Artist M redivivus

CERTIORARI GRANTED
21-806 HEALTH AND HOSPITAL CORP., ET AL. V. TALEVSKI, GORGI
The motion to substitute Ivanka Talevski, as authorized
representative, as respondent in place of Gorgi Talevski,
Deceased is granted. The petition for a writ of
certiorari is granted.

Parties’ scheduling letter, May 5, 2022

20220505134256143_2022-05-05 Letter Motion for Extension

Petitioners’ brief – 7/18/2022

Respondent’s brief – 9/16/2022

Petitioners’ reply brief – 10/17/2022

May 24 2022

Motion to extend the time to file the briefs on the merits granted. The time to file the joint appendix and petitioners’ brief on the merits is extended to and including July 18, 2022. The time to file respondent’s brief on the merits is extended to and including September 16, 2022.

Petitioners’ brief, July 18, 2022

20220718175856195_2022-07-18 Final Brief HHC v. Talevski PDF-A

National Conference of State Legislatures amicus, July 25, 2022

20220725101949196_21-806 tsac StateAndLocalGovernmentOrgs

South Carolina Medicaid director amicus, July 25, 2022

20220725115812248_21-806 Amicus Brief of Robert M Kerr

American Health Care Ass’n amicus, July 25, 2022

20220725132823708_21-806-tsac-AHCA et al

Indiana et al amicus, July 25, 2022

20220725151159424_21-806 – tsac Indiana and 21 Other States

U.S. amicus, July 25, 2022

20220725195544307_21-806 – US Amicus Br – Talevski FINAL

====

Steward v. Abbott materials

US statement of interest

Steward US statement of interest

US opposition to motion to dismiss

Steward US dism op

Order partly denying motion to dismiss

286_order_denying_mtds

===

General Materials: cases

Smith v. King, 277 F.Supp. 31 (M.D. Ala. 1967)

Smith v King 11 8 67

King v. Smith, appellants’ brief, March 7, 1968

Ruben K KING Commissioner of the State Department of Pensions and Security State of Alabama Lurleen 3 7 68

King v. Smith, appellees’ brief, April 6, 1968

King v Smith appellee br 4 6 68

King v. Smith, NAACP Inc Fund amicus brief, April 6, 1968

King v Smith inc fund amicus 4 6 68

King v. Smith, appellants’ reply brief, April 18, 1968

King v Smith appellant reply br 4 18 68

King v. Smith, 392 U.S. 309 (1968)

king v. smith justia

Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970)

Goldberg v Kelly

Rosado v. Wyman, 397 U.S. 397 (1970)
Rosado v Wyman-1

Townsend v. Swank, 404 U.S. 282 (1971)

Townsend v Swank

Jefferson v. Hackney, 406 U.S. 535 (1972)

Jefferson v Hackney

Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528 (1974)

Hagans v Lavine

Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (1974)

Edelman v Jordan

Chapman v. Houston Welfare Rights Organization, 441 U.S. 600 (1979)

Chapman v Houston Welfare Rights Organization

Caldwell v. Blum, 621 F.2d 491 (2d Cir. 1980)

Caldwell v Blum 2C

Blum v. Caldwell, 446 U.S. 1311 (1980) (Marshall, J.)

Blum v. Caldwell

Maine v. Thiboutot, 448 U.S. 1 (1980)

Maine v Thiboutot

Thiboutot oral argument, April 22, 1980

Маіnе v. Тhіbоutоt

Маіnе v. Тhіbоutоt – Оrаl Аrgumеnt – Арrіl 22, 1980 (Раrt 2)

Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman, 451 U.S. 1 (1981)

Pennhurst State School and Hospital v Halderman

Wright v. City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, 479 U.S. 418 (1987)
Wright v City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority

Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1990)

Will v Mich Dept State Police

Baliles/Wilder US amicus brief

Gerald L BALILES et al Petitioners v THE VIRGINIA HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION

Wilder oral argument

88-2043_01-09-1990

Wilder v. Virginia Hospital Association, 496 U.S. 498 (1990)
Wilder v Virginia Hosp Assn

Artist M US amicus brief

Sue SUTER et al Petitioners v ARTIST M et al

Artist M oral argument

90-1488_12-02-1991

Suter v. Artist M., 503 U.S. 347 (1992)
Suter v Artist M

Blessing v. Freestone, 520 U.S. 329 (1997)
Blessing v Freestone

Blessing oral argument transcript, Jan. 6, 1997

95-1441_01-06-1997

Council of State Governments amicus in Blessing, July 26, 1996

Blessing v Freestone Council State Governments amicus

US amicus brief in Blessing, October 17, 1996

Blessing v Freestone US amicus br

Barnes v. Gorman, 536 U.S. 181 (2002)

Barnes v. Gorman copy copy

Gonzaga University v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273 (2002)
Gonzaga University v Doe

US amicus brief in Gonzaga, February 22, 2002

Gonzaga University v Doe US amicus br

Phrma v Walsh, 538 U.S. 644 (2003)

Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America v. Walsh copy copy

Sanchez v. Johnson, 416 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2005)
SANCHEZ v JOHNSON

VOPA v. Stewart, 563 U.S. 247 (2011)

Virginia Office for Protection and Advocacy v Stewart.doc

US amicus brief in VOPA, August 31, 2010

Virginia Office for Protection and Advocacy v Stewart US amicus brief

US amicus brief in Douglas v. Independent Living Center, May 26, 2011

Douglas v Independent Living Center of Southern California Inc US amicus br

Douglas v. Independent Living Center, 565 U.S. 606 (2012)

Douglas v Independent Living Center of Southern California Inc(3).doc

NFIB v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012)

National-Federation-of-Independent-Business-v-Sebelius

US amicus brief in Armstrong, November 24, 2014

Armstrong v Exceptional Child Center Inc US amicus br

NHeLP brief in Armstrong, December 2014

14-15 bsac Brief of Amici Curiae National Health Law Program

Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center, No. 14-15, transcript of oral argument (January 20, 2015)
14-15oat

Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center, No. 14-15, 135 S.Ct. 1378 (March 31, 2015)
Armstrong v Exceptional Child Center Inc

Petitioners’ merits brief in Gallardo v. Marstiller, No. 20-1263 (Sept. 15, 2021)

20210915155722541_Merits Brief

US amicus brief in Gallardo v. Marstiller, No. 20-1263 (Sept. 22, 2021)

20210922191708053_20-1263tsacUnitedStates-1

Florida’s brief in Gallardo v. Marstiller, No. 1263 ()

20211115152236251_Final brief to printer revised after proof-1

Utah amicus brief in Gallardo v. Marstiller, No. 20-1263 (Nov. 22, 2021)

20211122145115235_Gallardo Amicus 11 22 2021 penultimate

Petitioners’ reply brief, Gallardo v. Marstiller, No. 20-1263 (Dec. 15, 2021)

20211215145219680_Gallardo – Reply Brief

Oral argument transcript, Gallardo v. Marstiller, No. 20-1263 (Jan. 10, 2022)

20211122145115235_Gallardo Amicus 11 22 2021 penultimate

Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller, No. 20-219 (U.S., April 28, 2022)

20-219_1b82

Gallardo v. Marstiller, No. 20-1263 (U.S., June 6, 2022)

20-1263_g2bh

+++

The Westside Mothers cases

Westside Mothers v. Haveman, 133 F.Supp.2d 549 (E.D. Mich. 2001)

Westside Mothers v Haveman 2001

Westside Mothers v. Haveman, 289 F.3d 852 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1045 (2002)

Westside Mothers v Haveman 2002

Haveman cert petition

James K HAVEMAN Jr Director of the State of Michigan Department of Community Health Petitioner v Wes

Westside Mothers cert opposition

James K HAVEMAN Jr Director Michigan Department of Community Health Petitioner v Westside MOTHERS a

US cert opposition

James K HAVEMAN Jr Director Michigan Department of Community Health Petitioner v Westside MOTHERS A(1)

Westside Mothers v. Olszewski, 368 F.Supp.2d 740 (E.D. Mich. 2005)

Westside Mothers v Olszewski 2005

Westside Mothers v. Olszewski, 454 F.3d 532 (6th Cir. 2006)

Westside Mothers v Olszewski 2006

Payment program holding abrogated by statute, see, e.g., A H R v. Washington State Health Care Authority, 469 F.Supp.3d 1018, 1040-41 (W.D. Wash. 2016)

A H R v Washington State Health Care Authority 2016

===

General Materials: the Artist M fix

42 U.S.C. sec. 1320a-2
42 U.S.C. sec. 1320a-2

42 U.S.C. sec. 1320a-10
42 U.S.C. sec. 1320a-10

LH:
LH, H. Conf. Rep. No. 103-761 (1994) at 926, reprinted in 1994 USCCAN 2901, 3257.
multiethnic placement

H.R. Rep. No. 102-631 (Ways & Means) at 364-67. Revenue Act of 1992; 1992 CIS H783-13, 5 fiches, page 1 (cover, fiche 1) plus pages 364-67 (fiche 4)
H.R. Rep. No. 102-631

138 Cong. Rec. 34090 (Oct. 8, 1992) (Sen. Riegle)
138 Cong. Rec. 34090

139 Cong. Rec. 5571 introducing S. 620 (March 18, 1993) (Sen. Riegle)
139 Cong. Rec. 5571

===

Other materials

Sheppard-Towner, Act of Nov. 23, 1921, see pp. 73-75

promotionofwelfa03unit

Hill-Burton, Pub. L. 79-725 (1946)

STATUTE-60-Pg1040

Reich, The New Property, 73 Yale Law Journal 733 (1964)

[1966 version]

58e1a4a04e344470335963

Reich, Individual Rights and Social Welfare: The Emerging Legal Issues, 74 Yale Law Journal 1245 (1965)

