-19 vaccination mandate for government contractors after the Texas Governor ordered a statewide ban on all COVID-19 vaccination mandates in October 2021 .

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2022