In the US, anyone with standing (a person, State or Corporation affected by a law) may bring suit against the government challenging the legality of such law.
A judge may issue an injunction halting the activities or funding of the law until such time as evidence for and against the law are brought before the Court.
In most cases, persons in favor of the law can request a stay of the injunction until the matter is resolved, meaning the law continues to be in force until the judgement is either upheld (the funding would stop) or overturned ( the funding continues.)
In this case, the Court's ruling was overturned.
WASHINGTON -- A divided federal appeals court has ruled that opponents of taxpayer-funded stem cell research are not likely to succeed in a lawsuit to stop it.
In a 2-1 decision Friday, the panel of the U.S. court of appeals in Washington overturned a judge's order that would have blocked taxpayer funding for stem cell research.
The panel reversed an opinion last August by U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth, who said the research likely violates the law against federal funding of embryo destruction.
The 1996 law prohibits the use of taxpayer dollars in work that harms an embryo, so private money has been used to cull batches of the cells. Those batches can reproduce in lab dishes indefinitely, and the Obama administration issued rules permitting taxpayer dollars to be used in work on them.
But that process took from August 2010 until the end of April 2011.
We are a free country, not as free as we think we are, but voices from all sides of all issues can get a hearing and, occasionally, there is 'justice for all'.
I am not an attorney. If I have stated anything above incorrectly, I would appreciate a trained mind to make the appropriate changes.
Joe(i read a lot)Nation