75_74YaleLJ1245_1964_1965_

Cover, Federal Judicial Review of State Welfare Practices, 67 Columbia L. Rev. 84 (1967)
Federal Judicial Review of State Welfare Practices-1

NWRO v. Finch, 429 F.2d 725 (D.C. Cir. 1970)
The National Welfare Rights Organization et al

Connecticut DPW v. HEW, 448 F.2d 209 (2d Cir. 1971)

Connecticut State Dept of Public Welfare v Department of Health Ed and Welfare Social and Rehabilita

Arizona DPW v. HEW, 449 F.2d 456 (9th Cir. 1971)
Arizona State Dept of Public Welfare v Department of Health Ed and Welfare.rtf
Arizona State Dept of Public Welfare v Department of Health Ed and Welfare-1

Almenares v. Wyman, 453 F.2d 1075 (2d Cir. 1971)
Almenares v Wyman-1

Tomlinson and Mashaw, Enforcement of Federal Standards in Grant-in-Aid Programs: Suggestions for Beneficiary Involvement,58 Virginia Law Review 600 (1972)

Enforcement of Federal Standards in Federal Grant-in Aid Programs

Perkins, Pin the Tail on the Donkey, 9 St. Louis Univ. Journal of Health Law & Policy 207 (2016)
jane_perkins-article-1-1

CMS, “Medicaid Program; Methods for Assuring Access to Covered Medicaid Services—Exemptions for States With High Managed Care Penetration Rates and Rate Reduction Threshold,” 83 Fed. Reg. 12696 (March 23, 2018).
2018-05898

===

US cert opposition in Westside Mothers

2002-0277.resp

===

1976: comparing FERPA with Social Security Act cooperative-federalism programs

Katherine Cudlipp, “The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act Two Years Later,” 11 University of Richmond Law Review 33 (1976), at 45-46; also printed in slightly different form at 122 Cong. Rec. 16447-16451 at 16449-50 (June 3, 1976) (remarks of Sen. Buckley).

The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act Two Years Later-1

In an important case61 the Supreme Court did not require exhaustion of administrative remedies prior to resort to judicial relief. Welfare recipients requested court review of the compatibility of New York’s welfare laws with requirements of the Social Security Act. HEW was, at the time of the suit, reviewing New York’s statutes, and could have terminated federal funding if the state laws were found not to comply with federal criteria. The Court based its holding, in part, on the fact that petitioners could not “trigger” or participate in the Department’s review of state laws.

Complainants under the Buckley Amendment, in contrast, do have recourse to HEW; in fact, it is individual complaints which trigger HEW’s investigation. Past experience indicates that most conflicts can be resolved through the administrative mechanism provided by the Department. It would appear that in most cases plaintiffs seeking injunctive relief from a federal court would first have to pursue available remedies with HEW.

If the relief sought by individuals cannot be obtained from the agency or if the administrative remedy is not “complete and efficient,”62 courts may not await final agency action. When “great
and obvious damage” might be suffered, courts may likewise provide injunctive relief before an agency completes its review.63 Thus, if a case arose where violation of provisions of the Buckley Amendment raised the specter of great and immediate injury, where HEW’s procedures would not provide prompt enough relief, federal courts might excuse the failure to exhaust administrative remedies. However, if potential harm were of such a magnitude, it seems
reasonable to expect that a cause of action under state law, common or statutory, would hold promise of success. Then the federal court might decline to imply a remedy under the Buckley Amendment because of available relief elsewhere.

61. Rosado v. Wyman, 397 U.S. 397 (1970).

62. Goldstein v. Groesbeck, 142 F.2d 422 (2d Cir. 1944).
63. Utah Fuel Co. v. National Bitum. Coal Comm’n, 306 U.S. 56 (1939).

1980-1996: repealing Thiboutot, limiting Pulliam v. Allen

===

S. 3114 (1980), 126 Cong. Rec. 25292-25295 (Sept. 15, 1980) (remarks of Sen. Hatch)

126 Cong Rec 25292

S. 584 (1981), 127 Cong. Rec. 3209-3212 (Feb. 26, 1981), bill text at 3212 (remarks of Sen. Hatch); 127 Cong. Rec. 4782-4783 (March 19, 1981) (remarks of Sen. Hatch); 127 Cong. Rec. 8871-8873 (May 7, 1981) (remarks of Sen. Hatch); “Municipal Liability Under 42 U.S.C. 1983,” Hearings, May 6 and 7, July 8, and July 23, 1981, 1982 CIS S521-8, bill text at 3; 127 Cong. Rec. 17871 (July 28, 1981) (statement of Sen. Domeneci, presented by Sen. DeConcini)

127 Cong Rec 3209

127 Cong Rec 4782

127 Cong Rec 8871

Hearings on S. 584, 1981

127 Cong Rec 17871

S. 141 (1983), 129 Cong. Rec. 809-817 (Jan. 26, 1983), bill text at 817 (remarks of Sen. Hatch)

129 Cong Rec 809

S. 436 (1985), 131 Cong. Rec. 2171 (Feb. 7, 1985) (remarks of Sen. Hatch); “Municipal Liabillity,” Hearings, Feb. 12, 1986, 1987 CIS 521-17, bill text at 4-5

