吃瓜直播

This case is about whether a city government鈥檚 selective and discriminatory refusal to permit a family-friendly drag event in a public park violated the event organizers鈥� First Amendment right to free speech and the Fourteenth Amendment鈥檚 guarantee of equal protection, and related provisions contained in the Utah Constitution.

On May 31st, 2019, the 吃瓜直播 of Iowa and National 吃瓜直播 LGBTQ and HIV Project filed a lawsuit to block implementation of an Iowa law that was recently passed to restore the ban on Medicaid coverage for essential, gender-affirming surgery to transgender Iowans that the Iowa Supreme recently struck down.

In 2023, the Kentucky General Assembly passed a new law that targets only those Kentuckians who 鈥渃hallenge the constitutionality鈥� of a state statute or similar law and seek relief against a state defendant in state court.鈥疷nder S.B. 126, any party to a covered lawsuit will have a unilateral right to require transfer of the case from the circuit court where it was properly filed to a randomly chosen circuit anywhere else in the state, potentially hundreds of miles away and at great cost to Kentuckians who stand up for their rights. The 吃瓜直播 of Kentucky, the Kentucky Equal Justice Center, and the Kentucky Resources Council鈥攚ith representation from attorneys at the 吃瓜直播 of Kentucky and the 吃瓜直播鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative鈥攆iled an amicus brief in the Kentucky Supreme Court, asking the Court to hold that the law violates the Kentucky Constitution. In October, the Kentucky Supreme Court invalidated S.B. 126, ruling in favor of the 吃瓜直播.

In May 2023, the 吃瓜直播 and the 吃瓜直播 of Nebraska filed a lawsuit on behalf of Nebraska abortion providers and their patients challenging a state law that bans physicians from providing abortion after 12 weeks of pregnancy and that, as of October 2023, will restrict health care available to trans youth. The 吃瓜直播 has asked a state court in Nebraska to enter an emergency order blocking the law鈥檚 enforcement. The Court ruled that the two halves of L.B. 574 fall within the single subject of regulating health care, and thus the Court held that L.B. 574 does not violate the single-subject rule. Consequently, the abortion ban and gender-affirming care restrictions in L.B. 574 remain in effect. However, the Court did reject the state鈥檚 argument that the single-subject is a nonjusticiable political question.