By Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon
BBC - Guardian UK - Honduras - ESPN
SDNY COURTHOUSE, August 13 – A man from New Jersey has sued US Attorney General Merrick Garland to challenge the Federal organ sales ban statute.
On August 13, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge Katherine Polk Failla held a proceeding. Inner City Press covered it, the only media there. So it live tweeted the proceeding, here (and put document from the case on Patreon, here)
Judge Failla begins by questioning standing - is it enough to simply read the act, then call a hospital?
Plaintiff's counsel Matthew Haicken: I don't want my client to bring the case from jail.
Judge: Has he done all he can do, without running the risk of prosecution?
Plaintiff's counsel: Yes.
Assistant US Attorney: The plaintiff could have identified a buy, an organ, a price... Court reporter: I have a problem hearing you. [An ear?]
Judge: The complaint talks a lot about a kidney.
AUSA Jennifer Ann Jude: I'd have to go back and look. [The Assistant US Attorney defending Merrick Garland has not read the complaint - it says kidney all over it]
AUSA says venue is not proper in SDNY. Judge: But he was going to have the organ removed here.
AUSA: It has not ripened yet. Now I've pulled up the complaint. Sure it mentions kidneys.
[Inner City Press pulls the Complaint up: "After plaintiff ran into financial difficulty, he became interested in learning more about the sale and purchase of vital organs." It cites Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 US 479 (1965) and Roe v. Wade, 410 US 113 (1972)
Judge: What is the plaintiff's venue argument? Plaintiff's counsel: I can amend the complaint. For the AUSA to say he should have found a buyer and signed a contract, that sounds like entrapment...
Judge: I don't think you have adequately pleaded venue. You can amend as of right. I'm not today going to say there is venue. If you in response to the AUSA's letter want to transfer to NJ, I can sign the order.
Plaintiff's counsel: I rest on my written response.
AUSA: We don't think his argument comparing the right to buy a kidney to the right to sell a kidney is compelling. Needing a kidney is more compelling than needing money enough to sell one.
Judge: It seems I can't persuade plaintiff not to bring his claim, nor the government not to move to dismiss. How much time do you need to amend?
Plaintiff's counsel: Two weeks.
Judge Failla: I'll give you three.
Plaintiff's counsel: I'll take 'em.
Judge Failla: Since this is the government's, I mean Mr. Garland's, motion, I'll ask you or him to order the transcript.
The case is Bellocchio v. Garland, 21-cv-3280 (Failla)
***
Your support means a lot. As little as $5 a month helps keep us going and grants you access to exclusive bonus material on our Patreon page. Click here to become a patron.
