Balancing Equities and the Abortion Pill Cases, Part II
ericrasmusen.substack.com
University of Chicago Law Professor Will “Shadow Docket” Baude asked a good question after my last Substack on April 24, “Equities Should Have Been Balanced in the 2023 Abortion-Drug Litigation: A Civil Procedure Post”: One thing I had trouble parsing from the post -- and apologies if I just didn't read it carefully enough -- was what you think about the merits and the relevance of the merits. That is, if I think the standing argument is extremely weak for the plaintiffs and extremely strong for the government, does that justify being more lenient on the failure to argue the balanced equities in the way you prefer?
Balancing Equities and the Abortion Pill Cases, Part II
Balancing Equities and the Abortion Pill…
Balancing Equities and the Abortion Pill Cases, Part II
University of Chicago Law Professor Will “Shadow Docket” Baude asked a good question after my last Substack on April 24, “Equities Should Have Been Balanced in the 2023 Abortion-Drug Litigation: A Civil Procedure Post”: One thing I had trouble parsing from the post -- and apologies if I just didn't read it carefully enough -- was what you think about the merits and the relevance of the merits. That is, if I think the standing argument is extremely weak for the plaintiffs and extremely strong for the government, does that justify being more lenient on the failure to argue the balanced equities in the way you prefer?