injunctive relief

The Alaska Supreme Court ruled that the state's Medicaid expansion could proceed today, Alaska Dispatch News' Tegan Hanlon reports. Governor Bill Walker expanded Medicaid over the objections of legislators, who argue they need to approve the expansion for it to be legal. The underlying lawsuit over the issue will still proceed because the court's order was about whether a temporary restraining order would go into place.

A state judge ruled Friday that Alaska Governor Bill Walker can expand Medicaid without legislative approval, Alaska Dispatch News' Nathaniel Herz reports. Legislators moved for a preliminary injunction to stop the expansion of coverage while they argue their underlying legal challenge to the legality of the executive action. Legislators argue that they must approve the expansion of Medicaid to groups whose coverage is not required under federal law.

However, the Alaska Supreme Court will hear the decision on appeal Monday.

Now that lawmakers in Alaska have voted to sue to try to block that state's expansion of Medicaid to 40,000 low-income adults, they will have to show irreparable harm will result if a preliminary injunction isn't granted against the expansion, APRN-Anchorage's Annie Feidt reports.

Legislators are arguing that the expansion needs to have their approval, that the population that would be covered by the expansion is not a mandatory group that must get health insurance coverage, and Gov. Bill Walker violated separation of powers by unilaterally authorizing the expansion.

The Associated Press' Becky Bohrer reports that the expansion would be for "people ages 19 to 64 who are not caring for dependent children, not disabled and not pregnant, and who earn up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level."

While the U.S. Supreme Court case over Internet streaming service Aereo's business model is pending, broadcaster Fox is seeking a preliminary junction against Aereo in the 10th Circuit, Multichannel News reports. A Utah district court will hear the request to enjoin Aereo in the six states over which the 10th Circuit has jurisdiction.

Pennsylvania's voter ID law has been struck down, The Legal Intelligencer's Sara Spencer reports. The judge reasoned: “'The right to vote, fundamental in Pennsylvania, is irreplaceable, necessitating its protection before any deprivation occurs. Deprivation of the franchise is neither compensable nor replaceable by after-the-fact legal remedies, necessitating injunctive and declaratory relief,'" Spencer writes. Oddly, the decision was not published so it could be citeable.

The Texas Supreme Court took up two cases this week on whether injunctions in defamation cases are constitutional: "Treading the gray area between freedom of speech and permissible government censorship, the Texas Supreme Court heard arguments in two cases Thursday that could determine whether state judges may permanently ban people from repeating information found to be false and defamatory," the Austin American-Statesman reports.

I reviewed the oral arguments, and one issue that came up is whether there is a constitutional right to defamatory speech under the Texas Constitution. One of the proponents for the constitutionality of post-judgment injunctions banning someone from repeating false and defamatory statements said that defamatory speech has no constitutional protection. But his opponent argued the Texas Constitution provides more protection than the U.S. Constitution for freedom of speech and that defamatory speech does have constitutional protection in Texas. If there is constitutional protection under state constitutional law , then a post-judgment injunction would be illegal and damages would be the only remedy for the parties who were defamed.

Another battlefront has opened up against Aereo's Internet TV service in Utah. Two broadcast TV affiliates are seeking a preliminary injunction against Aereo's service because the TV stations argue it "'engages in public performances for which it must obtain copyright licenses,'" the Salt Lake Tribune reports.

Aereo streams free broadcast TV programming through individualized antennas dedicated to each of its subscribers. A Second Circuit decision rejecting the argument that Aereo's service infringes copyright is on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

A federal judge ruled today that the National Security Agency's surveillance of most phone calls made in the United States or to the United States is likely unconstitutional, Politico reports: "U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon found that the program appears to violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures. He also said the Justice Department had failed to demonstrate that collecting the so-called metadata had helped to head off terrorist attacks."

Politico further reports: "Leon’s 68-page ruling is the first significant legal setback for the NSA’s surveillance program since it was disclosed in June in news stories based on leaks from former NSA contractor Edward Snowden. The metadata program has been approved repeatedly by numerous judges on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and at least one judge sitting in a criminal case."

The judge granted a preliminary injunction but promptly stayed it to allow for an appeal.

Reuters reports on a trial that ended this week in which Chevron is seeking injunctive relief against a plaintiff's lawyer and some of his clients. Chevron accuses "U.S. lawyer Steven Donziger of orchestrating an international criminal conspiracy by using bribery and fraud in Ecuador to secure a multibillion-dollar pollution judgment against the oil company," according to Reuters. The case resulted in a $18 billion judgment.

But one of Donziger's lawyers, Zoe Littlepage, said "'raw accusations and allegations are not proof. Steven Donziger may be a jerk. That's not a crime,"' according to Reuters.

U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan is presiding over the equity case. Post-trial briefs will be submitted before the judge issues a ruling.

A lawsuit in Texas is challenging that state's ban on same-sex marriage, according to Lez Get Real. Along with the many other lawsuits in the country challenging state-level Defense of Marriage Acts or constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage, the couples in this lawsuit also argue that their equal-protection and due-process rights are being violated by being barred from matrimony.