131 Cong Rec 2171

Hearing on S. 436, 1986

S. 325 (1987), 133 Cong. Rec. 1473-1478 (Jan. 20, 1987) (remarks of Sen. Hatch)

133 Cong Rec 1473

===

Pub. L. 104-317, sec. 309

PLAW-104publ317

H.R. Rep. 104-798

hr-rep-104-798

S. Rep. 104-366

s-rep-104-366

+++

141 Cong. Rec. H 7559 (July 25, 1995) (remarks of Rep. Owens).

CREC-1995-07-25-pt1-PgH7559

141 Cong. Rec. H 9884 (Oct. 11, 1995) (testimony of David Bergman, Packard Children’s Hospital, October 2, 1995), reprinted in the Record via 141 Cong. Rec. H 9874, H 9880 (remarks of Rep. Pelosi).

CREC-1995-10-11-pt1-PgH9874

141 Cong. Rec. H 14208 (Dec. 7, 1995) (remarks of Rep. Pallone).

CREC-1995-12-07-pt1-PgH14208-3

142 Cong. Rec. E1161-62 (June 25, 1996) (remarks of Rep. Stark).

CREC-1996-06-25-pt1-PgE1161-4

142 Cong. Rec. S7208 June 27, 1996) (remarks of Sen. Chafee).

CREC-1996-06-27-pt1-PgS7208

142 Cong. Rec. H7747 (July 17, 1996) (remarks of Rep. Wamp).

CREC-1996-07-17-pt1-PgH7745-4

142 Cong. Rec. S8346-47 (July 19, 1996) (remarks of Sen, Rockefeller).

CREC-1996-07-19-pt1-PgS8336

Pub. L. 104-193

plaw-104publ193-5

===

1902(a)(8) Cases at the Seventh Circuit

Nasello v. Eagleson, No. 19-3215 (7th Cir., Oct. 6, 2020)

7C Nasello opinion 10 6 20

Saint Anthony Hosp. v. Eagleson, No. 1:20-cv-2561 (N.D. Ill., filed April 27, 2020)

Complaint

[]

Memorandum Opinion and Order, July 9, 2021

St Anthony Hosp memorandum opinion and order

Seventh Circuit # 21-2325

St Anthony Hospital opening brief, September 9, 2021

7C St A OB 9 9 21

NHeLP amicus, September 17, 2021

7C St A NHeLP amicus 9 17 21

Intervenors’ appellee brief, December 22, 2021

7C St A interv appellee br 12 22 21

State agency appellee brief, December 23, 2021

7C St A IL appellee br 12 23 21

Reply brief, January 14, 2022

7C St Anthony Hosp rb 1 14

02/15/2022

Case heard and taken under advisement by panel: Diane P. Wood, Circuit Judge; David F. Hamilton, Circuit Judge and Michael B. Brennan, Circuit Judge. [57] [7217332] [21-2325] (MAN) [Entered: 02/15/2022 12:46 PM]

Appellee’s supplemental letter on claim preclusion, February 17, 2022

7C St Anthony Hosp IL post OA letter 2 17

Seventh Circuit opinion, July 5, 2022

rssExec-3

===

Daly v. Eagleson, No. 1:21-cv-6020 (N.D. Ill., filed )

Memorandum and Order, September 27, 2021

Daly opinion 9 27 21

===

Another case from Wisconsin

US response to cert petition in Senger/Keup v. Wisconsin, No. 03-10777

2003-10777.pet.ami.inv

===

1902(a)(23) Cases

Dear State Medicaid Director 16-5, April 19, 2016
smd16005

Dear State Medicaid Director 18-3, Jan. 19, 2018
smd18003

FOURTH CIRCUIT

[South Carolina memo supporting motion to dismiss, August 20, 2018]

[SC memo dism]

Planned Parenthood South Atlantic v. Baker, No. 3:18-cv-2078 (D. S.C.), 326 F.Supp.3d 39 (August 28, 2018)

PPSA v. Baker PI

Appeal, No. 18-2133

[Planned Parenthood opposition to dismissal, September 4, 2018]

[PP dism op]

[US reply supporting dismissal, September 11, 2018]

[US reply dism]

Appellant’s opening brief, 11/26/2018

4C PPSA v. Baker appellant’s opening brief

Appellees’ brief, 1/14/2019

4c pp appellees’ brief

Reproductive rights organizations amicus, 1/22/2019

4c reproductive rights orgzs amicus

NHeLP amicus, 1/22/2019

4c nhelp amicus

Appellant’s opposition to amicus filings, 2/4/2019

4C opposition to amicus filings

Appellant’s reply brief, 2/4/2019

4C reply brief

Order accepting amicus filings, 2/6/2019

4C order accepting amicus briefs

Opinion, 10/29/2019

4C PP v Baker opinion

SC request to extend time for filing for cert, January 3, 2020

20200103141603867_2020-01-03 SCDHHS PPSAT-Extension of Time Request For Petition for Cert

