Latest news with #StateSupremeCourt
Yahoo
04-07-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Missouri judge again blocks many of the state's anti-abortion laws
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — A Missouri judge blocked many of the state's abortion restrictions Thursday, reimposing a preliminary injunction against them just a little over a month after the state's highest court had lifted a previous hold. The order by Jackson County Circuit Judge Jerri Zhang said the abortion restrictions likely violate a state constitutional right to abortion that was approved by voters last year. Planned Parenthood said the order clears the way for it to again provide procedural abortions in Missouri. But Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey said his office 'will expeditiously appeal this ruling.' The court order marks the latest twist in a multiyear battle that has seen Missouri swing back and forth between banning and allowing most abortions. When the U.S. Supreme Court ended a nationwide right to abortion by overturning Roe v. Wade in 2022, it triggered a Missouri law to take effect banning abortions 'except in cases of medical emergency." But abortion-rights activists gathered initiative petition signatures to reverse that law. Last November, voters narrowly approved a constitutional amendment guaranteeing a right to abortion until fetal viability, generally considered sometime past 21 weeks of pregnancy. That made Missouri the only state where voters have used a ballot measure to overturn a ban on abortion at all stages of pregnancy. The state Supreme Court ruled in May that Zhang had applied the wrong standard when issuing rulings in February and December that blocked Missouri's abortion restrictions. Upon reconsideration, Zhang again issued preliminary injunctions against the abortion ban. The judge also reimposed a hold on various other laws, including a 72-hour waiting period for abortions, numerous abortion facility licensure requirements and a mandate that physicians performing abortions have admitting privileges at certain types of hospitals located within 30 miles (48 kilometers) or 15 minutes of where an abortion is provided. 'Abortion is legal again in Missouri because voters demanded it and we fought for it,' said Emily Wales, president and CEO of Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood Great Plains. 'Care starts again on Monday in Kansas City." Planned Parenthood clinics in central Missouri and St. Louis also "will work as quickly as possible to resume scheduling abortion appointments,' said Margot Riphagen, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Great Rivers. The attorney general's office said it will keep up the legal fight. 'Missouri will not stand idly by while the abortion industry seeks to strip away basic medical safeguards,' Bailey's office said in a statement. "We will continue to uphold the State's compelling interest in protecting women's health, safety, and informed consent.' Thursday's order did not address medication abortions, which remain on hold while Planned Parenthood wrangles with the state over abortion regulations. The court battle is just one part of Missouri's ongoing abortion debate. In May, the Republican-led Legislature approved a proposed constitutional amendment that would reimpose an abortion ban — but with exceptions for pregnancies caused by rape or incest. The measure could be on the ballot in 2026 or sooner.
Yahoo
05-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Olney will not be on June 24 Watertown council primary ballot
Jun. 5—WATERTOWN — Councilman Cliff G. Olney's last argument to get on the City Council ballot for the June 24 primary was not successful on Thursday morning. State Supreme Court Judge James P. McClusky on Thursday denied Olney's request to put him back on the ballot. Olney was ready to give oral arguments, but the judge ruled from the bench. "This was decided before I got here today," Olney said. He reiterated that he will run as a write-in candidate and has already started taking steps to get the word out to the public on how to vote for him. He has put together a campaign card explaining what voters have to do vote for him. Olney plans to go door to door to pass them out before the June 24 primary. He also plans to notify all the people who signed his ballots to tell them that they've "been disenfranchised," Olney said. Olney, a first-term councilman, was in court Thursday after refiling a motion seeking to have Judge McClusky reverse a decision that his name not be on the ballot. Seven other candidates are running in the June 24 primary. Four will go on to the November general election. Olney, who acted as his own attorney in the court matter, requested that Judge McClusky reconsider a ruling that a legal challenge of an elections board determination that he did not have enough valid signatures on his campaign petitions was not filed in a timely manner. Olney initially filed suit asking to have his petitions reviewed by the court after it was determined he lacked the required minimum number of signatures to be on the ballot. While Judge McClusky did rule that Olney had enough signatures to be on the ballot, he subsequently dismissed Olney's complaint because it had not been served on the defendants in a timely manner. Olney, who contended he followed the court's timeline when serving the papers, filed a motion to have the matter reconsidered. Judge McClusky declined the request, ruling that Olney did not abide by state Civil Practice Laws and Rules when filing his motion for reconsideration. Olney subsequently refiled the motion, indicating that he had corrected any procedural error in his filings.
