Displaying items by tag: courts

A Texas immigration law, one of the nation's toughest ever, has been temporarily frozen by an appeals court. The law would empower officials to detain and prosecute individuals they suspect of entering the country illegally, overriding federal authority. Although the law briefly took effect during legal manoeuvres, a three-judge panel heard arguments on its constitutionality without issuing an immediate ruling. The Justice Department requested a delayed effective date if the law were to be upheld, intending to seek emergency action from the Supreme Court. Joe Biden's administration opposed the law, on the grounds that immigrant detention should remain in its hands. Mexico denounced the law as anti-immigrant, pledging not to accept individuals deported by Texas. The law’s potential reinstatement could signify a significant departure in immigration enforcement, challenging the traditional federal authority. Crossing the US border illegally is already a federal crime, but violations are usually handled as civil cases by the immigration courts.

A family has been allowed to name their late 19-year-old daughter, Sudiksha Thirumalesh, after being denied the opportunity to seek specialist treatment abroad due to restrictive reporting regulations. Sudiksha, who suffered from a rare genetic mitochondrial disease, was engaged in a legal battle with the NHS for over six months to seek experimental treatment that could potentially have saved her life. Although she was fully conscious and able to communicate, a court order prevented her and her family from raising funds to travel to Canada for a clinical trial. Sudiksha's situation gained significant media attention, especially after her tragic death. The family, who are committed Christians, have expressed their distress at the treatment they received from the hospital trust and the courts. They felt silenced, intimidated, and prevented from accessing potential life-saving treatment for Sudiksha. Now they hope to seek justice for her and raise awareness of how critical care decisions are made in the NHS and the courts. There are calls for a more transparent and open system to prevent similar ordeals for other patients and families.

Assisted dying is once again being discussed in the media and could be discussed again in Parliament, after terminally-ill Shropshire man Noel Conway told his local paper that the UK courts have a medieval mindset over assisted dying. Mr Conway, 68, who has motor neurone disease, lost a Court of Appeal challenge in June against an earlier High Court rejection of his case that the ban on assisted dying was an unjustified interference with his human rights. He sought to challenge that at a Supreme Court hearing, but Lady Hale, Lord Reed and Lord Kerr declined permission for an appeal. Now he wants MPs to step in to overturn that decision. He wants a legal assisted death even though he has less than six months to live.