In a challenge to a restriction on late-term abortions, summary judgment for Plaintiff is reversed, where 1) the hypothetical situation posited by Plaintiff did not present a sufficiently frequent circumstance to render the statute wholly unconstitutional for all circumstances; and 2) Plaintiff did not present sufficiently concrete circumstances in which the as-applied challenge could be resolved.
Read Richmond Med. Ctr. for Women v. Herring, No. 03-1821
Appellate Information
Argued: October 28, 2008
Filed: June 24, 2009
Judges
Opinion by Judge Niemeyer
Concurrence by Judge Wilkinson
Dissent by Judge Michael
Counsel
For Appellants:
William Eugene Thro, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, VA
Robert F. McDonnell, Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, VA
Stephen R. McCullough, State Solicitor General, Richmond, VA
William C. Mims, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Richmond, VA
David E. Johnson, Deputy Attorney General, Richmond, VA
Maureen Riley Matsen, Deputy Attorney General, Richmond, VA
For Appellees:
Stephanie Toti, Center for Reproductive Rights, New York, NY
Janet Crepps, Center for Reproductive Rights, New York, NY
You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help
Civil Rights
Block on Trump’s Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
Criminal
Judges Can Release Secret Grand Jury Records
Politicians Can’t Block Voters on Facebook, Court Rules
