Lawyers Propose Nationwide Settlement Framework In Opioid Lawsuits

Attorneys representing the counties and municipalities that are suing manufacturers and distributors of drugs over the roles they played in the opioid epidemic that has devastated the United States spoke publicly recently of a plan to bring the more than 24,000 communities across the country together in search of billions of dollars in settlement money.

A motion was filed in a Cleveland, Ohio federal court and outlined the proposal in detail. Currently, 1,850 lawsuits from local governments are pending with the same court. The allegations detailed in the suits are that drug makers like Purdue Pharma LP are liable for fueling America’s opioid crisis.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs are seeking to certify a class that will include all municipalities in the U.S. that have filed suit for the purposes of negotiating a settlement. The members of the class will possess the right to vote on any settlement offer from a company.

Lawyers say their proposal is in line with the desires expressed by United States District Judge Dan Polster. Judge Polster is presently presiding over the case and has expressed his belief that a national settlement should be reached that would address the crisis in a meaningful way.

Joe Rice is a lawyer with the Motley Rice law firm and is one lawyer working for the plaintiffs in the case. Rice says the proposal will allow companies to act in good faith toward the community without fear of more lawsuits being filed.

Rice says the objective is to form a national group of plaintiffs that will have the power to vote and negotiate a shared settlement. Rice was willing to acknowledge that the proposal may be opposed by some defendants who fear great exposure to liability.

University of Georgia Law Professor Elizabeth Chamblee Burch says it is not clear at this time if the court will give class action status to such a large group of municipalities.

Cardinal Health Inc. is a drug distributor and a defendant in the case. Cardinal Health said the proposal is a novel one that is untested. The drug distributor also said the proposal is likely to be challenged legally and years of litigation could result from these challenges.

The Center for Disease Control in the United States reported 47,600 deaths by overdose in 2017.

The lawsuit alleges that drug makers fueled the opioid crisis by overstating the positive benefits of opioid-based drugs and downplaying the risks of addiction.

Read More:

Andrew Cuomo Tenant Protection Legislation

(June 15, 2019) The strongest tenant protection legislation in history was passed and signed by Governor Andrew Cuomo yesterday in New York. The legislation heralds the end of rent regulation laws to expire on a schedule of every four to eight years as has been for many years. This will make it much more difficult, if not impossible, for existing housing protected by rent stabilization to be removed from rent stabilization programs. The existing laws expire today. The passage of the bill currently only applies to NYC, Westchester, Rockland, and Nassau counties, The passage of the bill currently only applies to NYC, Westchester, Rockland, and Nassau counties, but there is the option for other municipalities and towns to choose to adopt the legislation should they qualify.

It will greatly stifle MCI’s, major capital improvements, where landlords make repairs and renovations, often at inflated costs, to justify rent increases. Up to now, landlords who were making major renovations were allowed to raise rents by 6 percent. The new law will only allow a 2 percent increase. It will also redefine what actually constitutes an MCI. Landlords predicting this would bill would be passed had been scrambling to get their MCI’s approved before the legislation was enacted. The new bill is called the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019.

Since the Democrats gained control of the Senate last year to join the already Democrat Assembly, there was no doubt that the new laws would be passed. Mayor DiBlasio of NYC expressed his pleasure at the ratification of the bill.

Landlord groups disappointed with the new legislation plan to file suit as early as Monday. They are especially displeased with the idea that the laws have no expiration as they did before.

The real estate industry as a whole is up in arms over the legislation. Realtors claim that the new laws will neither benefit landlords nor renters, and will ultimately harm both.

Read More:

Court Makes Ruling On Marijuana Possession In Prisons

California is one of the many states in the United States taking measures to legalize marijuana in some way. Proposition 64 in California allowed people in the state to possess small amounts of marijuana without being charged with a felony. A court in California ruled that Proposition 64 should apply to those incarcerated in California prisons as well.

This week, the California Third District Court of Appeals made a ruling on a case that involved five inmates within the California correctional system. The five inmates were found to be in possession of small amounts of marijuana. These inmates were charged with felonies for possession of the substance.

According to NY Times, in a divided decision, a three judge panel ruled that Proposition 64 applies to those in prison as well. The judges ruled that the five inmates could not be charged with felonies for possession. However, the judges also issued some clarifications to the ruling that has left the legal community in California confused.

