CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
EMW WOMEN’S SURGICAL CENTER, P.S.C., on behalf of itself, its staff, and its patients; ASHLEE BERGIN, M.D., M.P.H. and TANYA FRANKLIN, M.D., M.S.P.H., on behalf of themselves and their patients,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
ERIC FRIEDLANDER, in his official capacity as Acting Secretary of Kentucky’s Cabinet for Health and Family Services,
Defendant-Appellant.
   No. 19-5516
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Kentucky at Louisville.
No. 3:18-cv-00224—Joseph H. McKinley, Jr., District Judge.
Argued: January 29, 2020
Decided and Filed: June 2, 2020
Before: MERRITT, CLAY, and BUSH, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

CLAY, Circuit Judge. This case asks whether a state can require patients to undergo a procedure to end potential fetal life before they may receive an abortion performed through the method most common in the second trimester of pregnancy—dilation and evacuation. Kentucky House Bill 454 does just that. Plaintiffs, Kentucky’s sole abortion clinic and two of its doctors, argue that House Bill 454 violates patients’ constitutional right to abortion access prior to fetal viability because the burdens the law imposes significantly outweigh its benefits. Defendant Eric Friedlander, the Acting Secretary of Kentucky’s Cabinet for Health and Family Services, disagrees. He contends that Kentucky may constitutionally require patients to undergo such a procedure because it is a reasonable alternative to the standard dilation and evacuation abortion. The district court agreed with Plaintiffs and permanently enjoined Kentucky from enforcing House Bill 454.

For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
IN RE: FLINT WATER CASES.

___________________________________________

LUKE WAID, Parent and Next-Friend of SR, a minor; et al.,
Plaintiffs,

ELNORA CARTHAN, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
DARNELL EARLEY, et al.,
Defendants,

RICHARD DALE SNYDER, former Governor of Michigan; ANDY DILLON, former Treasurer of Michigan,
Defendants-Appellants,

VEOLIA NORTH AMERICA, INC., VEOLIA NORTH AMERICA, LLC, VEOLIA NORTH AMERICA OPERATING SERVICES, LLC,
Intervenors-Appellees.
   No. 20-1352
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan at Ann Arbor.
Nos. 5:16-cv-10444; 5:16-cv-11247—Judith E. Levy, District Judge.
Decided and Filed: June 2, 2020
Before: MERRITT, MOORE, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

KAREN NELSON MOORE. Former State of Michigan Governor Richard Dale Snyder and former State Treasurer Andy Dillon claim that they cannot be deposed as non-party fact witnesses with respect to claims against other defendants in the litigation stemming from the Flint Water Crisis. In their view, they are immune from all discovery until they have exhausted every opportunity for appeal from the district court’s denial of their motions to dismiss based on qualified immunity. Meanwhile, other defendants and certain plaintiffs are pursuing discovery on wholly separate claims and have noticed Snyder and Dillon for non-party fact witness depositions. Snyder and Dillon moved for a protective order in the district court to stop the depositions from going forward. When their request was denied, they appealed the district court’s discovery order to this court and shortly thereafter requested a stay of the depositions until we resolve their appeal from the denial of a protective order. We DENY Snyder’s and Dillon’s request for a stay of non-party depositions pending resolution of their appeal from the district court’s order denying their request for a protective order, and we DISMISS for lack of jurisdiction their appeal from the denial of a protective order.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
WASEEM ALAM,
Defendant-Appellant.
   No. 20-1298
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.
No. 2:15-cr-20351-2—Sean F. Cox, District Judge.
Decided and Filed: June 2, 2020
Before: SUTTON, COOK, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

SUTTON, Circuit Judge. Like many Americans in poor health, 64-year-old Waseem Alam has legitimate fears about the health risks created by the COVID-19 pandemic. And like many inmates, he has ample reason to fear that a prison exacerbates those risks. But when Alam moved for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), he failed to invoke all of the options for obtaining relief from the prison. Alam asks us to overlook that reality by finding the requirement non-mandatory or by fashioning an exception of our own. But because this exhaustion requirement serves valuable purposes (there is no other way to ensure an orderly processing of applications for early release) and because it is mandatory (there is no exception for some compassionate-release requests over others), we must enforce it. We affirm the district court’s dismissal of Alam’s request without prejudice to filing a new one.