Extension order for filing for cert to 3/27/20, January 8, 2020

No. 19A752

USC extension to 3 27

[Planned Parenthood motion and memo for summary judgment, January 31, 2020]

[PP MSJ]

[South Carolina memo opposing summary judgment, February 24, 2020]

[SC MSJ op]

[Planned Parenthood summary judgment reply, February 28, 2020]

[PP SJ reply]

Order re cert procedures, March 19, 2020

031920zr_d1o3

[Opinion denying motion to dismiss, March 23, 2020]

[M dism denial]

Petition for certiorari, March 27, 2020 (No. 19-1186)

20200327125507902_USSC Petition for Writ of Certiorari

Motion to extend time for response to 5/29, April 24, 2020

20200424101633944_SC Medicaid Opp Cert Extension

Apr 24 2020

Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including May 29, 2020.

American Center for Law and Justice amicus, April 29, 2020

20200429102735438_Baker v Edwards – Amicus brief

Family Policy Councils amicus, April 29, 2020

20200429123128336_Baker v. Edwards FPC Amici brief 4-29-20

Nebraska, Indiana, and 17 other states amicus, April 29, 2020

20200429123619148_Baker – 19-1186 – Amici States Brief

Americans United for Life amicus, April 29, 2020

20200429124844771_19-1186 Amicus Brief of American United for Life

137 Members of Congress amicus, April 29, 2020

20200429141634244_19-1186ac137MembersOfCongress

86 current and 2 former SC Legislators amicus, April 29, 2020

20200429152003850_Amicus Brief

Motion for extension of time to respond, May 21, 2020

20200521133704170_SC Medicaid Opp Cert Extension2

May 22 2020

Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including June 29, 2020.

Motion for extension of time to respond, June 18, 2020

20200618095446571_SC Medicaid Opp Cert Extension3_

Jun 19 2020

Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including July 29, 2020

Opposition to petition for certiorari, July 29, 2020

20200729181358162_Baker v PP Brief in Opp FINAL

Petitioner’s motion to delay distribution, August 6, 2020

20200806193755957_Request for delay of distribution date

Aug 07 2020

Motion to delay distribution of the petition for a writ certiorari until September 16, 2020, granted.

Petitioner’s reply, September 15, 2020

20200915103650182_19-1186 Reply Brief

[Trial court summary judgment opinion, September 17, 2020]

[PP v. Baker SJ order]

Respondents’ supplemental brief on mootness, September 22, 2020

20200922184224203_Baker v PP Supplemental Brief

Petitioners’ supplemental brief, October 8, 2020

20201008152609789_19-1186 Response to Supplemental Brief

Cert denied, October 13, 2020

101320zor_8m58

Stipulation to dismiss additional counts, December 11, 2020

PP v Baker stip to dismiss addl counts

Judgment, December 11, 2020

PP v Baker judgment 12 11 20

12/14/2020

TEXT ORDER Vacating 75 Judgment. Signed by Honorable Mary Geiger Lewis on 12/14/2020. (cbru, ) (Entered: 12/14/2020)

Declaratory judgment and permanent injunction, December 14, 2020

decl j perm i

South Carolina notice of appeal, January 8, 2021

SC 2d NOA

Appeal #2 file number, 21-1043

Briefing order, January 26, 2021

4C briefing order

Phillip opening brief, March 29, 2021

4C2 Phillip OB

Appellees’ brief, May 28, 2021

4C appellees brief

Reproductive Rights and Justice Organizations amicus, June 3, 2021

4C reproductive rights and justice orgz amicus

National Health Law Program amicus, June 4, 2021

4C NHeLP amicus

American Academy of Family Physicians amicus, June 4, 2021

4C American Acad Fam P amicus

Reply brief, July 2, 2021

4C SC reply brief

Planned Parenthood request to file surreply, July 30, 2021

4C PP surreply mo 7 30

Order requesting response, August 2, 2021

4C PP order rq rsp 8 2

SC response re surreply, August 12, 2021

4C South Carolina response re surreply 8 12

Order granting leave to file surreply, December 27, 2021

4C surreply order 12 27

Planned Parenthood surreply, December 28, 2021

4C2 PP surreply 12 28

01/26/2022

ORAL ARGUMENT (Video Conference) heard before the Honorable J. Harvie Wilkinson, III, James Andrew Wynn and Julius N. Richardson. Attorneys arguing case: Mr. John J. Bursch for Appellants Robert M. Kerr and Joshua Baker and Nicole A. Saharsky for Appellee Planned Parenthood South Atlantic. Courtroom Deputy: Joseph Coleman. [1001098922] [21-1043] JLC [Entered: 01/26/2022 11:35 AM]