The court ruled that the inmates could not be charged with felonies for possession, but the court also ruled that inmates could be charged with felonies for smoking or ingesting marijuana while they are incarcerated. The judges also ruled that while the inmates couldn’t be charged for possession, the prison system can still ban marijuana from prisons as a way to maintain safety and order within the state’s prisons.

The court stated that there needed to be new legislation passed in order to make the situation in prisons more clear. The judges also stated that a new referendum is another possible solution to the confusion.

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra expressed his disapproval with the decision of the majority of judges. At this time, it is not known of Mr. Becerra will appeal the ruling in the matter to the California Supreme Court.

Trump Announced Willingness to Accept Information on Rivals

CNN just reported that President Donald J. Trump expressed a willingness to accept damaging information on his political opponents in the event that it was offered to him by a foreign government. President Trump followed up these comments by stating that he would not necessarily feel compelled to inform the FBI or other law enforcement officials that he had contact with a foreign government official about U.S. political matters. He gave the interview to an ABC News correspondent and was also particularly dismissive of the outcome of the special investigation into Russia’s role in meddling in the 2016 presidential election.

When pressed about how he could justify a foreign government hypothetically offering this influential information as something other than foreign meddling in the U.S. election process, Trump says that providing information does not necessarily amount to interference. He downplayed the suggestion from his own FBI director that it would be a wise move for administration officials to inform the FBI whenever they have meaningful contact about a U.S. election with a foreign official. He went a step further in claiming that he has never called the FBI for any reason in his entire life and doesn’t intend to start doing so now.

In what has become typical of his political posturing, Trump dispensed with the idea that he would need political dirt on an opponent in order to win his next election. Instead of saying how he would use any negative information on a rival, Trump simply stated that he would be willing to listen to the foreign official to at least find out the nature of the information before deciding whether to use it or not.

In regards to the role that information from Russian officials may have played in influencing the outcome of the 2016 presidential election, Trump claimed that he pushed back on Russian officials and declined to use information that was presented to him. He continues to deny that information spread by Russia had any meaningful impact on the outcome of the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

Democratic lawmakers, such as Rep. Brenda Lawrence of Michigan, were outraged at the remarks from Trump and claimed that it is further evidence of his brazen disregard for the law and willingness to allow Russia to interfere with our election process. They contend these statements support the claims that Trump illegally colluded with Russia in order to win the election.

House Panel To Vote Wednesday On Potential Contempt Charges For Senior Trump Officials

A vote will be taken by the Oversight Committee of the House of Representatives on Wednesday to determine whether contempt of Congress charges should be levied against Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and Attorney General William Barr. The potential charges are a result of the Committee’s belief that two men worked to stonewall an investigation regarding the 2020 Census being used as part of a politicized scheme.

Elijah Cummings is the Democratic representative who acts as the chairman of the committee. Cummings says both Barr and Ross have been issued subpoenas from Congress and are refusing to comply. Cummings said the vote to enforce the subpoenas is necessary because the two men are presently in contempt of Congress.

Ross characterized the vote as an ’empty stunt’ on the part of the committee. He says he was interviewed for seven hours and provided 14,000 pages of documents to the Committee.

If the vote by the Committee finds the pair in contempt, then the entire House will vote. If the House as a whole agree the men are in contempt, Barr and Ross can be taken to court in order to force their compliance.

According to the NY Times report, the source of the disagreement is a plan by President Donald Trump’s administration to include a new question pertaining to citizenship on the questionnaire to be used for next year’s census.

Critics of the question say it will deter immigrants from taking part in the Census. Democrats say this can handicap there party by causing them to undercount states that support them.

Ross counters this argument by saying the question is needed to protect the Voting Rights Act. The Act makes it necessary to keep an accurate count of Americans of voting age to make sure the rights of minority voters are not infringed upon.

Democrats on the Committee say the contempt vote was only scheduled after Barr and Ross failed to produce requested documents for two full months after a subpoena was issued.

Ross, according to the Committee, says he personally added the question to the Census, after a request was made from the Department of Justice.

Panel members allege Ross began a covert campaign to have the question added to the Census not long after his appointment. They also say it was many months before any request was made from the Department of Justice.

The Department of Justice has not responded to requests for comments over the scheduled contempt of Congress vote.

Alex Jones To Make $15,000 Payment To Creator Of Pepe The Frog

The artist and creator of the character “Pepe the Frog” is not pleased at all with what his creation has been used for. What began as an innocent children’s cartoon character has been adopted by the alt-right movement and incorporated into a number of racist or sexist memes over the last few years. It is something that has greatly troubled the creator of this cartoon, and it has worried many others as well.

