Was I the only one who felt that the lawyer for Cargill let the government get away with far too much?

Seemed to me he could, and should, have pressed hard on the government's claim that a bump stock, but not a belt loop (even one marketed and maybe even sized for the purpose of letting a shooter hold a semi-automatic weapon so it's repeatedly fired by recoil) is 'automatic.'

I mean what made the government's case weak here was less the application to this situation (though that seemed weak to me as well) but the lack of a limiting principle.

Expand full comment

Note that the AL Constitution's prohibition on retroactive legislation means that the new laws likely won't prevent the plaintiffs in the cases that led to the AL SCT decision from proceeding with their case once it is remanded (assuming the AL SCT doesn't grant a petition for rehearing). And that means that we may actually find out how the facts occurred - since the original case was dismissed before any discovery, we have only the very bare bones factual allegations about another client somehow getting into the storage area, opening the freezer, and removing and damaging the embryos.

Expand full comment

My guess is that these cases will settle. The clinics don't want any more bad publicity.

Here's an article about a crazy case that was filed against the doctor who helped us have our first son. I believe it settled; there was some motion practice, but I haven't found any coverage of developments after that, such as discovery or a trial.


Expand full comment