Opinion, March 8, 2022

4C opinion 3 8 22

Petition for certiorari, No. 21-1431, May 6, 2022

20220506114001794_2022.05.06 USSC Petition for Writ of Certiorari

Motion to expedite, May 6, 2022

20220511132732308_2022.05.06 Motion to Expedite Consideration of Petition

American Center for Law and Justice amicus, May 11, 2022

20220511150302295_Amicus Brief – Kerr v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic

102 Members of SC Legislature amicus, May 11, 2022

20220511144653356_21-1431 Amicus Brief

Family Policy Alliance amicus, May 11, 2022

20220511160604366_21-1431 Kerr v Planned Parenthood South Atlantic FPC Amici brief 5-11-22

Americans United for Life amicus, May 12, 2022

20220512092757709_21-1431 Amicus Brief of Americans United for Life

128 Members of Congress amicus, May 16, 2022

20220516141517156_21-1431 Brief for 128 Members of Congress in Support of Petitioner

Indiana et al amicus, May 16, 2022

20220516144846286_21-1431 tsac Indiana and Fifteen Other States

May 17 2022

Motion DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/2/2022.

Letter from petitioners re Talevski, May 19, 2022

20220519182629702_2022.05.19 Letter to Court re Talveski stay order

Amended motion to expedite, May 27, 2022

20220527165956949_2022.05.27 Amended Motion to Expedite Consideration of Petition

Planned Parenthood request for extension of time, June 1, 2022

20220601104258491_Kerr v PPSAT – Opp Extension Letter PDFA

South Carolina opposition to extension of time, June 1, 2022

20220601144858967_2022.06.01 Response to request for extension

Jun 06 2022	Motion to expedite consideration of the petition for a writ of certiorari, as amended on May 27, 2022, DENIED.

Jun 06 2022	Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including July 11, 2022.

Second request for extension, June 30, 2022

20220630153503516_second extension request

Jul 01 2022	Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including August 10, 2022.

Cert response, August 10, 2022

20220810155903347_21-1431 Brief in Opposition

FIFTH CIRCUIT

[]

US amicus brief

5C PP v Gee US amicus

Planned Parenthood of Gulf Coast, Inc. v. Gee, 862 F.3d 445 (5th Cir. 2017)

Planned Parenthood of Gulf Coast Incorporated v Gee

Planned Parenthood of Gulf Coast, Inc. v. Gee, 876 F.3d 699 (5th Cir. 2017)

Planned Parenthood of Gulf Coast Incorporated v Gee(1)

Petition for cert, No 17-1492, filed April 27, 2018

20180427135540119_Gee v Planned Parenthood_cert. petition_PDF-a

American Center on Law and Justice amicus, May 30, 2018

20180531164747384_Gee v PPGC Amicus ACLJ

27 Family Policy Organizations amicus, May 31, 2018

20180531124951132_17-1492 Amicus Brief of Twenty-Seven Family Policy Organizations

90 Members of Congress amicus, May 31, 2018

20180531140245033_17-1492 Amcus BrIef of 90 Members of Congress

Indiana et al amicus, May 31, 2018

20180531152126434_Brief of Indiana et. al. as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner

Planned Parenthood opposition, July 2, 2018

20180702130527612_Gee v. Planned Parenthood Brief in Opposition

Petitioner’s reply, August 2, 2018

20180802114632261_Gee v Planned Parenthood reply brief_pdfA

Dec 10 2018

Petition DENIED Justice Thomas, with whom Justice Alito and Justice Gorsuch join, dissenting from the denial of certiorari. (Detached Opinion)

17-1492_g3bi

Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Family Planning & Preventative Health Services, Inc v. Smith, 913 F.3d 551 (5th Cir. 2019)

Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Family Planning and Preventative Health Services Inc v Smith