Conspiracy theorist Alex Jones has had to show up in court as a result of this cartoon begin used in promotional advertisements for himself. He did this without the permission of the artist, and the artist decided that he wanted to sue the radio host in order to see some justice in this case. Alex Jones showed up in a California court to sign a settlement agreement in the case. He will pay $15,000 to the creator of the cartoon as a result of this settlement according to NPR.

About one month ago a judge in the case limited the jury award amount in this case to $14,000. Jones agreed to pay that plus $1,000 that will be donated to charity in the settlement agreement. The attorney’s for the Pepe artist say that it was a win for their client even though they would have liked to have seen him awarded a lot more money than he ended up receiving.

The artist in this case has continued to distance himself from those who have hijacked his creation for their own political purposes. He insists that he wants nothing to do with what these individuals are using Pepe for, and he says that this was never the intent behind the creation of Pepe in the first place. He insists that the character was meant to represent the everyday person, and the fact that he has been taken hostage by the alt-right is something that no one should be thrilled about.

Alex Jones quickly agreed to pay the settlement to get this particular legal issue off of his docket. He has been in and out of courts in recent years as he has grown increasingly conspiratorial on his radio show and has on occasion taken things to such an extreme that he has been sued for his words and actions. This is just a blip on the radar for him in terms of the legal battles that he is currently battling, but it is an important victory for some regardless.


Unborn Act, House Bill 126

Last month, Missouri’s governor, Mike Parson, signed pro-life legislation, Missouri Stands for the Unborn Act, a bill also known as House Bill 126, prohibiting abortions after 8 weeks with exceptions for risking the life of the mother. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a petition for a referendum which was denied by Secretary of State, Jay Ashcroft, on the grounds that an emergency clause in the bill which went immediately into effect with the governor’s signature would make a referendum in this case contrary to the Missouri State Constitution. The clause states that both parents of minors seeking abortions need to be notified. The rest of the bill is set to pass on August 28.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has filed a lawsuit against Ashcroft, claiming that the clause does not constitute an emergency since, as it already stood, at least one parent had to be notified, and the people should have their right to a referendum. Ashcroft’s response was that “the court clearly states the determination about whether or not an emergency clause is proper or not is a matter for the courts.” He says that the point remains that any bill with a provision in it that has already been passed precludes the bill from going to a referendum. The ACLU contends that the only reason the clause was included was to preempt a referendum.

A spokesperson from the ACLU said that refusing to allow the referendum proves that those in favor of the bill know they’re acting against the wishes of the majority, and that is why they don’t want it to go to a referendum. Republican House Speaker, Elijah Haahr, was grateful the Governor signed the bill because he said it reflects the values of the majority of the state’s population.

As it stands now, Missouri has only one abortion clinic located in St. Louis. If the law goes into effect on August 28th, any doctor performing an abortion could face up to 15 years in prison, though there is no stipulation that the woman receiving the abortion would be prosecuted.

King Trump Gave English Conservatives A Heavy Dose Of His Snake Oil

China keeps eating away at the American economy. But Trump likes his tariff plan. He thinks it will bring China back to the bargaining table. And he likes the way he doubled down by banning Huawei from doing business in the United States.

Trump told his voter base he holds the winning trade hand. The Chinese will have to let him mess with their laws, or he will make sure every American citizen financially suffers in the process.

But China was ready for Trump’s hardball approach. They know Mr. Trump must have some trade deal in the books before the 2020 election. But China is in no hurry to give Trump what he wants. Little by little, the Chinese take bites out of America’s economy while Trump claims he has the upper hand. China fined Ford’s China division $24 million for breaking Chinese laws. And the government wants to fine FedEx as well as other American companies doing business in China.

According to CNN, chinese tourists may keep their $34.4 billion in the bank instead of spending it in the United States. The Chinese government said the U.S. police might give them a hard time for no reason, and they might be a crime victim. The soybean farmers got a kick in the face when China did not write any future soybean contracts. According to the Brazilian press, Brazil will fill those contracts.

The China trade war may prompt the Feds to cut the interest rates, according to Fed Chair Jerome Powell. Powell didn’t say he would cut rates right away. The Reserve Board doesn’t know how long Trump’s tariff game will continue. But some financial analysts say the Feds may cut the rates in September and December because of Trump’s economic missteps.

