Court: Health care workers in lawsuit must reveal identities

Nine health care workers who sued Democratic Maine Gov. Janet Mills over the state’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate have until Money to reveal their identities. The workers have so far remained anonymous, but on Thursday, a federal appeals court in Boston rejected a motion by the workers and gave them until Friday to file an amended complaint with their names, the Portland Press-Herald reported. The plaintiffs were later given an extension until Monday. Attorneys for Liberty Counsel, a law firm representing the health care workers, said in a court filing Friday that the one-day extension is needed to give lawyers time to speak with each plaintiff about whether they want to move forward with the lawsuit. The plaintiffs filed their complaint in federal court last August, before the state’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate for health care workers at Maine care facilities went into effect on Oct. 20, 2021. In the complaint the workers argued that it was their religious right to refuse the vaccine over their belief that fetal stem cells from abortions are used to develop the vaccines. Maine’s vaccine mandate does not allow for religious exemptions. The lawsuit prompted several Maine newspapers, including the Portland Press Herald, to intervene in an effort to force the plaintiffs to be identified.

Judge holds hearing on challenge of Mississippi abortion law

A judge held a hearing Tuesday but didn’t say how she would decide a lawsuit filed by Mississippi’s only abortion clinic, which is trying to remain open by blocking a law that would ban most abortions in the state. The law — which state lawmakers passed before the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the 1973 ruling that allowed abortions nationwide — is set to take effect Thursday. The Jackson Women’s Health Organization sought a temporary restraining order that would allow it to remain open, at least while the lawsuit remains in court. The closely watched lawsuit is part of a flurry of activity that has occurred nationwide since the Supreme Court ruled. Conservative states have moved to halt or limit abortions while others have sought to ensure abortion rights, all as some women try to obtain the medical procedure against the changing legal landscape. Meanwhile a Florida judge on Tuesday temporarily blocked a new 15-week abortion ban days after it took effect in the state, an expected move following an oral ruling last week in which he said the law violated the state constitution.

Indiana court strikes down emergency law fought by governor

The Indiana Supreme Court on Friday threw out a law that gave state legislators increased power to intervene during public health emergencies, agreeing with arguments from Republican Gov. Eric Holcomb that the move violated the state constitution. The court’s unanimous decision settles a legal fight that began more than a year ago when Holcomb sued over a law that was a response to his efforts to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic. The new law gave legislative leaders authority to call the General Assembly into an “emergency session” if the governor declares a statewide emergency. The GOP-dominated Legislature approved it over Holcomb’s veto. Holcomb’s lawyers contended that the state constitution allows only the governor to call the Legislature into meetings for consideration of new laws outside of its annual sessions that begin in early January and adjourn by the end of April. Chief Justice Loretta Rush agreed, writing for the five-justice court that Holcomb’s attorneys had “satisfied the high burden required to establish that the law is unconstitutional.” “Under our Constitution, the General Assembly simply cannot do what the challenged law permits absent a constitutional amendment,” Rush added. Holcomb said in a statement that the battle over the law had raised “important procedural, statutory and Constitutional questions that only the courts could answer.” “Today, the Indiana Supreme Court has provided clarity and finality on these important issues,” he said. The high court’s ruling came after a Marion County judge sided with the Legislature in October.

No state charge for billionaire Sanford in child porn probe

The South Dakota attorney general’s office has declined to file charges against billionaire T. Denny Sanford following an investigation into possible possession of child pornography, saying it found no “prosecutable offenses” within the state’s jurisdiction, according to a court document filed Friday. Sanford, a banker turned philanthropist, is the state’s richest man and has donated billions to hospitals, universities and charities. South Dakota investigators in 2019 began searching his email account, as well as his cellular and internet service providers, for possible possession of child pornography after his accounts were flagged by a technology firm. The attorney general’s office said in Friday’s court filing that the “South Dakota Division of Criminal Investigation has completed its investigation ... and has determined that there are no prosecutable offenses within the jurisdiction of the State of South Dakota.” The attorney general’s office had no comment beyond the court filing. “Mr. Sanford appreciates the public acknowledgement by the SD Attorney General’s office that the DCI has concluded its investigation and they have found no prosecutable crime,” Marty Jackley, Sanford’s attorney, said via text. South Dakota Attorney General Jason Ravnsborg had earlier requested the involvement of federal law enforcement. A state filing in January said both state and federal investigations were continuing at the time. The Department of Justice declined to comment Friday when asked if a federal investigation is ongoing.