Yahoo
25-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
In the face of election denial in North Carolina, the judiciary upholds democracy
State Supreme Court Justice takes the oath of office in the old North Carolina House chamber on May 13, 2025. (Photo: Brandon Kingdollar/NC Newsline) It took six months, but the race for the North Carolina Supreme Court is finally over. The rules of the game held – just as they did following the 2020 election – and the winner is now in office. That's a win for democracy. And we owe that win in large part to an exceptionally strong ruling from Trump-appointed judge Richard E. Myers II, chief judge of the Eastern District of North Carolina. While other branches might be absent (Congress), or ambivalent on whether or not it has to follow the Constitution (Executive), the federal judiciary continues to hold the line. North Carolina is one of seven states that has partisan elections for its judges. In the November 2024 election for one of North Carolina's Supreme Court seats, Democrat Allison Riggs defeated Republican Jefferson Griffin by 734 votes. Out of 5,540,090 votes. Griffin challenged the results in court, as is his right. Included in Griffin's challenges were attempts to retroactively challenge the state's election laws, and then use the new understanding of the law to throw out 60,000 presumptively-valid votes. All based in election denial conspiracies. Such an effort violates two important principles of how our elections are run: 1) You can't change the rules of the game after the game, and 2) You can't punish voters for following the rules as they were understood at the time. These principles are what kept Al Gore from invalidating 25,000 likely-Republican votes in Florida in the 2000 presidential election, and they're what allow for finality in election results. The North Carolina Court of Appeals and the North Carolina Supreme Court shocked the election community by partially indulging Griffin's after-the-fact challenges. They showed they were willing to set a dangerous precedent of legitimizing false claims of voter fraud, especially in close margin races. If the North Carolina Supreme Court's decision had held, and if it had gained popularity in other state courts, then we would have been in a world of trouble for 2026. Elections would drag on for months. For example, if I, in Arizona, narrowly lost an election, but then challenged the legality of mail balloting, then that legal theory would have to be fully litigated before calling an end to the election. Despite the fact that I could have challenged the legality of mail voting before the election. Imagine if the election in dispute had been a seat in Congress. Or if the partisan balance of Congress had only been divided by one vote. Would we have been waiting until May to seat the Speaker of the House? Maybe then it would've gotten more attention nationally. It flew largely under the radar for many Americans. And who can blame them? Democracy is under attack from so many angles, who can keep up? The truth is, election denial was alive and well in North Carolina this election cycle. But ultimately, the federal courts stepped in and settled the race once and for all. Judge Myers didn't hesitate to rebuke the problematic nature of such an approach. He wrote: 'A post-election change of practice that results in the discarding of votes is abominable under the Constitution of the United States.' Griffin ultimately called off the fight and conceded to Riggs, allowing her to, finally, be sworn in to a new term on the North Carolina Supreme Court. As long as I wasn't one of the candidates, nor a North Carolina citizen looking for finality, there's a silver lining. The ruling provided a persuasive refresher on election law for judges. It came from the chief judge of a district. It came from a Republican-appointed judge. It came from a Trump-appointed judge. Don't get me wrong. The lawsuit threatened to undermine the legitimacy of our election system and silence the eligible voters. It's going to take time for pro-democracy officials in North Carolina, and across our country, to rebuild trust in our election system. We have the federal courts to thank for keeping our election system free, fair, and secure this cycle. I firmly believe that almost all federal judges consistently do the right thing according to fact and law, regardless of their politics. But for those who think the judiciary is just 'politics in robes,' we couldn't have asked for a better ambassador for election-law-sanity than we got in this federal court. As I have said many times over the past few months, thank goodness for our federal judiciary, one which continues to be the envy of the world.