British spy Christopher Steele will tell investigators what he knows about Trump’s salacious behavior in Russia in 2015. Mr. Steele wrote a report for the Democrats. Former FBI director James Comey saw the report, and he put an FBI tail on the Trump campaign. There were signs Trump had a close relationship with Russian officials.

Mr. Trump feels very British now that the Royal Mother let him pat her on the back. Trump tried to get Prince Charles to change the subject when he brought up climate change. Trump was too busy picking the next prime minister to bother with Charles concern over what the Trumpster calls the weather. He interviewed conservative candidates as if he was in the process of filming a segment of Celebrity Apprentice. Several candidates sucked up to the Trumpster. They want to part of his growing worldwide cult.

Jack Phillips and The Cake Legal Battles

A Controversial Lawsuit
Recently, Colorado Public Radio did an article about a lawsuit that is being brought up against Jack Phillips. Phillips is the owner of a Colorado based cake shop. Phillips had been in the news in previous years because of his refusal to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding. In 2012, a discrimination complaint was filed against Phillips, and it made its way all the way to the Supreme Court. In the end, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Philips because the judges decided that Philips had been discriminated against.

What is Different about this New Lawsuit?
The lawsuit that has recently been raised against Phillips is taking the state of Colorado completely out of the equation. The attorney who is representing the transgender woman believes that they will win in state courts because there are no first amendment or religious implications that would allow this cake shop to discriminate against her. Apart from alleging that Phillips acted in a discriminatory way, the lawsuit also indicates that Phillips was deceptive in his wording.

What Does Phillips Say?
Jack Phillips says that he will not allow anyone to violate his Christian principles. With that, he has mentioned that he has often declined to make Halloween cakes and he also declines to make cakes that are disrespectful of LGBTQ people. Phillips believes that the government does not have the right to compel him to participate in the creation of any that would force him to promote a message that he does not agree with.

More on the Suit
This lawsuit is being filed by a transgender woman named Autumn Scardina. Scardina wanted Phillips to make her a cake to celebrate her gender transition and her birthdate. Scardina is hoping that the courts will take action against the discriminatory behavior that she claims to have experienced.

Despite Spending $619 Million On Homelessness, Population Rises 12 Percent Across Los Angeles County

Homeless populations across the United States tend to be most concentrated in the most populated cities. As such, the most populated state in the country, California, is plagued with homelessness more than any other state.

Los Angeles, the second-largest city in the United States and the largest in California, has been forced to deal with a homelessness problem of its own for many years.

Despite modern technology, research, and funding, Los Angeles, California, faced a recent year-on-year growth in its homeless population of 12 percent. This growth comes from homeless people counted all across Los Angeles County.

According to Fox News, reports of this finding first came from city officials on Tuesday, June 4, 2019. At yesterday’s meeting of high-ranking local political figures who belong to the Los Angeles Board of Supervisors, the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority presented the aforementioned report, the main finding of which was that homelessness had grown across Los Angeles County during 2018.

Right now, according to the report from the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority, there are some 58,900 homeless people living across Los Angeles County. Predictably, the city of Los Angeles contributed the highest count of homeless people to the county’s overall homeless population with some 36,000.

Last year, the same agency reported to the Los Angeles Board of Supervisors that Los Angeles County was home to roughly 53,000 homeless persons. City and state officials have spoken out in large part since the release of the findings to the public early yesterday, almost all of whom shared either explicitly or implicitly that they were upset about the county’s expenditure of $619 million on programs directly related to curbing homelessness in the area or indirectly linked to the other common problems that often plague people suffering from homelessness.

The demographic of homeless people in Los Angeles County experiencing the most substantial growth in population from the beginning to the end of 2018 was those who were under 25 years of age. This age group rose nearly 25 percent in total population across all of Los Angeles County.

Homelessness happens to people of all backgrounds and current living situations. County and state officials want to fight the problem as a means of giving rights to all people, especially those most affected by society’s unfair problems, as well as cutting down on public health issues like increased rates of HIV and hepatitis spread, intravenous drug use, and prostitution.

President Trump Makes Important Trip to England

It has been a very busy time for President Donald Trump. He just wrapped up a very successful trip to Japan where he met with Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. He will soon begin a visit to England where he will be meeting with Queen Elizabeth II. It is no secret that Trump is not a well liked man across the pond. However, his trip to England is very important because he needs to maintain civility with one of America’s most powerful allies. The relationship between the United States and Great Britain has been a long and storied one. However, threats of protests have prevented Trump from visiting England to attend the opening of a new embassy.