Petition for rehearing en banc, January 31, 2019

PP Smith pet rheb 1 31 19

Motion for stay, February 1, 2019

5C mo stay 2 19

Order for rehearing en banc, February 4, 2019

5C Smith order rheb 2 4 19

Plaintiffs’ opposition, February 4, 2019

5C Smith PP stay op 2 4 19

Order for TX reply, February 5, 2019

5C order for Smith reply 2 5 19

Smith reply supporting stay, February 7, 2019

5C Smith stay reply 2 7 19

Order carrying stay motion with case, February 15, 2019

5C order carrying stay w case 2 15 19

Appellants’ supplemental brief, March 7, 2019

5C TX supp br 3 7 19

77 Members of Congress amicus, March 14, 2019

5C 77 Members amicus 3 14 19

Eagle Forum amicus, March 14, 2019

5C Eagle Forum amicus 3 14 19

Louisiana/Mississippi amicus, March 14, 2019

5C LA MS amicus 3 14 19

Alliance Defending Freedom amicus, March 14, 2019

5C ADF mo leave 3 14 19

5C ADF amicus (not accepted) 3 14 19

Cruz Cornyn amicus, March 14, 2019

5C Cruz Cornyn mo leave 3 14 19

5C Cruz Cornyn amicus 3 14 19

Appellees’ supplemental brief, April 8, 2019

5C PP supp br 4 8 19

18 U.S. Senators’ amicus, April 15, 2019

5C 18 Senators amicus 4 15 19

National Health Law Program amicus, April 18, 2019

5C NHeLP mo leave 4 15

5C NHeLP amicus 4 15

05/14/2019

EN BANC ORAL ARGUMENT HEARD Stewart, Jolly, Jones, Smith, Dennis, Owen, Elrod, Southwick, Haynes, Graves, Higginson, Costa, Willett, Ho, Duncan, Engelhardt En Banc;. Arguing Person Information Updated for: Kyle Douglas Hawkins arguing for Appellants Dr. Courtney Phillips, Et Al; Arguing Person Information Updated for: Jennifer Sandman arguing for Appellee Jane Doe I, Appellee Jane Doe 10, Appellee Jane Doe 11, Appellee Jane Doe 2, Appellee Jane Doe 4, Appellee Jane Doe 7, Appellee Jane Doe 9, Appellee Planned Parenthood Cameron County, Appellee Incorporated Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast, Appellee Planned Parenthood San Antonio, Appellee Planned Parenthood South Texas Surgical Center, Et Al. [17-50282] (PFT) [Entered: 05/14/2019 10:25 AM]

Defendants’ supplemental authority (Herrera v. Wyoming), June 3, 2019

5C TX supp auth Herrera

Plaintiffs’ supplemental authority, November 4, 2019

5C PP supp auth 4C

Defendants’ response, November 7, 2019

5C TX resp 4C

Plaintiffs’ supplemental authority, October 19, 2020

5C PP supp auth cert denial

Defendants’ response, October 20, 2020

5C TX resp cert denial

11/23/2020

COURT DIRECTIVE ISSUED denying as moot motion to stay order filed by Appellants Mr. Charles Smith and Ms. Sylvia Hernandez Kauffman [8974562-2]. [17-50282] (CCR) [Entered: 11/23/2020 01:33 PM]

Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Family Planning & Preventative Health Services, Inc.
v. Kauffman, 981 F.3d 347 (5th Cir. 2020)

Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Family Planning and Preventative Health Services Incorporated v

===

SEVENTH CIRCUIT

US trial level statement of interest

PP Ind US statement of interest

US amicus brief

7C PP amicus

Planned Parenthood of Indiana, Inc. v. Commissioner of Indiana State Department of Health,
699 F.3d 962 (7th Cir. 2012)

Planned Parenthood of Indiana Inc v Commissioner of Indiana State Dept Health

===

EIGHTH CIRCUIT

Does v. Gillespie,

Appellants’ brief, December 1, 2015

8C Does Selig appellants br

Appellees’ brief, January 29, 2016

8C Does appellee br

NHeLP amicus, February 4, 2016

8C NHeLP amicus

Plaintiffs’ additional authority (5^th Circuit DOJ brief), February 18, 2016

8C Does addl auth Federal brief

Defendants’ response, February 23, 2016

8C def response Federal brief

Appellants’ reply brief, February 26, 2016

8C Does Selig appellants rb

Plaintiffs’ additional authority (CMS letter), April 27, 2016

8C Does addl auth CMS letter

Defendants’ response, May 3, 2016

8C def response CMS letter

Plaintiffs’ additional authority (Gee), September 16, 2016

8C Does addl auth Gee

09/21/2016

ARGUED & SUBMITTED in St. Louis to Judges Steven M. Colloton, Michael J. Melloy, Bobby E. Shepherd on 09/21/2016 Mr. Lee P. Rudofsky for Appellant John M. Selig and Ms. Jennifer Sandman for Appellees Jane Does and Planned Parenthood Arkansas & Eastern Oklahoma. Rebuttal by Mr. Lee P. Rudofsky for John M. Selig RECORDED. Click Here To Listen to Oral Argument [4450624] [15-3271] (LAH) [Entered: 09/21/2016 12:56 PM]

Defendants’ additional authority (second injunction), September 29, 2016

8C def addl auth 2d inj

Defendants’ additional authority, July 13, 2017

8C def addl authority revised Gee

Does v. Gillespie, 867 F.3d 1034 (8th Cir. 2017)

Does v Gillespie WL

Plaintiffs’ petition for rehearing en banc, August 30, 2017

8C pet rheb

Order requesting response, September 27, 2017

8C order rq resp

Response to petition for rehearing en banc, October 24, 2017

8C state rheb op

Order denying petition for rehearing en banc, November 13, 2017

8C order denying rheb

===

NINTH CIRCUIT

US amicus brief

9C PP v Betlach US amicus

Planned Parenthood Arizona v. Betlach, 727 F.3d 960 (9th Cir. 2013)

Planned Parenthood Arizona Inc v Betlach

===

TENTH CIRCUIT

[]

Planned Parenthood of Kan. v. Andersen, 882 F.3d 1205 (10th Cir. 2018)

Planned Parenthood of Kansas v Andersen

Cert petition, No. 17-1340, March 21, 2018

20180321141128195_Andersen v. Planned Parenthood of Kansas et al._Petition-1

Indiana et al amicus, April 16, 2018

20180423105359150_Brief of Indiana et al. as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner-1

Americans United for Life amicus, April 16, 2018

20180423103023537_17-1340 Amicus Brief of American United for Life-1

Planned Parenthood opposition, May 23, 2018

20180523164304452_17-1340 Brief in Opposition

Kansas reply, June 1, 2018

20180601103631521_17-1340 rb-1

Dec 10 2018

Petition DENIED. Justice Thomas, with whom Justice Alito and Justice Gorsuch join, dissenting from the denial of certiorari: I dissent for the reasons set out in Gee v. Planned Parenthood, 586 U. S. ___ (2018) (Thomas, J., dissenting).

