![]() ![]() And the actual chilling effect on these Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights remains.” In the meantime, the statute remains on California’s books. ![]() ![]() “Certainly, that condition may or may not occur. “Here, the Defendant Attorney General could leave office and his successor might begin immediate enforcement,” he said.īonta “says that his cessation of enforcement in a seeming case of tit-for-tat will end if, and when, a purportedly similar one-sided fee-shifting Texas statute is adjudged to be constitutional,” Benitez said. It would usually be sufficient if a state legislature repealed the offensive law and might be sufficient if the attorney general issued an official opinion that the statute was unconstitutional, the judge said. More is required than voluntary cessation,” Benitez ruled Thursday. A state actor’s voluntary cessation of unconstitutional conduct does not moot a case. “Does jurisdiction continue to exist in light of the Defendant Attorney General’s statement of non-enforcement? In other words, is the case now moot? No. 8 permits bounties of up to $10,000 against those who assist someone in obtaining an abortion. The law in question includes a one-way fee-shifting penalty in the government’s favor that applies solely to litigation challenging state and local firearm regulations, the lawsuit said.Ĭalifornia Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) said the state wouldn’t enforce the law unless the Texas law is upheld, the court noted. Benitez of the US District Court for the Southern District of California rejected California’s arguments of mootness of the lawsuit firearms dealers, lawyers, and gun rights advocates filed in September. California must continue to defend the state’s bounty bill that allows it to seek attorneys’ fees from parties that challenge firearms legislation inspired by similar Texas legislation on abortion, a federal judge ruled. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |