Social worker sues Louisiana health department over need review policy by David Jacobs, The Center Square | January 13, 2021 09:00 AM Print this article
A New Orleans social worker has sued Louisiana Department of Health leaders, arguing that denying her a license violated her constitutional rights.
Ursula Newell-Davis, founder of Sivad Home and Community Health Services, is not challenging the need for the license itself, only the state’s “facility need review” policy, which requires certain types of providers to show their services are needed before they can get a license to practice and receive taxpayer dollars through the state’s Medicaid program.
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
In the wake of Arthrex’s initial merits brief, amicus briefs in support of Arthrex’s position were filed December 29
th and 30
th. In the
Arthrex cases (docketed as 19-1434), the parties have persuaded the Supreme Court to review a decision by the Federal Circuit holding that administrative patent judges (APJs) are principal officers and that their appointments violate the Appointments Clause of the Constitution. Previous articles on the PTAB Trial Insights blog have discussed the initial briefs from Smith & Nephew and the United States, and from Arthrex. Unlike the 19 amicus briefs filed in support of Smith & Nephew and the United States (or in support of no party), which contained a wide array of arguments and positions, most of the 12 briefs filed in support of Arthrex adhered to Athrex’s position in the case.
It was Thomas Jefferson, in fact, who fought one of the earliest and most eyebrow-raising battles against government clamps on freedom of speech. In 1798, he opposed President John Adams’s “Alien and Sedition Acts,” a set of laws that actually prohibited citizens and members of the press from criticizing political leaders.
It was government censorship of citizen speech, pure and simple.
“The Sedition Act,” Pacific Legal Foundation wrote, “specifically outlawed conspiracies ‘to oppose any measure or measures of the government’ and also outlawed publishing ‘any false, scandalous and malicious writing against Congress or the president.’”
Fast-forward to today and the left is pressing a modern-day equivalent of these sedition censorship laws. The target is President Donald Trump. The target is the conservative base. The target is even the Christian community.
Thursday, January 7, 2021
In the wake of Arthrex’s initial merits brief, amicus briefs in support of Arthrex’s position were filed December 29
th and 30
th. In the
Arthrex cases (docketed as 19-1434), the parties have persuaded the Supreme Court to review a decision by the Federal Circuit holding that administrative patent judges (APJs) are principal officers and that their appointments violate the Appointments Clause of the Constitution. Previous articles on the PTAB Trial Insights blog have discussed the initial briefs from Smith & Nephew and the United States, and from Arthrex. Unlike the 19 amicus briefs filed in support of Smith & Nephew and the United States (or in support of no party), which contained a wide array of arguments and positions, most of the 12 briefs filed in support of Arthrex adhered to Athrex’s position in the case.