Women want Supreme Court to overturn topless sunbathing ban
OCEAN CITY, Md. (AP) — A group of women is going all the way to the top with their challenge of a beach town ban on topless sunbathing, urging the U.S. Supreme Court to rule against allowing men but not women to show all that skin.
Ocean City, Maryland, passed its ordinance in 2017 after one of the plaintiffs, Chelsea Eline, contacted local police and asserted a right to go topless, The Daily Times reported.
The three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond ruled unanimously in August that the ordinance is constitutional, noting that courts across the country have upheld such measures. The court then denied a request to rehear the case.
Town leaders are within their rights to impose a restriction on women but not men in order to protect public sensibilities, Judge A. Marvin Quattlebaum Jr. wrote. Chief Judge Roger Gregory concurred, noting that U.S. Supreme Court precedent requires upholding the ban. But he suggested the court should reconsider the issue.
“At first glance, Ocean City’s ordinance seems innocuous enough. ... But we must take care not to let our analysis be confined by the limits of our social lens,” Gregory wrote. “Suppose the ordinance defined nudity to include public exposure of a woman’s hair, neck, shoulders, or ankles. Would that law not run afoul of the Equal Protection Clause?”
The petition asks whether “protecting traditional moral sensibilities” is a governmental interest so important that it merits discriminating against all women. It urges the justices to declare that the ordinance violates the equal protection clause “because the discriminatory gender classification contained in the ordinance does not further an important governmental interest, and is not narrowly tailored to achieve its objective.”
High court won’t hear Mississippi lawsuit over talcum powder
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday turned away a request by Johnson & Johnson to halt a Mississippi lawsuit over its talcum power products.
As is typical, the high court did not say anything in turning away the case, which was included in a long list of cases the court said it would not hear.
The case dates to 2014, when Mississippi sued Johnson & Johnson. Mississippi argues the company violated state law by failing to warn users of “dangerous and potentially lethal” health risks of using its products, which Mississippi says increase the risk of ovarian cancer in women.
Johnson & Johnson says that the Food and Drug Administration had considered requiring a warning on talcum powder products and concluded that the evidence did not justify requiring one. It has argued that Mississippi is barred from suing, but Mississippi courts allowed the case to proceed.
J&J, which is based in New Brunswick, New Jersey, has stopped selling its iconic talc-based Johnson’s Baby Powder in the U.S. and Canada, though it remains on the market elsewhere.
Earlier this year, the court turned away a different talcum powder case involving a $2 billion verdict.
Supreme Court rejects appeal over press access in Wisconsin
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has rejected an appeal from a conservative think tank over Gov. Tony Evers’ decision to exclude the group’s writers from press briefings.
The justices acted without comment Monday, leaving in place lower court rulings that said the decision is legal.
The John K. MacIver Institute for Public Policy filed the lawsuit in 2019 alleging that Evers, a Democrat, violated its staffers’ constitutional rights to free speech, freedom of the press and equal access.
Former Gov. Scott Walker, a Republican, had joined in the institute’s bid for high-court review. Evers defeated Walker in 2018.
Last year, a federal judge rejected the group’s arguments, saying MacIver can still report on Evers without being invited to his press briefings or being on his email distribution list. The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously upheld that ruling in April.
Former Republican Gov. Scott Walker had urged the Supreme Court to take the case, arguing that the ruling in favor of Evers allows censorship because it permits picking and choosing which reporters attend press events that have long been open to reporters but closed to the general public.
The appeals court ruled that Evers’ media-access criteria was reasonable and he was under no obligation to grant access for every news outlet to every news conference.
MacIver had argued that Evers was excluding its staffers and violating their free speech rights because they are conservatives. Evers said they were excluded because they are not principally a news gathering operation and they are not neutral.
Evers’ spokeswoman Britt Cudaback did not immediately return a message Monday seeking comment on the Supreme Court’s decision. MacIver’s attorney Dan Suhr also did not immediately return a message.
MacIver covers legislative meetings and other events at the Capitol as well as some Evers news conferences. But the institute sued after being excluded from a media briefing Evers gave for reporters on his state budget proposal in 2019. Evers wasn’t present, but members of his administration provided information to reporters on embargo ahead of his budget speech to the Legislature that evening.
The appeals court noted that a limited number of reporters were allowed into the event. Reporters from The Associated Press, along with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and Wisconsin State Journal, were among those present for that briefing.
Former governors, including Walker, also limited the number of reporters and news outlets that could attend budget briefings and other events.
