“The justices ruled that was the proper course because the case became moot after the teen obtained an abortion.”
Of course, I’d have to read the whole opinion to be sure. But declaring a case moot because of changed circumstances is not equivalent to holding for the appellant.
But does it then preclude its citation as precedent for the next case, because there will be a next case.
What was the case about exactly? This is a really skimpy article. I have no clue what they were even arguing.
The decision doesn’t really side with trump’s administration.
It doesn’t, but the decision will no doubt be used by Trump in his victory lap against abortion.
NUANCE BE DAMNED!
It sure as hell will with headlines like this!
Whoever’s been writing headlines for TPM needs to stop aiming so hard for clickbait that they’re misrepresenting the content. As the Kardashian episode proves, few people read beyond the headline anymore. (“Prison reform”? Give me a break. She wanted someone pardoned.) TPM sould be better than that.
This article needs details. I can’t tell what is being ruled on and why (especially if the issue was mooted), let alone its legal impact in future cases. Waaaaaaaaay too vague.
Damn - Constitutional law can be difficult enough to follow … without misleading headlines -
often it pivots around process - not the original rightness or wrongness of the events in question