XPost: law.court.federal, talk.politics.guns, alt.abortion   
   XPost: sac.politics   
   From: nobody@there.org   
      
   After granting 15 cases from the justices’ “long conference” last week,   
   the Supreme Court on Monday denied more than a thousand more petitions   
   for review. Among the noteworthy actions on the 50-page list of orders   
   released on Monday morning was the rejection of a request from the Biden   
   administration to send a dispute over emergency abortions in Texas back   
   to the lower courts, as well as the denial of a challenge by the company   
   formerly known as Twitter to a nondisclosure order obtained by Special   
   Counsel Jack Smith for communications by former President Donald Trump.   
      
   The justices turned down a request from the Biden administration to send   
   a dispute over the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act back to the   
   lower courts for another look. That federal law requires emergency rooms   
   in hospitals that receive Medicaid funding to provide stabilizing   
   treatment to patients who arrive with an emergency condition that   
   seriously threatens their lives or health. The law supersedes state laws   
   that directly conflict with EMTALA’s requirements, such as, the Biden   
   administration says, laws restricting abortion care. The court dealt   
   with a set of similar cases out of Idaho in June without reaching a   
   conclusive decision on the federal law.   
      
   The court’s denial on Monday leaves in place a lower court ruling for   
   Texas, but the question at the center of the case remains unresolved   
   nationally.   
      
   The case began as a challenge by Texas and two medical groups to   
   guidance issued by the Department of Health and Human Services to remind   
   hospitals that, in some cases, EMTALA may require hospitals to provide   
   abortions to save a pregnant woman’s life or prevent serious harm to her   
   health – even if state law would otherwise prohibit the abortion. The   
   U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit disagreed and prohibited the   
   federal government from enforcing the guidance against Texas.   
      
   After the Supreme Court’s decision in late June dismissing the pair of   
   cases from Idaho, U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar asked the   
   justices to send the Texas case back for a new look. She cited not only   
   the Idaho cases, but also the challengers’ suggestion that there is no   
   conflict between EMTALA and Texas law and the Supreme Court’s recent   
   ruling in a case involving medication abortion – which, she wrote,   
   “makes clear that the members of the” medical groups challenging the law   
   “cannot be required to terminate a pregnancy against their conscience.”   
   But the justices turned down Prelogar’s plea without explanation.   
      
   The court asked the Biden administration for its views in four cases:   
      
   Alabama v. California – An effort by 19 Republican-led states to block   
   lawsuits brought by five other states against oil and gas companies,   
   alleging that the companies knew that their products contributed to   
   climate change but instead misled the public about the cause of climate   
   change and the risks of fossil fuels.   
      
   Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections – Whether a plaintiff can   
   sue a government official in his individual, rather than official,   
   capacity, for violations of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized   
   Persons Act. The lawsuit was brought by a devout Rastafarian who, as   
   part of his religious practice, had not cut his hair for nearly two   
   decades. When he was transferred to a new prison, he provided prison   
   guards with a copy of a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the   
   5th Circuit holding that Louisiana’s policy of prohibiting Rastafarian   
   inmates from wearing dreadlocks violated the Constitution. A guard threw   
   the copy in the trash, and – at the warden’s direction – forcibly   
   restrained he and shaved his head to the scalp. He now seeks to hold   
   prison officials personally liable for damages.   
      
   M&K Employee Solutions v. Trustees of the IAM Pension – How to calculate   
   the Employee Retirement Income Security Act’s instruction to compute   
   “withdrawal liability” – when an employer withdraws from an underfunded   
   multiemployer pension plan – “as of the end of the plan year.”   
   Mulready v. Pharmaceutical Care Management – Whether the federal   
   Employee Retirement Income Security Act supersedes an Oklahoma law   
   regulating pharmacy benefit managers.   
   Among the other cases in which the justices denied review were:   
      
   X Corp. v. United States – A First Amendment challenge to a   
   nondisclosure order that barred Twitter from notifying Trump or his   
   representatives about a warrant seeking private communications sent and   
   received by the former president during his presidency.   
      
   Moylan v. Guerrero – Whether a Guam law on which that territory’s   
   highest court relied to rule that a 1990 law that would largely ban   
   abortion in Guam had been impliedly repealed violates the separation of   
   powers by authorizing the court to issue declaratory judgments.   
      
   No on E, San Franciscans Opposing the Affordable Housing Production Act   
   v. Chiu – A challenge to the constitutionality of a San Francisco   
   ordinance that (among other things) requires political committees that   
   spend money on city elections to disclose both their major contributors   
   and, if any of those contributors is a committee, the contributors to   
   that committee.   
      
   Campbell v. Kares – Whether the one-year clock for a state prisoner to   
   file a petition seeking federal post-conviction relief stops when a   
   prisoner seeks DNA testing.   
      
   Hile v. Michigan – Whether a 1970 amendment to the Michigan constitution   
   that prohibits the use of any public funding for private schools   
   violates the U.S. Constitution. The challengers, the parents of children   
   in private religious schools in Michigan, argued that the state   
   constitutional provision violates the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of   
   equal protection because it bars religious people and institutions in   
   Michigan from being able to seek relief – such as public funding – from   
   the state legislature on the same terms as other citizens.   
      
   Mendoza v. Lumpkin – The case of Moises Sandoval Mendoza, a Mexican   
   national who in 2005 was convicted and sentenced to death for the 2004   
   murder of Rachelle O’Neil Tolleson in Texas. The U.S. Court of Appeals   
   for the 5th Circuit last year denied Mendoza’s bid for federal   
   post-conviction relief.   
      
   Al Bahlul v. United States – Whether, in a case involving a Yemeni man   
   who served as an assistant to Osama bin Laden who is now imprisoned at   
   the U.S. facility at Guantanamo Bay, one of the judges who ruled on the   
   prisoner’s appeal should have recused himself because he had represented   
   the federal government in the prisoner’s pre-trial challenge to his   
   prosecution by a military commission. (Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)