Does Firearm Conceal-Carry Licensure Violate the Second Amendment?. Is Roe v. Wade in Trouble?. Size May Not Be Important, But Removing a Condom During Sex Without Consent Is

• Author: Oran F. Whiting
• Pages: 9-9

Published in Litigation News Volume 47, Number 2, Winter 2022. © 20 22 by the American Bar A ssociation. Repro duced with permissio n. All rights reser ved. This informati on or any portion the reof may not be copie d or disseminated in any

form or by any means or sto red in an electronic da tabase or retrieval sy stem without the ex press writt en consent of the Amer ican Bar Associatio n.

++Does Firearm Conceal-Carry Licensure Violate the

Second Amendment?

++Is Roe v. Wade in Trouble?

++Size May Not Be Important, But Removing a Condom

During Sex Without Consent Is

U.S. SUP REME COUR T

Second Amendment

The Court will consider whether a

state gun law violates the Second

Amendment by restricting licensure for

carrying concealed f‌irearms outside

the home. Gun rights advocates argue

restrictions imposed by the New York

law violate the Constitution. The law

has repeatedly been upheld by lower

courts. New York State Rif‌le & Pistol

Association v. Bruen, No. 20-843.

Evidence

Questions over surveillance of a

mosque led the Court to address

whether a section of the Foreign

Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978

preempts the state-secrets eviden-

tiary privilege in a particular civil

case. Under this privilege, the execu-

tive branch can exclude evidence on

national security grounds. The act

establishes electronic surveillance poli-

cies and provides a private right of

action to challenge unlawful surveil-

lance. The Ninth Circuit recently held

the act displaced the privilege with

respect to electronic surveillance. FBI

v. Fazaga, No. 20-828.

Abortion

The Court voted 5–4 not to impede

SB8, a Texas law considered the

nation’s most restrictive anti-abortion

measure. The unsigned opinion states

that although the applicants raised

“serious questions” regarding the con-

stitutionality of SB8, they did not carry

the required burden for the “complex

and novel antecedent procedural ques-

tions” also presented. The opinion

emphasizes the Court was not ruling

on the law’s constitutionality. Whole

Woman’s Health et al. v. Austin Reeve

Jackson, Judge, et al., No. 21A24.

The Court also heard a case con-

cerning Mississippi’s Gestational Age

Act, which bars most abortions after 15

weeks. Medical emergencies or “severe

fetal abnormality” are exceptions, but

rape or incest are not. Doctors perform-

ing abortions outside the parameters

of the law will have their licenses sus-

pended or revoked and may be subject

to additional penalties and f‌ines. The

2018 act has been blocked twice by fed-

eral courts. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s

Health Organization, No. 19-1392.

Damages

The Court will decide whether the

compensatory damages available

under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of

1964 and the statutes that incorporate

its remedies for victims of discrimina-

tion, such as the Rehabilitation Act

and the Aordable Care Act, include

compensation for emotional distress.

The plainti initially f‌iled an anti-

discrimination suit against a federally

funded physical therapy company for

the company’s refusal to provide a

sign language interpreter. She sought

compensatory damages for “humili-

ation, frustration, and emotional dis-

tress.” Cummings v. Premier Rehab

Keller, P.L.L.C., No. 20-219.

U.S. CIRC UIT COURT OF

APPEALS

Fifth Circuit—Immigration

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

found provisions in a memo issued

by President Biden instruct-

ing Immigration and Customs

Enforcement to focus its arrests on

certain undocumented immigrants do

not eliminate immigration ocials’

“broad discretion” to decide who

should face enforcement action. The

ruling severely curtailed a lower court’s

AND MORE . . . BY HO N. ORAN F. WHITI NG (RET.), LITIGATION NEWS ASSOCIATE EDITOR

order potentially impeding the Biden

administration’s eorts to limit immi-

gration arrests. Texas v. United States

of America, No. 21-40618.

STATE S

North Carolina—Voting

Rights

A North Carolina state court, in a

2–1 vote, has blocked SB 824, which

requires photo identif‌ication to vote.

The court opined the law, passed in

2018 and already subject to a prelimi-

nary injunction, “was motivated at least

in part by an unconstitutional intent

to target African American voters…

Other, less restrictive voter ID laws

would have suced to achieve the

legitimate nonracial purposes of imple-

menting the constitutional amendment

requiring voter ID, deterring fraud, or

enhancing voter conf‌idence.” Holmes v.

Moore, No. 18 CVS 15292.

Florida—Abortion

A Republican state lawmaker recently

introduced a bill modeled after Texas’s

SB 8. Florida House Bill 167 mirrors SB8

by allowing private citizens to bring

lawsuits against physicians who provide

abortions after six weeks as well as any

person who “knowingly engages in con-

duct that aids or abets the performance

or inducement of an abortion.”

California—Consent

California recently became the f‌irst

state to outlaw the nonconsensual

removal of a condom during sex.

Violations will constitute civil oenses

and allow victims to sue the perpetra-

tors for damages directly.

AMERICA N BAR ASSOCIATION WINTER 202 2 • VOL. 47 NO. 2 | 9

KEEPING WATCH EMERGING DEVELOPMENTS FOR LITIGATORS