President Trump was not invited to the wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle. This was seen as a situation that could sour Trump’s view of England. However, he has never mentioned it in any of his tweets. Therefore, many people assume that he would not have gone even if he was invited. Trump usually has no filter on Twitter. When he is angry about something, he lets you know about it. For example, Trump called the mayor of London a loser because of the negative comments that were made about him.

There are many people in the British government who are not fans of Trump either. It is common for U.S. presidents who are visiting England to make an address to Parliament. Trump was not invited to do so. This is because several key British politicians are not in favor of the travel ban against Muslims from several countries that President Trump imposed. Some protesting throughout London is to be expected during Trump’s visit. As a result of this, additional police officers will be positioned at various critical points throughout the city to ensure public safety.

According to BBC, President Trump will be visiting England at a very interesting time. The country is currently going through a chaotic time politically. They have tried to break away from the European Union. However, Prime Minister Theresa May was not able to secure a deal. Therefore, the United Kingdom was forced to prolong their stay in the European Union until later this year. Leaving without a deal could cause very serious economic problems for England. May said that Trump told her that she should file a lawsuit against the European Union. She did not give any indication about whether or not she will do that.

Undocumented Migrants are Failing to Appear at Asylum Hearings

With its last pilot program in connection with undocumented immigrants, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) established that about one-third of all children crossing the border into the United States were not the biological children of the adults they accompanied. Now, according to Breitbart News, the results of the most recent pilot program conducted by DHS have established that 87% of all undocumented migrant asylum seekers who have been caught and released into the United States failed to appear at their court dates. Most of those people are given work permits that allow them to take jobs in the United States prior to the time of their asylum hearings.

The individuals who failed to appear at their court hearings were recently labeled “fugitives” in congressional testimony by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent. At the same hearing, a different federal immigration agent testified that only about 12% of all undocumented aliens who finish the asylum application process actually qualify for it. One commentator remarked such a small percentage is representative of the “enormous fraud and abuse” of U.S. immigration laws.

As per Harvard-Harris pollsters, two out of every three American voters are opposed to catching and releasing undocumented migrants after they have crossed into the United States. Many of them have ranked a reduction on all immigration into the country as one of their top national priorities. To date, border apprehensions for the 2019 year are running at a faster pace than every fiscal year of the Obama administration. Although many Americans believe that a border wall will affect the influx of undocumented migrants, only about 42 miles of it have been built. Much of that consisted of replacement barriers.

When an undocumented migrant applies for asylum and fails to appear at his or her asylum hearing, their application is forfeited. Given the fact that such a high number of undocumented migrants are not appearing at their asylum hearings, Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel must contend with trying to locate, identify and deport each such individual. That has been characterized as nearly impossible and a great burden on federal resources. In the most recent congressional hearing, no proposals were made on how to tackle the failure to appear issue.

South Dakota v Wayfair Has Far Reaching Implications For Online Retailers

The South Dakota v Wayfair decision will have a major impact on small online retailers. The U.S. Supreme Court sided with South Dakota, which sued Internet retailer Wayfair, along with six other online retailers, for not collecting a 4.5 percent sales tax. While Wayfair didn’t have a presence in the state, it made at least 200 sales to residents. South Dakota also wants out-of-state online retailers to collect sales tax if they make at least $100,000 in sales, regardless of the number of orders.

Previous Supreme Court decisions, such as Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, said states couldn’t collect sales tax if the online retailer didn’t have a physical presenter in the state. Quill Corp. v. North Dakota was decided in the early 1990s; Internet sales have skyrocket since then. Brick and mortar retailer have to collect sales tax so many people are turning to online retailers to avoid paying sales tax on big-ticket items.

According to, smaller online retailers now have to understand and comply with each state’s laws about collecting sales tax, besides keeping up with any rapid changes in the laws. Large retailers typically already have the resources to do this, but the compliance burden on small online companies is enormous. Unless the federal government creates a uniform law for all fifty states, it will force small online retailers to spend more on compliance, which will decrease their ability to compete with major brands online.

An e-commerce seller could end up with a large tax bill if they don’t keep track of sales tax laws across the country. For unprepared website owners, this could be a disaster. States can go back years to collect from website owners who should have been collecting sales tax from residents, but didn’t do so. Tack on interest and penalties, the website owner could face a hefty bill.

