Tag Archives: preliminary injunction

Judge temporarily blocks U.S. Postal Service changes, citing mail slowdown

By Karen Freifeld

(Reuters) – A federal judge on Thursday temporarily blocked the United States Postal Service from making operational changes that states say threaten the timely delivery of election mail.

U.S. District Judge Stanley Bastian in Yakima, Washington, said he would issue a nationwide preliminary injunction sought by 14 states in a case brought against U.S. President Donald Trump, Postmaster General Louis DeJoy, and the U.S. Postal Service over July changes to the service.

“The states have demonstrated that the defendants are involved in a politically motivated attack on the efficiency of the postal service,” the judge said in a hearing by telephone.

“They have also demonstrated that this attack on the postal service is likely to irreparably harm the states’ ability to administer the 2020 general election.”

The 14 states, led by Washington, had asked the court to immediately halt requirements that compelled postal trucks to leave at certain times, regardless of whether mail has yet to be loaded.

They also asked that all election mail be treated as first-class mail, regardless of the paid postage; and that sorting machines that had been removed and are needed to ensure the timely delivery of election mail be replaced; and for the postal service to abide by Postmaster General DeJoy’s commitment to suspend the recent changes that have affected mail until after the election.

The judge said the preliminary injunction would essentially be issued as the states requested, and he said he would issue a written order, likely later on Thursday.

(Reporting by Karen Freifeld; Editing by Chris Reese and Aurora Ellis)

Judge exempts journalists, legal observers from Portland protest dispersal orders

By Kanishka Singh

(Reuters) – A U.S. judge granted a preliminary injunction on Thursday against federal officers, exempting journalists and legal observers from orders to disperse after the officers declare riots at Portland protests.

The 61-page order prohibited federal officers from seizing any “photographic equipment, audio- or video recording equipment, or press passes” from reporters and legal observers.

A lawyer from the U.S. Justice Department had argued that the press does not hold any special right when police declare an unlawful assembly or riot and order crowds to break up.

“If military and law enforcement personnel can engage around the world without attacking journalists, the federal defendants can respect plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights in Portland,” U.S. District Judge Michael Simon said in the order filed in the United States District Court for Oregon.

Protests against racism and police brutality have swept the United States since the death on May 25 of George Floyd, a 46-year-old African-American man, after a white police officer knelt on his neck for nearly nine minutes.

The protests, including those in Portland, have occasionally erupted in arson and violence, and federal officers sent into the northwestern city have repeatedly clashed with crowds targeting its federal courthouse.

Portland Police had declared a riot for a second successive night on Wednesday and said they had fired crowd control munitions and tear gas to break up a gathering of about 200 people who threw rocks, lit fires and vandalized a U.S. immigration agency building.

Thursday’s order came in a class-action lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Foundation of Oregon, which called it “a crucial victory” for civil liberties and press freedom.

Separately on Thursday, Portland Police issued a timeline of protests, showcasing they had declared riots 17 times between May 29 and Aug. 19.

(Reporting by Kanishka Singh in Bengaluru; Editing by Shri Navaratnam)

Judge weighs fate of Missouri’s only abortion clinic after court hearing

Planned Parenthood's employees look on as anti-abortion rights advocates hold a rally in St. Louis, Missouri, U.S., June 4, 2019. REUTERS/Lawrence Bryant

By Gabriella Borter and Brendan O’Brien

(Reuters) – A St. Louis judge said on Tuesday he will work quickly to decide whether Missouri’s only abortion clinic can remain open after a hearing on a lawsuit aimed at forcing state health officials to renew the facility’s license to perform the procedure.

Women’s healthcare and abortion provider Planned Parenthood sued Missouri last week after state health officials refused to renew the license of the St. Louis clinic, called Reproductive Health Services of Planned Parenthood, because, they said, they were unable to interview seven of its physicians over “potential deficient practices,” according to court documents.

Judge Michael Stelzer held a hearing on Tuesday morning on motions filed by Planned Parenthood in its request for a preliminary injunction that would keep the clinic open longer. He could schedule more hearings or rule on the request.

Stelzer intervened on Friday before the clinic’s license to perform abortions was set to expire hours later, issuing a temporary restraining order against the state at the request of Planned Parenthood that enabled the clinic to continue providing the procedure.

After listening to arguments from both sides on Tuesday, Stelzer said he will work “expeditiously” to come to a decision in the case, according to a court spokesman.

Abortion is one of the most divisive issues in U.S. politics, with opponents often citing religious beliefs to call it immoral. Abortion rights advocates have said restrictions being passed at the state level amount to state control of women’s bodies.

If the facility’s license is not renewed, Missouri would become the only U.S. state without an abortion clinic since the Supreme Court’s landmark Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 that legalized abortion nationwide and recognized a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy.

The legal battle in St. Louis began after Missouri Governor Mike Parson, a Republican, signed a bill on May 24 banning abortion beginning in the eighth week of pregnancy, making Missouri one of nine U.S. states to pass anti-abortion legislation this year.

Anti-abortion activists have said they hope to prompt the conservative-majority U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the Roe v. Wade ruling by enacting laws such as the one recently passed in Missouri that are assured of facing court challenges.

The Supreme Court last week sent a mixed message on abortion, refusing to consider reinstating Indiana’s ban on abortions performed because of fetal disability or the sex or race of the fetus while upholding the state’s requirement that fetal remains be buried or cremated after the procedure is done. Several other abortion-related cases also are heading toward the high court.

(Reporting by Brendan O’Brien in Chicago and Gabriella Borter in New York; Editing by Scott Malone and Will Dunham)