Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(59)
The statute was passed in 2006.
There is no claim the statute was unconstitutional.
Mr. Segall said the scope of the statute was limited.
Arizona's lawyers contended that the statute was written to complement federal laws.
(The statute was also suspended the previous Sunday, but with the requirement that shops sell essentials).
The Supreme Court ruled recently that the statute was so vague as to be unconstitutional.
A federal judge sided with Mr. Evans in March, ruling that the statute was unconstitutional.
Though drafted by eminent judges, the statute was to require endless interpretation.
That seems exactly the sort of hazardous condition the statute was intended to remedy.
And it made the provision retroactive: covering things that took place before the statute was enacted.
I don't think the statute was written to apply to this case".
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com