Mexican President Busts Down On Corruption By Taking In Former Pemex CEO

Mexico is home to one of the most corrupt societies on planet Earth, ranking 138th out of 180 spots in terms of not being corrupt, where first place belongs to the least corrupt country, according to the Corruption Perceptions Index 2018, which is published by Transparency International.

Cartels essentially run the country, openly growing cannabis and opium poppy fields to sell and process then sell, respectively, almost exclusively to the United States, the largest drug consumer in the world. These drug cartels also engage in human trafficking, ranging from getting illegal immigrants across the Mexican-United States border and into the land of opportunity, all the way to smuggling kidnapped women to use for prostitution.

One of the newest, most innovative ways that Mexico’s drug cartels have expanded their operations is by tapping into gas and oil pipelines, siphoning off as much fuel as possible, then selling it at discount prices to gas stations, refineries, and distributors.

All of this fuel is stolen directly from Mexico’s government-owned petroleum business, known as Petróleos Mexicanos, though most people refer to it as Pemex, its trade name. It is believed that, according to the Mexican Association of Gas Station Owners, that fuel stolen by established drug cartels and smaller criminal interests alike makes up some one-third of all the gasoline sold in Mexico in a day’s time. This organization also estimates that some $21.7 million is generated in gross revenue each and every day from stolen fuel sales.

Andres Manual Lopez Obrador, the current Mexican President, has sworn to come down hard on corruption in Mexico. Earlier today, on Tuesday, May 28, 2019, a high-ranking judge filed a warrant for the arrest of Emilio Lozoya, the now-former CEO of Pemex. His bank accounts have been frozen, as well as the other company that he owns, Altos Hornos de Mexico SA.

Emilio Lozoya, according to Bloomberg, was arrested due to his involvement in the sale of an industrial fertilizer manufacturing facility that didn’t work to Pemex for a whopping $475 million in 2014. The current Mexican administration indicates that the plant was worth just $50 million.

Lozoya was a former right-hand man of Enrique Peña Nieto, the most recent president of Mexico. It’s said that Lozoya took $10 million from Odebrecht, a Brazilian building company, in the form of bribes to wrongfully and out contracts to Odebrecht.

Recent Supreme Court Ruling Says Part Of Pence’s 2016 Indiana Abortion Law Is Bogus

When the United States’ current Vice President was the Governor of Indiana, he signed a law into action that made it illegal for pregnant women to seek out abortions if their physicians anticipate their in-progress children will be birthed with one or more disabilities. At the time, the Indiana law signed by Mike Pence was one of the most restrictive in the United States. The bill also stated that Indiana would not allow abortions sought out because of sex, nation of origin, race, skin color, or heritage.

The bill was called House Enrolled Act 1337, or HEA 1337.

Earlier today, on Tuesday, May 28, 2019, the United States Supreme Court handed down a ruling that part of the aforementioned law could not be legally enforced from now on.

However, fetuses that have already been aborted and who are awaiting cremation must, in fact, be buried as planned.

Although now-former Indiana Governor Pence was all for the bill being enacted, the 7th United States Circuit Court of Appeals blocked it from actually being written into law books. The Circuit Court’s judge who ruled on the case, Judge William Bauer, stated in a written ruing that Indiana’s pending law was unconstitutional.

Earlier today, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas decided not to limit the scope in which pregnant women could pursue abortions today, though Thomas did state that the Supreme Court “soon [needs] to confront” the hot-button abortion issue. It’s not immediately clear when the Supreme Court will tackle this issue. Some experts believe that the ruling won’t happen at any time throughout the next few months, if not year or two – or three.

Others believe that, because the other four right-leaning Supreme Court justices did not agree with Justice Thomas on addressing the issue in the future at the federal level – Brett Kavanaugh, Samuel Alito, John Roberts, and Neil Gorsuch – meaning that Clarence Thomas’ opinion could be exactly that: nothing more than an opinion.

Abortions were first made legal in the United States as the result of the Supreme Court’s ruling on the 1973 case Roe v. Wade, when the highest court of law in the country voted in favor of giving women the right to privacy, effectively allowing pregnant women themselves to decide if they should get abortions, by a margin of 7–2.

This precedent is likely to strike down Alabama’s recent abortion bill, as well as the one Georgia passed.