Welcome to the weekly roundup of legal news worth highlighting from Howard Bashman’s How Appealing blog, a pioneer in covering appellate law news.
The first noteworthy article of the week delves into the controversy surrounding the Comstock Act – an outdated law that bans the transfer of items seen as “obscene”, which has historically included items related to contraception and abortion. Ben Metzner explores how abortion rights groups are pressuring Democrats to maintain the law in his essay published in The New Republic.
Shifting gears, Chris Geidner at his Substack site detailed how the Fifth Circuit has issued a series of orders, refusing to review rulings lost by conservative groups before three-judge panels. This story can be found in this post.
An important ruling came from the Fourth Circuit this week, as it found West Virginia’s ban on transgender athletes to be unconstitutional. This decision, which ruled that the ban violated Title IX by excluding transgender student-athletes from participating in the sports teams of their choice, is detailed in Joe Dodson’s report in Courthouse News Service.
Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Reuters reports on a conservative U.S. appeals court’s efforts to urge the Supreme Court to review immunity that shields U.S. agency heads. More about this can be found in this post.
Lastly, an ethical bench decision deemed Judge Don Willett’s investment in Citigroup does not warrant a recusal. Evan Weinberger of Bloomberg Law provides more insight into this decision in this report.
Stay tuned for the next digest of some of the most significant happenings in the legal world.