New York Post
23-05-2025
- Politics
- New York Post
Hamptons gears up for another summer of vacation and regulation
Memorial Day kicks off summer — and the influx of seasonal residents to the Hamptons. But it's not all sunshine and revelry. Prompted by a vocal group of year-round residents, several towns on Long Island's East End are imposing ever stricter laws and regulations, casting a shadow over the region's vibrant summer scene. Perhaps the most visible example to residents and tourists alike is Duryea's, which was only allowed to open this summer because the New York state supreme court stepped in, sources told me. As I've previously reported, the beloved Montauk restaurant, which is owned by Marc Rowan, has faced years of legal action. First the Town of East Hampton demanded it upgrade the septic system and then prohibited it from getting the permits needed to do so. Earlier this month, it looked like Duryea's might be closed for the whole summer. 3 The New York State Supreme Court had to step in to ensure Duryea's in Montauk could open. But, I'm told, the State Supreme Court has intervened and allowed the installation of a state-of-the art septic system, enabling the restaurant to open for the upcoming holiday weekend, though litigation with the town is still pending. The Duryea's drama is just the latest in a string of sagas. Town boards in the Hamptons are infamous for trying to micromanage everything from leaf blower usage and landscape lighting wattage to whether people can spontaneously dance at a tavern. 3 Pickleball has become another sore spot for residents as towns clamp down on new and existing courts. Tamara Beckwith Over the past year, pickleball courts, house size and who can fly into the public airport have been primary targets. The regulations have frustrated businesses and restaurants, pushing some to flee to summer locales with less red tape. Last fall, East Hampton and Southampton cracked down on residential pickleball courts and their noise. A new law demands that 'Pickleball courts must be surrounded on three sides by an eight-foot sound-attenuation wall, placed no further than 10 feet from the edge of the court, constructed of a minimum of ¾-inch planking.' Such soundproofing can cost homeowners upwards of $100,000. This story is part of NYNext, an indispensable insider insight into the innovations, moonshots and political chess moves that matter most to NYC's power players (and those who aspire to be). This comes after towns like North Haven enacted a six-month moratorium on any residential pickleball courts being built — or tennis courts being transformed to pickleball courts. In December, the town of East Hampton passed a law that will not only prevent anyone from building a home larger than 10,000-square-foot, in an effort to preserve the town's 'rural character,' but also limit any new homes (or expansion) to just 10% of a lot's square footage. For instance, a quarter-acre lot would now only allow a 2,000-square-foot home, while a half-acre would only permit a 3,600 square foot home, making it impossible for residents to work towards building a sun room or remodel a smaller home. The new law goes into effect July 1. 3 East Hampton has been embroiled with the local airport about noise complaints and the number of flights. Dennis A. Clark The Town of East Hampton is also still embroiled in a legal dispute over its airport — the Hampton's primary airport. Over the past three years, the town has spent more than $5 million on lawyers as it tries to limit flights and noise. It is just the latest move in the decade-old legal battle. Of course, the town putting the squeeze on business owners is not new. Business owners tell me they still keep the flame alive for iconic advertising executive Jerry Delefemaina. In 1997, he was arrested and handcuffed for placing Thanksgiving decorations — hay bales, corn stalks and pumpkins — outside his Redhorse Food Market in East Hampton. The town said it violated a rule that prohibits stores from advertising on the property outside their storefront. While it's still a rallying cry, it's also a sign that over the decades not much seems to have changed. Send NYNext a tip: nynextlydia@
New York Times
05-05-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
Judge Orders Elections Board to Certify Democrat's Victory in Contested N.C. Race
A federal judge on Monday ordered the North Carolina Board of Elections to certify the Democratic incumbent's victory in a State Supreme Court race, rejecting a monthslong effort from the Republican challenger to throw out tens of thousand of votes. Two recounts confirmed the incumbent, Justice Allison Riggs, winning in November by 734 votes. But the Republican candidate, Judge Jefferson Griffin, has sought to reverse his election loss by calling into question the eligibility of thousands of voters. On Monday, Chief Judge Richard E. Myers II, a Trump nominee to the United States District Court in Raleigh, rejected those arguments. 'You establish the rules before the game,' Judge Myers wrote in his 68-page ruling. 'You don't change them after the game is done.' But he gave Judge Griffin, who currently sits on the North Carolina Court of Appeals, seven days to appeal. That means that the ruling on Monday may not be the end of the case, which has ping-ponged through state and federal courts and tested the boundaries of post-election litigation. The race remains the last 2024 race in the nation to be certified. This is a developing story. Check back for updates.
