\u201cPenn stated that his purpose in coming to the room was to \u2018turn up, smoke, and chill\u2019 and to examine a firearm he was considering purchasing.\u201d He said he napped there. He had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the room and thus no standing. United States v. Penn, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 180326 (E.D. Tenn. Oct. 18, 2019).*<\/p>\n
This is a mandamus action seeking to abort the seeking of an injunction against an abortion law. \u201cThis is an extraordinary case. An abortion clinic and two of its doctors seek a federal injunction against virtually all of Louisiana’s legal framework for regulating abortion. As part of this effort, Plaintiffs challenge legal provisions that do not injure them now and could not ever injure them. The district court, however, concluded it would be “untenable” to make Plaintiffs establish their standing because doing so would make it more difficult for them to succeed on the merits. That was obvious error. Still, we exercise our discretion not to grant Defendants’ mandamus petition at this time because we are confident it is unnecessary.\u201d One of the claims still going forward is whether the state\u2019s administrative inspection process violates the Fourth Amendment. In re Gee<\/a>, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 31071 (5th Cir. Oct. 18, 2019).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" \u201cPenn stated that his purpose in coming to the room was to \u2018turn up, smoke, and chill\u2019 and to examine a firearm he was considering purchasing.\u201d He said he napped there. He had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the … Continue reading