Accountant avoids prison time in college admissions scandal

An accountant who worked for the consultant at the center of the college admissions bribery case has avoided prison for his role in the sweeping scheme. U.S. District Court Judge Indira Talwani on Friday sentenced Steven Masera, 72, to time already served, ordered him to pay a $20,000 fine and remain on three years’ supervised release. Masera pleaded guilty in 2019 to a charge of racketeering conspiracy in Boston federal court. Masera, of Folsom, California, was an accountant for Rick Singer, the mastermind of the bribery scheme that involved rigged test scores and bogus athletic credentials. Prosecutors say Masera created fake donation receipt letters and bogus invoices that allowed the wealthy parents who paid bribes to write their payments off as donations or business expenses. Prosecutors argued that Masera is less culpable than the parents and coaches involved in the scheme, noting that he was working at Singer’s direction and “stood to gain nothing beyond his hourly compensation.” An email seeking comment was sent Friday to lawyers for Masera. His attorneys wrote in court documents that he is “ashamed that he would agree to be involved in such conduct, but is nevertheless handling the situation with grace.” Singer pleaded guilty to a slew of charges and has yet to be sentenced. Others convicted in the case have received sentences ranging from probation to 15 months behind bars.

Supreme Court rules against Boston in Christian flag case

A unanimous Supreme Court ruled Monday that Boston violated the free speech rights of a conservative activist when it refused his request to fly a Christian flag on a flagpole outside City Hall. Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for the court that the city discriminated against the activist, Harold Shurtleff, because of his “religious viewpoint,” even though it had routinely approved applications for the use of one of the three flagpoles outside City Hall that fly the U.S., Massachusetts and Boston flags. Occasionally, the city takes down its own pennant and temporarily hoists another flag. Shurtleff and his Camp Constitution wanted to fly a white banner with a red cross on a blue background in the upper left corner, called the Christian flag, to mark Constitution Day, Sept. 17, in 2017. The city had approved 284 consecutive applications to fly flags, usually those of other nations, before it rejected Shurtleff’s because it was a Christian flag. The city said he could fly a different banner, but Shurtleff refused, and lower courts upheld the city’s decision. But the high court said the lower courts and the city were wrong. The case hinged on whether the flag-flying is an act of the government, in which case Boston can do whatever it wants, or private parties like Shurtleff, Breyer wrote.

Arizona court won’t halt sex suits naming Boy Scouts, others

Arizona victims of long-ago child sex abuse can proceed with lawsuits against groups like the Boy Scouts of America after the state Supreme Court rejected claims that a state law extending victims’ right to sue was unconstitutional. Arizona is among many states that have reacted to child sex abuse in recent years by allowing victims of even decades-old abuse to sue groups that didn’t protect them from predators. That has led to lawsuits against the Roman Catholic Church, Scouts and others. The high court last week rejected appeals by Big Brothers Big Sisters of America and its affiliates in central and southern Arizona of lower court rulings that found a 2019 law extending the statute of limitations was constitutional. The rulings appear to be the first to directly address whether the Arizona law is legal, according to Phoenix attorney Robert Pastor, who represents victims in the two cases the high court considered. Those lawsuits allege that the group that connects youth called “Littles” with adult mentors known as “Bigs” did not properly oversee the Bigs. The cases involved two men who abused boys, one in 1983 and one in the 1970s, court filings show. The men are not defendants.