USLegal Reporter

U.S. District Judge Ronald Leighton in Tacoma, Washington signed an injunction Thursday that allows pharmacists in Washington state to refuse to sell the ‘morning-after’ or ‘Plan B’ birth control pill if they can refer a customer to another nearby pharmacy where the drug is available.

In July, two pharmacists and a drugstore owner filed a civil rights lawsuit against the state for regulations passed in July that required pharmacies to dispense Plan B, and only allowed pharmacists with personal or moral objections to refuse if another pharmacist in the same pharmacy could dispense the drug.

The parties asked the judge to prevent required Plan B sales while the suit is pending. Leighton stated that ‘[o]n the issue of free exercise of religion alone, the evidence before the court convinces it that plaintiffs … have demonstrated both a likelihood of success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury.’

Source: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/health/2004003599_planb09m.html

http://news.findlaw.com/ap/o/632/11-09-2007/80950015c5b07ca4.html

The Florida Supreme Court unanimously held Thursday that its lethal injection procedures, including more recently implemented safeguards, do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. The Florida Attorney General stated that the state plans on moving forward with the execution of Mark Dean Schwab, scheduled for November 15, 2007.

Schwab, who was convicted of a 1991 rape and murder, claimed that the chemicals used in lethal injection methods can cause excruciating pain and that new evidence shows he personally suffers from a brain impediment. The argument regarding pain caused by lethal injection chemicals is identical to the claim in the Kentucky case that is now before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Source: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2007/11/florida-supreme-court-upholds-state.php

The U.S. Supreme Court late Tuesday granted Earl Wesley Berry’s stay of execution pending the Court’s decision on granting certiorari. Berry was scheduled to be executed by lethal injection for the murder of a woman he kidnapped in 1987.

The stay adds to the list of three other stays granted by the Supreme Court after its decision to review the constitutionality of the lethal injection methods in a Kentucky case.

Richard Dieter, the executive director of the Anti-Capital Punishment Death Penalty Information Center claims that a de facto moratorium on executions by lethal injection is now in place.

Source: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2007/10/supreme-court-blocks-mississippi-lethal.php

A federal appeals court Wednesday stayed the lethal injection of Daniel L. Siebert, whose execution was scheduled for Thursday for several murders in 1986. Following the refusal by the federal district court in Alabama to stay his exectuion, Siebert appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Siebert, who suffers from pancreatic cancer, claimed that the drugs used for lethal injection could negatively interact with his cancer medications to cause unnecessary pain and suffering.

The state argued that Sibert could be executed using a modified procedure, but the modifications did not involve any change to the chemicals or to the sequence in which they are administered. The federal appeals court held that the changes to the protocol were ‘minor’ and stated that the execution shold be postponed until the Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of lethal injection.

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2007/10/federal-appeals-court-stays-alabama.php

Pending the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in a Kentucky case regarding the constitutionality of the three drug cocktail used in lethal injection executions and in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision to stay an execution in Virginia upon a constitutional challenge to lethal injection, the Georgia Supreme Court last Thursday granted a stay to Jack Alderman, who was scheduled to be executed by lethal injection Friday for the murder of his wife in 1974.

Monday of this week, the Georgia Supreme Court again halted an execution scheduled for Tuesday of Curtis Osborne, who was convicted of double murder in 2001.

Source: http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&orgId=607&docId=l:l:689311086&topicId=12755&source=undefined&start=2&topics=single

House Democrats Wednesday withdrew the RESTORE Act of 2007 from the House floor following a motion by Republicans to amend the bill to state that it would not prevent surveillance on Osama Bin Laden or other terrorist groups.

Also, the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee considered Thursday a separate bill that would expire in six years and would provide immunity to telecommunication companies that were involved in domestic surveillance without court orders. The legislation would amend the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and would require dismissal of civil lawsuits against the telecommunication companies upon certification by the attorney general that either the companies participated in eavesdropping between September 11, 2001 and January 17, 2007 with the President’s written authorization to assist in detecting or preventing a terrorist attack on the U.S. or that a particular company or companies provided no assistance. The legislation also requires the attorney general to certify the existence of probable cause that an American is acting against the U.S. before the government can conduct surveillance.

Source: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2007/10/us-senate-committee-debates.php

House panels Wednesday approved the RESTORE Act of 2007, the legislation which was introduced Tuesday to replace the Protect America Act in providing more court oversight over surveillance procedures. The House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees did not include in the approved Act provisions applying retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that participated in the National Security Agency’s warrantless domestic surveillance. The legislation also is not permanent, but expires in two years.

The new act permits surveillance of foreigners outside the U.S., but requires officials to apply to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) for an ‘umbrella’ order to conduct surveillance for up to one year on communications between foreigners outside the U.S. and Americans. In emergency situations, the legislation allows immediate surveillance, but requires the government to apply for a FISC order within seven days and obtain court approval within 45 days. The approved act also includes amendments that increase the standard for measuring whether a warrant under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is required and that mandate the FISC to review compliance with its orders.

Source: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2007/10/us-house-committees-advance.php; http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/11/washington/11nsa.html?ex=1192766400&en=440e0b53bb7420a2&ei=5065&partner=MYWAY

Democrats in the House of Representatives Tuesday introduced legislation called the RESTORE Act of 2007 to replace the Protect America Act 2007, which Congress passed in August as a temporary measure. The August legislation amended the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act by granting additional authority to the attorney general and national intelligence director.

The new draft bill, on the other hand, attempts to increase the court’s role in surveillance methods used by the Terrorist Surveillance Program. The proposed legislation requires regular auditing of surveillance activities, and use of warrants in domestic surveillance. Currently, the bill does not offer immunity for telecommunication companies who were involved with the warrantless Terrorist Surveillance Program.

Source: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2007/10/house-democrats-propose-new.php; http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/house-dems-propose-fix-on-wiretaps-2007-10-10.html

The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri issued a preliminary injunction Monday that bars the state of Missouri from implementing a new law that would designate abortion clinics as outpatient surgery centers subjecting them to state regulation. Judge Ortrie Smith of Kansas City on August 27, 2007 entered a temporary restraining order on the state from enforcing the new law, which was supposed to become effective August 28, 2007.

The purpose of the injunction is to allow the state to enter into a compromise agreement with abortion facilities regarding the new law. While Judge Smith discounted the claim by abortion providers that the new law is unconstitutional on its face, he also stated that a strict interpretation of the regulations, which may require extensive clinic renovations, may hinder the right to obtain an abortion. Further, the judge stated a constitutional violation may result from enforcing the regulations on clinics that only offer medically induced, rather than surgical, abortions.

Source: http://news.findlaw.com/ap/o/51/09-25-2007/509f000b5247c9da.html

http://www.kmox.com/Missouri-abortion-clinic-ruling-from-U-S–Dist–Ju/994709

Several civil rights groups, including the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Immigration Law Center, brought suit on behalf of Chicanos Por La Causa and Somos America against the state of Arizona Tuesday for alleged constitutional violations stemming from newly enacted immigration legislation.

The Legal Arizona Worker Act, which was signed into law in July, requires businesses to use a federal database to check the employment eligibility of potential employees or have their business licenses revoked. The civil rights groups claim that the new law violates the 14th Amendment causing possible discrimination against minorities and violates federal immigration law, which does not require all employers to use the database.

Source: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2007/09/rights-groups-file-lawsuit-over-arizona.php; http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/96570?source=rss&dest=STY-96570