|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|20-429||9th Cir.||TBD||TBD||TBD||TBD||OT 2021|
Issues: (1) Whether the Department of Health and Human Services' rule for the Title X family planning program — which prohibits and compels certain pregnancy-related speech between a Title X provider and her patient, proscribing abortion-related information but requiring information about non-abortion options — is arbitrary and capricious; (2) whether the rule violates the Title X appropriations act, which requires that “all pregnancy counseling” under Title X “shall be nondirective”; and (3) whether the rule violates Section 1554 of the Affordable Care Act, which requires that HHS “shall not promulgate any regulation” that harms patient care in any one of six ways, including by “interfer[ing] with communications” between a patient and her provider.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Oct 01 2020||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 4, 2020)|
|Oct 23 2020||Motion to extend the time to file a response from November 4, 2020 to December 4, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Oct 26 2020||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including December 4, 2020.|
|Nov 04 2020||Letter of October 26, 2020 from counsel for respondents Oregon, et al. received.|
|Nov 04 2020||Brief of respondents States of Oregon, New York, California, et al. in support filed.|
|Dec 04 2020||Brief for the Federal Respondents filed. VIDED|
|Dec 22 2020||Reply of petitioners American Medical Association, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Dec 23 2020||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/8/2021.|
|Jan 19 2021||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/22/2021.|
|Feb 12 2021||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/19/2021.|
|Feb 22 2021||Petition GRANTED. The petitions for writs of certiorari in Nos. 20-454 and 20-539 are granted. The cases are consolidated, and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument. VIDED.|
|Feb 22 2021||Because the Court has consolidated these cases for briefing and oral argument, future filings and activity in the cases will now be reflected on the docket of No. 20-429. Subsequent filings in these cases must therefore be submitted through the electronic filing system in No. 20-429. Each document submitted in connection with one or more of these cases must include on its cover the case number and caption for each case in which the filing is intended to be submitted. Where a filing is submitted in fewer than all of the cases, the docket entry will reflect the case number(s) in which the filing is submitted; a document filed in all of the consolidated cases will be noted as “VIDED.”|
|Mar 08 2021||Motion for leave to intervene filed by State of Ohio and 18 Other States. VIDED.|
|Mar 12 2021||Joint stipulation to dismiss the cases in Nos. 20-429 and 20-539 pursuant to Rule 46.1 filed. VIDED.|
|Mar 12 2021||Joint stipulation to dismiss the case in No. 20-454 pursuant to Rule 46.1 filed.|
|Mar 12 2021||Motion for leave to intervene filed by American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists, et al. VIDED.|
|Mar 15 2021||Motion for leave to file a supplemental brief in support of intervention filed by State of Ohio and 18 Other States. VIDED. (To be printed)|
|Mar 15 2021||Motion for leave to file a supplemental brief in support of intervention filed by State of Ohio and 18 Other States. VIDED. (March 18, 2021).|
|Mar 15 2021||Motion for leave to file a supplemental brief in support of intervention filed by American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists, et al. VIDED. (To be printed)|
|Mar 18 2021||Response of the Federal Parties in opposition to the motions for leave to intervene filed. VIDED.|
|Mar 18 2021||Response of American Medical Association, et al. in opposition to motions for leave to intervene filed. VIDED.|
|Mar 18 2021||Response of States of Oregon, New York, California, et al. in opposition to motions for leave to intervene filed. VIDED.|
|Mar 19 2021||Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Brief in Support of Intervention filed by American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists, Christian Medical and Dental Associations, Catholic Medical Association. VIDED.|
|Mar 19 2021||Reply of State of Ohio and 18 Other States in support of motion to intervene filed. VIDED.|
|Mar 22 2021||Reply of American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists, et al. in support of motion to intervene filed. VIDED.|
|Apr 01 2021||Motion for an extension of time to file the joint appendix and petitioners' briefs on the merits filed. VIDED.|
|Apr 01 2021||Motion to extend the time to file the joint appendix and petitioners' briefs on the merits is granted, and the time is extended to and including May 6, 2021. VIDED.|
|Apr 15 2021||Letter of April 15, 2021 from the Acting Solicitor General filed. VIDED.|
Today at the court:
A nuts-and-bolts question of civil procedure. After an appeal is decided, do courts have discretion to limit the administrative “costs” that the prevailing party can recover from the losing party?
Argument begins at 10:00 a.m. EDT.
Justices to consider awards of costs of appellate litigation - SCOTUSblog
Wednesday’s argument in City of San Antonio v. Hotels.com brings the justices a basic nuts-and-bolts question of...
In 2019, the Supreme Court limited the scope of a federal law that bans people convicted of felonies from having a gun. Up this morning at the court: back-to-back cases that will decide how many felon-in-possession convictions will need new trials or pleas under that 2019 ruling.
NEW: SCOTUS adds one new case to its docket for next term: Hemphill v. New York, a criminal-procedure case about the interaction between hearsay rules and the right of defendants to confront witnesses against them. Still no action on major petitions involving guns and abortion.
The court will release orders at 9:30 a.m. EDT followed by oral argument in two cases.
First, whether Alaska Native regional and village corporations are “Indian Tribes” for purposes of CARES Act Covid-related relief.
By @StanfordLaw’s Gregory Ablavsky.
Are Alaska Native corporations Indian tribes? A multimillion-dollar question - SCOTUSblog
Are Alaska Native corporations — special corporations that Congress created in 1971 when it resolved Native claims ...
It's official: In the first-ever SCOTUS bracketology tournament, our readers have chosen CHIEF JUSTICE EARL WARREN as the greatest justice in history. The author of Brown v. Board, Loving v. Virginia, and Miranda v. Arizona defeated top-seeded John Marshall in the final round.
We've reached the final round of SCOTUS bracketology, and two illustrious chief justices are facing off for the championship. One wrote Marbury v. Madison. The other wrote Brown v. Board. Our full write-up on both finalists is here: https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/04/the-great-chief-and-the-super-chief-a-final-showdown-in-supreme-court-march-madness/
Cast your vote below!
NEW: The Supreme Court will issue opinion(s?) next Thursday April 22. We’re still waiting on decisions in the ACA case and Fulton v. City of Philadelphia about religious liberty and LGBT rights.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.