Consolidated with:
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.” |
SCOTUS will hear oral argument at 10:00 a.m. EST about when claimants must raise claims in the administrative process – “exhausting” their administrative remedies. Read more from Ronald Mann.
It might sound exhausting! But we claim it might be fun.
Justices to weigh issue exhaustion for Social Security claimants - SCOTUSblog
Wednesday’s argument in Carr v. Saul involves a surprisingly basic question of administrative law: when claimants ...
www.scotusblog.com
Who you calling “shrinking”? — the shadow docket
With #SCOTUS’s shrinking docket, we have to wonder if @SCOTUSblog will become a bi-monthly publication.
The Supreme Court will take up voting rights this morning.
Oral argument begins at 10:00 a.m. EST.
Justices to consider whether Arizona’s voting rules discriminate against minorities - SCOTUSblog
The 2020 elections may be over, but the Supreme Court will soon hear oral argument in a pair of voting-rights ...
www.scotusblog.com
Tomorrow morning the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in a pair of voting rights cases involving Section 2 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which prohibits policies or laws that result in racial discrimination in voting.
Missed the morning orders? @AHoweBlogger's got you covered. Read about the new grants including a review of Puerto Rico’s eligibility for a federal benefits program. Plus, she's got an overview of several high-profile petitions still under consideration.
Court will review Puerto Rico’s eligibility for federal benefits program - SCOTUSblog
The court on Monday morning issued orders from the justices’ private conference on Friday, Feb. 26. The justic...
www.scotusblog.com
NEW: SCOTUS agrees to take up two new cases. Here's the orders list. https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/030121zor_m6hn.pdf
#SCOTUS grants US v. Vaello-Madero, a challenge to exclusion of Puerto Rico residents from eligibility for Supplemental Social Security Income program, which provides benefits to poor disabled adults & children
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.