It’s taking up headlines because it directly affects millions of women, immediately.
The NLRB decision (also unanimous) limits their ability to obtain injunctions, but the NLRB only does this a couple of times a month nationwide and most people will never notice a change.
Moreover, the law has never permitted doctors to challenge the government’s loosening of general public safety requirements simply because more individuals might then show up at emergency rooms or in doctors’ offices with follow-on injuries. Citizens and doctors who object to what the law allows others to do may always take their concerns to the Executive and Legislative Branches and seek greater regulatory or legislative restrictions
Pg 3 of the opinion
No one wants to set a precedent for sueing the government every time they don’t stop a potential bad thing from happening.
That’s wholly incorrect.
They refused to consider the case because “the plaintiffs failed to show they had suffered any injury”.
Meanwhile, this case is taking up headlines at the same time the Supreme Court released another decision eroding union rights.
It’s taking up headlines because it directly affects millions of women, immediately.
The NLRB decision (also unanimous) limits their ability to obtain injunctions, but the NLRB only does this a couple of times a month nationwide and most people will never notice a change.
The NRLB case didn’t erode anything. The decision followed precedent and kept things status quo.
Pg 3 of the opinion
No one wants to set a precedent for sueing the government every time they don’t stop a potential bad thing from happening.