The Latest on the Supreme Court ruling on the wedding dress ban
A federal judge in Georgia is ordering Georgia to remove a controversial “beach dresser” from stores that sell wedding dresses for weddings and other events.
The ruling, issued Thursday by U.S. District Judge Timothy M. Hill, says the Georgia Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to decide whether the dresser is a “beached dresser,” a term for a dresser that does not have an actual beached or sunken appearance.
“The Supreme Court is not required to take judicial notice of the fact that the plaintiff has failed to satisfy the statutory requirements of its title,” Hill wrote in his opinion.
“It does not matter whether the plaintiff was given the opportunity to present evidence that she has satisfied the statutory requirement of a ‘beached’ or ‘sunken’ dresser.
The court is free to determine the question of statutory compliance, and we are not bound by the statutory answer.”
The ruling was issued Thursday after the Georgia State Board of Elections issued a temporary injunction preventing the dressers from being sold in stores and online.
The judge ordered the board to stop enforcing the temporary injunction.
Georgia Attorney General Dan Forest said in a statement that the dressier was a “shocking example of how courts have consistently failed to consider the reality of the bride’s style and expectations.”
“The judge’s order is not only a shocking example of judicial overreach, but also a blatant disregard for the values that we hold dear as Americans,” Forest said.
“Our judges are sworn to uphold the laws of the land, not to create laws for political expediency.”
The dresser’s appearance and the size of the dress can be subjective, the judge said.
It could also be a product of a “manufacture of quality materials and designs.”
He added that the judge’s decision could have “potentially serious consequences for Georgia’s commerce and its economy.”
The Georgia State Senate passed a bill last year requiring the dressmaker to pay for the cost of the “beacon dresser.”
The bill also required the manufacturer to pay a $200 fine if the dress maker does not comply with the law.
But the dressmakers said they are not responsible for paying that fine.
In his ruling, Hill said Georgia’s laws are “unconstitutional, overly broad and not adequately tailored to meet the requirements of this statute.”
He said the dress makers’ argument is that they have an “economic interest” in selling the dress and it would help to offset their losses if the state made them responsible for its fines.
The judge also said the state cannot force the dress to be “uniform” or to be labeled “beau and bouquet.” “
If they are deemed to ‘sinken’ or sunk, then the state has no duty to compensate them.”
The judge also said the state cannot force the dress to be “uniform” or to be labeled “beau and bouquet.”
It’s also unclear whether the judge will order the state’s dress makers to remove the dress from its shelves.
A spokeswoman for the Georgia Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity said the department is reviewing the ruling and will comment.
The dress maker said it is “reviewing its legal options and options available to it.”
A state judge in Virginia overturned a ban on the dress after a jury found that the product could be marketed as a wedding dress.
“There are many examples of the term ‘beaux’ and ‘bequets’ being used interchangeably,” the dressMaker’s attorneys wrote in a court filing in October. “
“This word does not define ‘beaus’ or any other wedding item, or describe a specific object, or make specific distinctions.” “
There are many examples of the term ‘beaux’ and ‘bequets’ being used interchangeably,” the dressMaker’s attorneys wrote in a court filing in October.
“This word does not define ‘beaus’ or any other wedding item, or describe a specific object, or make specific distinctions.”
The lawsuit was filed after the State Department of Agriculture issued guidance to states that said the term “beaches” and “beams” do not define a wedding attire.
“In the words of the Department’s Guide to Wedding Dress Usage, the term is not intended to be the primary or primary meaning of any term or phrase,” the guidance said.