|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|20-539||9th Cir.||N/A||N/A||N/A||N/A||OT 2021|
Issues: (1) Whether the Department of Health and Human Services' final rule — which prohibits Title X providers from communicating certain abortion-related information to their patients and requires physical separation of Title X-funded care from healthcare facilities that provide abortion services or certain abortion-related information — violates appropriations statutes requiring that “all pregnancy counseling” in the Title X program “shall be nondirective”; (2) whether the final rule violates Section 1554 of the Affordable Care Act, which prohibits HHS from promulgating “any regulation” that creates “unreasonable barriers” to obtaining appropriate medical care, impedes “timely access” to such care, interferes with patient-provider communications “regarding a full range of treatment options,” restricts providers from disclosing “all relevant information to patients making health care decisions,” or violates providers’ ethical standards; and (3) whether the final rule is arbitrary and capricious, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, including by failing to respond adequately to concerns that (a) the rule requires medical professionals to violate medical ethics and (b) the counseling restrictions and physical-separation requirement impose significant costs and impair access to care.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Oct 05 2020||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 23, 2020)|
|Nov 12 2020||Motion to extend the time to file a response from November 23, 2020 to December 23, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Nov 13 2020||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including December 23, 2020.|
|Dec 04 2020||Brief for the Federal Respondents filed. VIDED.|
|Dec 22 2020||Reply of petitioners Oregon, 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. 20-429 and 20-454 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 12 2021||Joint stipulation to dismiss the cases in Nos. 20-429 and 20-539 pursuant to Rule 46.1 filed. VIDED.|
|May 17 2021||The Government has filed a letter brief representing that it will continue enforcing the challenged rule and regulations outside the State of Maryland for as long as they remain operative. If further litigation is brought against the challenged rule and regulations outside of Maryland, the Government represents that it will either oppose that litigation on threshold grounds or seek to hold the litigation in abeyance pending the completion of notice and comment. In light of the Government’s representations, the motions for leave to intervene are denied, and the petitions in Nos. 20-429, 20-454, and 20-539 are dismissed pursuant to Rule 46.1. If the Government fails to enforce the challenged rule and regulations outside of Maryland prior to the completion of notice and comment, or if litigation is brought against the challenged rule and regulations outside of Maryland, any aggrieved party may file an application in this Court after seeking relief in the appropriate District Court and Court of Appeals. Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, and Justice Gorsuch would grant the motions for leave to intervene and deny the stipulations to dismiss the petitions.|
Having covered the Supreme Court for six decades, @lylden has seen a lot of changes at 1 First Street. In the latest piece in our series on the post-COVID court, Lyle examines how the court's pandemic operations could spur permanent reform.
How has COVID-19 changed the Supreme Court? And are any of those changes worth keeping? Today we launch a symposium examining those questions.
First up, a piece from @stevenmazie on how to reform oral arguments after the pandemic.
The court after COVID: A recipe for oral argument reform - SCOTUSblog
The Supreme Court has not yet announced whether it will return to normal operations when the 2021-22 term begins ...
NEW shadow-docket case: New York landlords ask SCOTUS for an emergency order to prevent the state from continuing to enforce its COVID-related eviction moratorium. They say the moratorium "runs roughshod" over their constitutional rights.
Filing here: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/21A8-1.pdf
New on the shadow docket: Florida seeks an emergency order blocking CDC policies that substantially limit cruise ships from sailing.
Florida asks #SCOTUS to block, pending appeal, CDC restrictions imposed on cruise industry b/c of COVID-19 pandemic: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/21A5.pdf
NEW: Mississippi formally asks the Supreme Court to overturn its landmark abortion case, Roe v. Wade, in latest court filing. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/184703/20210722161332385_19-1392BriefForPetitioners.pdf
Biden’s SCOTUS reform commission met yesterday and discussed several reform ideas including adding justices and adopting a formal code of ethics.
Term limits emerged as a popular idea. But how to implement it — via statute or constitutional amendment?
Term limits emerge as popular proposal at latest meeting of court-reform commission - SCOTUSblog
The Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court reconvened on Tuesday to hear from a new set of experts on vari...
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.