|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|20-539||9th Cir.||TBD||TBD||TBD||TBD||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.”|
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 ...
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 ...
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...
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.