Latest Case: Maryland Shall Issue, Inc. v. Hogan (Civil Rights)

Stay the Course: The Supreme Court Respects Abortion Rights Precedent

JOANNA L. GROSSMAN

SMU Dedman School of Law professor Joanna L. Grossman comments on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in June Medical Services v. Russo, in which a 5-4 majority of the Court struck down a Louisiana law regulating abortion providers. Grossman describes the history of abortion decisions that got us to this place today and explains why the core right to seek a previability abortion without undue burden from the government remains intact.

Read More

What Chief Justice Roberts’s June Medical Concurrence Tells Us About the Future of Abortion

JAREB GLECKEL

Jareb Gleckel assesses what Chief Justice John Roberts’s concurrence in the June Medical decision might tell us about the future of abortion in the United States. Gleckel suggests that the concurrence suggests that the Chief Justice will not vote to overrule Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey but cautions that the test the Chief Justice embraces could provide a roadmap for anti-abortion states going forward.

Read More

Maryland Shall Issue, Inc. v. Hogan

Docket: 18-2474

Opinion Date: June 29, 2020

Judge: Stephanie Dawn Thacker

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law

MSI filed suit challenging Maryland Senate Bill 707 banning "rapid fire trigger activators" - devices that, when attached to a firearm, increase its rate of fire or trigger activation -- as violating the Takings Clause of the United States Constitution as well as Maryland's takings provisions. MSI also alleged that the statute is void for vagueness. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint based on MSI's lack of standing. The court held that MSI lacked organizational standing; the district court properly dismissed the pre-enforcement vagueness challenge for lack of standing; appellants failed to state a claim that the statute violates the Takings Clause; and the district court properly determined that SB-707 does not violate Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights. The court explained that, although SB-707 may make the personal property economically worthless, owners are aware of that possibility in areas where the State has a traditionally high degree of control. In this case, SB-707 does not alter the rights appellants possessed when they purchased their rapid fire trigger activators, nor does it impose new liability back to the date of purchase. Rather, appellants had fair notice of the change in law, because SB-707 was passed six months before it first went into effect.