Law professor. Three-boy mom. Aging, decrepit ultrarunner. Social justice warrior. Dream is to own a fluffy cow.
Yale University; Oxford University Press (United Kingdom); Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia; Concordia Seminary; Barnard College • Legal Systems and Judicial Processes, Reproductive Health and Technologies, American Constitutional Law and Politics
Reposted by Brendan Nyhan, Fabián Muniesa, Joanna L. Grossman
open.substack.com/pub/theintel...
Reposted by Alan Richardson, Joanna L. Grossman
open.substack.com/pub/theintel...
Reposted by Joanna L. Grossman
zurl.co/k8X7O
JDP is here for you! Call/Text 866-999-5263.
Reposted by Joanna L. Grossman
A hundred motherf***ers can’t tell me nothing
Reposted by Joanna L. Grossman
Reposted by Joanna L. Grossman
Reposted by Joanna L. Grossman
Reposted by Joanna L. Grossman
![Access Independent Health Services, Inc., d/b/a Red River Women's Clinic, et al. v. Wrigley
No. 20240291
Per curiam.
191]
"IT]he supreme court shall not declare a legislative enactment unconstitutional unless at least four of the members of the court so decide." N.D.
Const. art. VI, S 4. Justice Crothers, joined by Justice McEvers and District Judge Narum, concluded N.D.C.C. ch. 12.1-19.1 is unconstitutionally vague under article I, § 12 of the North Dakota Constitution. Justice Tufte, joined by Chief Justice Jensen, concluded N.D.C.C. ch. 12.1-19.1 is not unconstitutional under either article 1, § 1 or article I, § 12 of the North Dakota Constitution. The effect of the separate opinions in this case is that N.D.C.C. ch. 12.1-19.1 is not declared unconstitutional by a sufficient majority and that the district court judgment declaring N.D.C.C. ch. 12.1-19.1 unconstitutional and void is reversed. See MKB Mgmt. Corp v. Burdick, 2014 ND 197, I 1, 855 N.W.2d 31 (judgment enjoining enforcement of law reversed after the Court did not reach a sufficient majority to declare the law unconstitutional).](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:beirch5u3d3ybvuct27mtyxd/bafkreic5yukownixpoocgnmab7fahmvmvbdjlk5kfenitfzrwsacil344e@jpeg)
![Crothers, Justice.
[94] The State appeals from a judgment declaring N.D.C.C. ch. 12.1-19.1
violates the North Dakota Constitution. The district court did not err when it decided the law, which criminalizes abortion with exceptions, is unconstitutionally vague. The vagueness in the law relates to when an abortion can be performed to preserve the life and health of the mother. After striking this invalid provision, the remaining portions of the law would be inoperable.
1
Because the unconstitutional part of the law cannot be severed from the rest, N.D.C.C. ch. 12.1-19.1 would be invalid in its entirety. We would affirm the district court's judgment on these grounds only and decline to address the](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:beirch5u3d3ybvuct27mtyxd/bafkreidiwgjcj3agh5xevtjjuki7abvki5kau2dkqkmcbgjqfjktt3m3ny@jpeg)
![Tufte, Justice.
[964] I depart from the majority opinion in two significant respects. First, the majority opinion extends to the natural rights guaranteed by Article I, Section 1, the more stringent vagueness standard we have previously reserved for First Amendment rights that receive the additional protection of the chilling effect doctrine. Second, the majority opinion extends our precedent to allow a pre-
37
enforcement facial challenge in which the challengers present only hypothetical future conduct as the basis for the testifying experts' disagreement about the legal application of the statute. The parties' presentation of witnesses having expertise in medicine or history who disagree about lawyer-crafted hypotheticals is not a sufficient basis for a court to declare a statute unconstitutionally vague. The majority opinion recognizes a protection against chilling exercise of the natural right asserted here, without adequately framing the right or interpreting what scope of protection it may provide to abortion. As I explain below, even assuming a stricter vagueness standard should apply to statutes implicating a constitutional right, we must first interpret both the constitutional provision and the statute to resolve whether the statute conflicts with or otherwise implicates the constitutional right. I conclude the statute challenged here prohibits abortion only in circumstances that are outside the scope of the Section 1 right of "defending life" and "obtaining safety," and thus does not implicate Section 1 such that a more stringent vagueness standard may apply under Section 12. Chapter 12.1-19.1, N.D.C.C., is not void under our ordinary test for vagueness.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:beirch5u3d3ybvuct27mtyxd/bafkreibj7v3fwu46exltyhvinmjsumy3cvlfe6scl2oefutt4cdoco7utq@jpeg)
www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-cour...
Reposted by Joanna L. Grossman
www.ms.now/opinion/msnb...
Reposted by Joanna L. Grossman
🔥🔥🔥
www.thecrimson.com/article/2025...
Reposted by Joanna L. Grossman
#fda #mifepristone #research
Reposted by Sarah Roberts, Joanna L. Grossman
There, the limit remains two months. And it’s only because of one man: Assembly Speaker Robin Vos.
By @megomatz.bsky.social
Reposted by Joanna L. Grossman
Reposted by Joseph Schafer, Joanna L. Grossman
he’s stepping back from all public commitments in light of his messages with Epstein, saying he is “deeply ashamed” and hopes “to rebuild trust and repair relationships.”
He will continue teaching.
www.thecrimson.com/article/2025...
