Washington
Abortion pill hearing made public after transparency concern
WASHINGTON (AP) — A judge is set to hear arguments this week in a lawsuit that poses a threat to the nationwide availability of medication abortion. The upcoming hearing became public Monday after reporting raised concerns that the case with major implications could unfold with little public oversight.
The intensely watched lawsuit challenges the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of the drug mifepristone in 2000 and was filed by a group that helped challenge Roe v. Wade. It’s been assigned to a Texas judge who was appointed by former President Donald Trump and is known for conservative views.
The ruling could affect states regardless of whether abortion is legal and comes as medication accounts for over half of abortions. The impacts of a ruling against the Food and Drug Administration could take years to play out.
The hearing set for Wednesday was first revealed by the Washington Post, which reported that U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk would delay putting it on the public docket to minimize threats and possible protests. He also asked the attorneys not to publicly discuss details of the plans, the newspaper reported.
There is a presumption of openness in federal court proceedings, meaning proceedings are open to the public except in rare exceptions, and transparency in the court system is a keystone of the American judicial system. Delaying public notice of a hearing is highly unusual because it would normally be quickly placed on the public court docket.
Many court hearings are scheduled weeks or months in advance and quickly added to the public docket.
Still, there appears to be no national policy or rules on hearing notification, and judges have a great deal of discretion over many aspects of how cases are run, according to Charles Hall, a spokesperson for the Administrative Office of the U.S Courts. The Northern District of Texas, where the case is being heard, does not have any local rules mandating deadlines for hearing notifications.
The court’s official webpage for Kacsmaryk indicates he’s typically inclined to openness and “heavily disfavor(s)” sealing information.
A coalition of media outlets filed a motion protesting the delayed notification, saying it would amount to an indirect closure of the courtroom. The case is being heard in Amarillo, a city in the Texas Panhandle that’s hours away from major cities.
The motion notes the judge has expressed concerns about security, but media lawyers argued the courthouse can be secured without closing the courtroom. The U.S. Marshals Service, which is responsible for federal judicial security, has long secured courtrooms in untold numbers of closely watched, emotionally charged and potentially dangerous cases.
“Courts are supposed to be open to the public, and only in extraordinary circumstances do you seal documents or hide a hearing,” said David Cohen, a law professor at Drexel University in Philadelphia. In this case, Cohen said, “it just doesn’t seem like there’s anything here that meets those requirements.”
The United States Department of Justice, which is representing the Food and Drug Administration, initially declined to provide even basic details about the high-profile hearing. That position raised questions about whether it is fulfilling a commitment by Attorney General Merrick Garland and other senior officials that it would be transparent and accountable to the American public. The White House referred questions back to the Justice Department.
The admonition from the judge not to discuss the plans publicly meant confirmation could have risked his displeasure, though a contempt holding would be less likely, Cohen said.
Louisiana
Lawyer: Over $6M verdict a powerful anti-hazing message
NEW ORLEANS (AP) — A jury’s decision that a Louisiana State University fraternity pledge’s family is entitled to $6.1 million for his hazing-related alcohol death in 2017 sends a powerful message, the family’s attorney said Monday.
Max Gruver, from the Atlanta suburb of Roswell, Georgia, had been at LSU for only a month when he died of alcohol poisoning and aspiration after a hazing ritual at the Phi Delta Theta fraternity house in 2017.
One of the family’s attorneys, Don Cazayoux, said last week’s verdict in Baton Rouge bolsters the family’s campaign against hazing.
“The first message is, don’t do it because you could hurt someone, you could kill someone,” Cazayoux said in a phone interview. The legal exposure, he said, adds to the points parents should make in warning their college-bound students about the dangers of hazing.
The verdict was to some extent symbolic — Gruver’s parents had already reached confidential settlements with the other defendants in the case, including LSU, Phi Delta Theta fraternity and at least 10 other fraternity members.
The lone defendant in last week’s trial, Ryan Isto, was deemed 2% at fault in Gruver’s death -- making him responsible for $122,000 in damages.
In 2019, Matthew Naquin, of Fair Oaks Ranch, Texas, was convicted of negligent homicide and sentenced to five years in prison in connection with the Gruver case, but a judge suspended all but 2 1/2 years. Isto and another fraternity member, Sean Paul Gott, pleaded no contest to a misdemeanor charge in connection with the criminal case and were sentenced to 30 days in jail. Gott, who had agreed to a settlement in the civil case, also was deemed 2% at fault in Gruver’s death by the jury.
Naquin, one of the defendants who reached a settlement in the civil case filed by Gruver’s parents, was found by last week’s jury to be 80% at fault in the death.
The university and Phi Delta Theta fraternity also reached settlements. Phi Delta Theta was banned from the LSU campus until at least 2033 as a result of the events leading to Gruver’s death.
Witnesses have said Naquin ordered Gruver to chug a bottle of 190-proof liquor in September 2017. Gruver died the following morning. His blood-alcohol level was 0.495%, more than six times the level considered proof of intoxication in Louisiana drunk driving cases.
Gruver’s parents, Rae Ann and Stephen Gruver, said at the courthouse in Baton Rouge last week that this sends a message to “would-be hazers” to consider their actions, The Advocate reported.
“Think about the dangers of hazing, think about how it can harm people and how you’ll be held accountable,” Stephen Gruver said.
