Schimel v. Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin
Petition for certiorari denied on June 28, 2016
Issue: (1) Whether a regulation of abortion doctors is subject to a facial challenge under Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England and Gonzales v. Carhart, when a majority of abortion doctors have already satisfied the requirement, and where the only doctors not already in compliance failed to make diligent efforts; and (2) whether a challenge to a regulation of abortion doctors under the Due Process Clause falls within the “very limited and well-defined class of cases,” City of Columbia v. Omni Outdoor Advertising, Inc., in which inquiry into the legislature’s subjective motives is permissible.
| Date | Proceedings and Orders (key to color coding) |
|---|
| Jan 26 2016 | Application (15A784) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from February 21, 2016 to March 22, 2016, submitted to Justice Kagan. |
| Jan 29 2016 | Application (15A784) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until March 22, 2016. |
| Mar 22 2016 | Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 25, 2016) |
| Mar 22 2016 | Appendix of Brad D. Schimel, Attorney General of Wisconsin, et al. filed. |
| Apr 14 2016 | Order extending time to file response to petition to and including May 24, 2016. |
| May 24 2016 | Brief of respondents Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, Inc., et al. in opposition filed. |
| Jun 7 2016 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 23, 2016. |
| Jun 8 2016 | Reply of respondents Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed) |
| Jun 27 2016 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 27, 2016. |
| Jun 28 2016 | Petition DENIED. |
