Podcast appearances and mentions of Cameron V Emw

On March 3, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Cameron v. EMW Women's Surgical Center. Writing for the 8-1 majority, Justice Samuel Alito explained how the the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit erred in denying the Kentucky attorney general's motion to intervene on the commonwealth's behalf in litigation concerning Kentucky House Bill 454, related to the rights of the unborn. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Kagan filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Breyer joined. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion.Featuring: Philip D. Williamson, Partner, Taft, Stettinius & Hollister LLP

On March 3, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Cameron v. EMW Women’s Surgical Center. Writing for the 8-1 majority, Justice Samuel Alito explained how the the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit erred in denying the Kentucky attorney general's motion to intervene on the commonwealth's behalf in litigation concerning Kentucky House Bill […]

On March 3, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Cameron v. EMW Women’s Surgical Center. Writing for the 8-1 majority, Justice Samuel Alito explained how the the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit erred in denying the Kentucky attorney general's motion to intervene on the commonwealth's behalf in litigation concerning Kentucky House Bill […]

On March 3, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Cameron v. EMW Women's Surgical Center. Writing for the 8-1 majority, Justice Samuel Alito explained how the the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit erred in denying the Kentucky attorney general's motion to intervene on the commonwealth's behalf in litigation concerning Kentucky House Bill 454, related to the rights of the unborn. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Kagan filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Breyer joined. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion.Our expert will cover the case, the ruling, and its implications.Featuring: -- Philip D. Williamson, Partner, Taft, Stettinius & Hollister LLP

On October 12, 2021 the Court heard oral argument in Cameron v. EMW Women’s Surgical Center, a case which concerned whether a state attorney general vested with the power to defend state law should be permitted to intervene after a federal court of appeals invalidates a state statute when no other state actor will defend the law. Joining today to discuss this argument and its implications is Elbert Lin, Partner and co-chair of the Issue and Appeals practice at Hunton Andrews Kurth.

This week's case covers Cameron v. EMW Women's Surgical Center, which asks whether or not the Kentucky Attorney General can intervene in a case to defend a defunct abortion law when everyone else in the government has given up, but also Nazim's birthday, Nazim's favorite taco, and Nazim's ideal birthday dessert.  Law starts at (10:08).

October 12, 2021 Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Cameron v. EMW Women's Surgical Center | 10/12/21 | Docket #: 20-601

Cameron v. EMW Women's Surgical Center

A case in which the Court will decide whether a state attorney general should be permitted to intervene after a federal court of appeals invalidates a state statute and no other state actor will defend the law.

In our monthly conversation with, Brad Mattes, CEO of Life Issues Institute, Brad discusses the importance of the U.S. Supreme Court's announcement that it will review the case of Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron v. EMW Women's Surgical Center. The case concerns efforts by AG Cameron to intervene in defense of the Kentucky ban on dismemberment abortions. Listen, pray, and share!