Indiana passed a ban on gender-affirming care for minors that goes into effect July 1, but they told a federal judge the ACLU's lawsuit is too complex to deal with by July 1.
Sounds like classic Rokita.
Vindictive, cruel, hateful creeps.
I suggest the Indiana lawyers bring on a few more clerks, work a few more hours, quit taking long lunch breaks and
get the work done. Everyone
is supposed to have a quick
fair hearing/trial, according to
the Constitution. No running out the clock to cause harm.
"We don't have time to deal with this suit, so if anyone is impacted by the subject due to procedural delays they'll just have to sue us separately and create even more separate work for us that we will totally be able to address"
Then it is necessary to stay the law until the state is capable of responding to it.
Or just grant a summary judgement to the ACLU that the law is unconstitutional.
Asking for stays, continuances, extensions, vacations, etc. in general or until some other motion is decided is the most normal lawyerly thing in the world. I do it about once a month. I'm guessing (assuming you practice law; this my first exposure to your work, so forgive my ignorance) you do the same.
In particular, federal can be weird about this kind of thing. I actually just had a request for an extension of time on my last day to make a motion for summary judgment denied. My application would have sailed through in state court (and indeed, in most federal courts), but for some reason, some federal judges want to you explain (as I've learned from the court's order on my request) in great detail what else it is that you're doing that makes you unable to do XYZ in the presently-allotted time. It's weird and wrong and bad, but it's apparently what's expected sometimes.
Also, the requested relief implies that the Court should grant the preliminary injunction and/or a TRO to provide the time for briefing requested by the AG but preventing prejudice to the plaintiffs. If I were the judge, at the (no doubt ex parte) hearing on this request, I'd ask the AG about that.
Acting like it's some major infraction is weird and smacks of bad faith. This is the first I'm hearing of this particular dispute, so I could very well be missing something; in that case, please enlighten me.
I’m only a modest mortgage backed securitization lawyer, and my own experience in class actions is limited to my role as a defendant in seven of them--so cum salis. Numerosity ✔️Comminality ✔️ Typicality ✔️ Adequacy ✔️ and 23(b)(2) relief only does the one of ✔️ Is defendant actually going to ask independent evaluation of the class representatives for patient conditions? Or do document discovery on the provider records to establish whether their medical practices actually do include treatment subject to proscriptions? I call BS.
I'd love to see the court order that the legislature from now on has to violate people's rights one at a time, with ample time between the laws, to give everyone at the state time to dither around trying to come up with a reason for the violation.
Seems the court summarily spanked these Indiana law gerbils for trying to be too smart by half. I hope the court keeps its ruler handy for further spankings.