View this list sorted by sitting.
Issue(s): (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.
|
Babcock v. Saul,
No. 20-480
Issue(s): Whether a civil service pension received for federal
civilian employment as a “military technician (dual status)” is “a payment based wholly on service as a member of a uniformed service” for the
purposes of the Social Security Act’s windfall elimination provision.
|
Issue(s): (1) Whether the Department of Health and
Human Services' rule, which prohibits Title X projects
from providing referrals for abortion as a method of
family planning, falls within the agency’s statutory authority; and (2) whether the rule is the product of reasoned decisionmaking.
|
Issue(s): (1) Whether entities that are not subject to the
public-charge ground of inadmissibility contained in
Immigration and Nationality Act, and which seek to expand benefits usage by aliens who are potentially subject to that
provision, are proper parties to challenge the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's final rule interpreting the statutory term “public charge” and establishing
a framework by which DHS personnel are to assess
whether an alien is likely to become a public charge; and (2) whether the final rule is likely contrary to law or
arbitrary and capricious.
|
Oregon v. Cochran,
No. 20-539
Issue(s): (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.
|
Issue(s): Whether Congress violated the equal-protection
component of the due process clause of the Fifth
Amendment by establishing Supplemental Security
Income — a program that provides benefits to needy
aged, blind and disabled individuals — in the 50 states
and the District of Columbia, and in the Northern Mariana Islands pursuant to a negotiated covenant, but not
extending it to Puerto Rico.
|
Wooden v. U.S.,
No. 20-5279
Issue(s): Whether offenses that were committed as part of a single criminal spree, but sequentially in time, were “committed on occasions different from one another” for purposes of a sentencing enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act.
|
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.