It isn't a "policy interest of the state" it is a law.
It isn't a "policy interest of the state" it is a law.
It isn't a "policy interest of the state" it is a law.
If I read it correctly, the judge stated that the law conflicts with the policy interests of the state as an excuse for the temporary order.
>
It isn't a "policy interest of the state" it is a law.
If I read it correctly, the judge stated that the law conflicts with the policy interests of the state as an excuse for the temporary order.
I read the statement and he referred to the "law" as a "policy interest". He would not even refer to is as a law. The only way it should have been stayed is if there was a question of the constitutionality of the law. I haven't read the compliant filed by the ACLU.
I read the statement and he referred to the "law" as a "policy interest". He would not even refer to is as a law. The only way it should have been stayed is if there was a question of the constitutionality of the law. I haven't read the compliant filed by the ACLU.
(post is archived)