LightNews LightNews
laura00324.bsky.social
@laura00324.bsky.social
12 followers 89 following 0 posts
Posts Replies Media Videos
Reposted
chrisgeidner.bsky.social
BREAKING: The Trump administration dismisses the Justice Department's EMTALA emergency abortion care lawsuit against Idaho that was brought during the Biden administration.

Law Dork reported last night that this was coming: www.lawdork.com/i/158385171/...
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO SOUTHERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, V. Case No. 1:22-cv-329-BLW STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL THE STATE OF IDAHO, Defendant. Pursuant to Fed R. Civ P. 41(a) (1)(A) (i), Plaintiff the United States of America, along with Defendant the State of Idaho and Defendant-Intervenor the Idaho Legislature,' hereby stipulate to the dismissal, without prejudice, of all of the United States' claims in this action, each party to bear their own attorney's fees and costs. Thus, the Court's preliminary injunction in this matter (ECF ' The Speaker of the Idaho House of Representatives, Mike Moyle; the Idaho Senate President Pro Tempore, Kelly Anthon; and the Sixty-Eighth Idaho Legislature (collectively, the "Idaho Legislature"), were granted limited intervention in the matter to "present]] argument and evidence in opposition to the United States' motion for preliminary injunction." Dkt. 27 at 17; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d). To the extent required by Rule 41, the Idaho Legislature joins in this Stipulation of Dismissal. No. 95) is dissolved. See Fundicao Tupy S.A. v. United States, 841 F.2d 1101, 1103 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ("[A] preliminary injunction is ... ipso facto dissolved by a dismissal of the complaint." (quoting 7 J. Moore, J. Lucas, & K. Sinclair, Jr., MOORE'S FEDERAL PRACTICE 1 65.07 at 65-114 to 65-115 (2d ed. 1987)); see also U.S. Philips Corp. v. KBC Bank NV, 590 F.3d 1091, 1094 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Fundicao Tupy S.A., 841 F.2d at 1103). Upon the filing of this stipulation, "voluntary dismissal is 'self-executing... and no judicial approval is required." Comm. Space Mgmt. Co. v. Boeing Co., 193 F.3d 1074, 1077 n.4 (9th Cir. 1999) (quoting Marex Titanic, Inc. v. The Wrecked and Abandoned Vessel, 2 F.3d 544, 546 (4th Cir. 1993)). The district court loses jurisdiction upon this stipulation's filing. E.g., Black Rock City, LLC v. Pershing Cnty. Bd. of Comm'rs, 637 F. App'x 488, 488 (Oth Cir. 2016) (mem. decision) ("The district court's jurisdiction expired roughly six weeks earlier, on November 25, 2013, when the parties filed a stipulation for voluntary dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) (1)."). "[Voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a) (1) automatically terminates the action without operation of a court order." Id. (citing Boeing, 193 F.3d at 1077).
March 5, 2025 at 4:53 PM
Reposted
joncooper-us.bsky.social
Great meme by @projectliberal.org.
March 5, 2025 at 1:02 PM
Reposted
chrisgeidner.bsky.social
BREAKING: On a 5-4 order, SCOTUS denies DOJ’s motion to vacate Judge Ali’s State/USAID order, but notes that his prior deadline passed, so Ali is going to have to go back to the drawing board and “clarify” what the gov’t needs to do, “with due regard for the feasibility of any compliance timelines.”
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 24A831 DEPARTMENT OF STATE, ET AL. U. AIDS VACCINE ADVOCACY COALITION, ET AL. ON APPLICATION TO VACATE THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (March 5, 2025] On February 13, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia entered a temporary restraining order enjoining the Government from enforcing directives pausing disbursements of foreign development assistance funds. The present application does not challenge the Government's obligation to follow that order. On February 25, the District Court ordered the Government to issue payments for a portion of the paused disbursements-those owed for work already completed before the issuance of the District Court's temporary restraining order-by 11:59 p.m. on February 26. Several hours before that deadline, the Government filed this application to vacate the District Court's February 25 order and requested an immediate administrative stay. THE CHIEF JUSTICE entered an administrative stay shortly before the 11:59 p.m. deadline and subsequently referred the application to the Court. The application is denied. Given that the deadline in the challenged order has now passed, and in light of the ongoing preliminary injunction proceedings, the District Court should clarify what obligations the Government must fulfill to ensure compliance with the temporary restraining order, with due regard for the feasibility of any compliance timelines. The order heretofore entered by THE CHIEF JUSTICE is vacated.
March 5, 2025 at 2:21 PM