===

The Ninth Circuit’s single state agency case

San Lazaro Ass’n v. Connell

US statement of interest, 2001 WL 34094767

Khachik SIMONYAN Oganes Nagapetyan Plaintiffs-Appellees v Kathleen CONNELL Controller of the State o

Panel opinion

San Lazaro Assn Inc v Connell panel

Opinion on rehearing en banc

San Lazaro Assn Inc v Connell rheb

===

US amicus briefs in voting rights cases

Migliori, Third Circuit

3C Migliori US amicus br

Arkansas NAACP, Eighth Circuit

arkansas_state_conf_naacp_v._arkansas_boad_of_apportionment_no._22-1395_8th_cir._4.22.22

====

Foster care payments, etc., cases

Poole

Second Circuit

Opinion, April 19, 2019

2C Poole opinion 4 19 19

2C Livingston dissent 4 19

Petition for rehearing en banc, June 23, 2019

2C petition rheb

Order denying rehearing en banc, with dissents, August 16, 2019

2C order denying rheb

2C Livingston dissent

2C Cabranes dissent

Petition for cert, No. 19-574, October 30, 2019

20191030180318056_Poole v NYSCCC_Petition for Writ

States’ amicus, December 2, 2019

20191202134552318_19-574 Poole v NYSCCC State Amici Brief 12-2-2019 FINAL

Brief in opposition, January 2, 2020

20200102121349135_NYSCCC BIO 1.2.2020

Poole reply, January 9, 2020

20200109154057873_19-574 Reply Brief

Jan 27 2020

Petition DENIED.

===

Adoption assistance, etc., cases

Bryan C. v. Lambrew, No. 1:21-cv-5 (D. Maine, filed Jan. 6, 2021)

Complaint

Bryan C complaint 1 6 22

First amended complaint, March 19, 2021

Bryan C 1st am C 3 19

Maine motion to dismiss, April 2, 2021

Bryan C ME mo dism 4 2 21

Plaintiffs’ opposition to motion to dismiss, May 14, 2021

Bryan C dism op 5 14

Reply supporting Maine motion to dismiss, May 28, 2021

Bryan C dism reply 5 28

Order on motion to dismiss, October 4, 2021, [2021 WL 4526851]

Bryan C v Lambrew order on mo dism 10 4 21

[]

M.B. v. Corsi, No. 2:17-cv-4102 (W.D. Mo., Jan. 18, 2018)

M.B. order on mo dism 1 818

Elisa W. v. City of New York, No. 1:15-cv-5273 (S.D. N.Y., filed July 8, 2015)

Complaint

[]

Order on motion to dismiss, September 12, 2016

Elisa W opinion on dism 9 12 16

===

L.J. v. Wilbon, No. 09-2259 (4th Cir., Feb. 8, 2011)

4C LJ v Wilbon opinion

===

Connor B. v. Patrick, No. 1:10-cv-30073 (D. Mass, filed April 15, 2010)

Complaint

[]

Order on motion to dismiss, January 4, 2011, 771 F.Supp.2d 142

Connor B order on mo dism 1 4 2011

[]

Order after bench trial, November 22, 2013

Connor B order after bench trial 11 22 2013

===

Sam M. v. Chafee, No. 1:07-cv-241 (D. R.I., filed June 28, 2007)

Complaint

[]

Order on motion to dismiss, July 20, 2011, 800 F.Supp.2d 363

Sam M order on mo dism 7 20 2011

[]

===

Olivia Y. v. Barbour, 351 F.Supp.2d 543 (S.D. Miss. 2004)

Olivia Y decision

===

31 Foster Children v. Bush, No. []-[], 329 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir., May 8, 2003)

31 Foster Children v Bush

===

Kenny A. v. Barnes, No. 1:02-cv-1686 (N.D. Ga., removed July 19, 2002)

Notice of removal and attachments

[]

Order on motion to dismiss, August 18, 2003, 218 F.R.D. 277

Kenny A order on mo dism 8 18 2003

[]

===

Brian A. v. Sundquist, No. 3:00-cv-445 (M.D. Tenn., filed May 10, 2000)

Complaint

[]

Order on motions to dismiss, October 26, 2000, 149 F.Supp.2d 941

Brian A ex rel Brooks v Sundquist

[]

[settled]

===

Charlie H. v. Whitman, 83 F.Supp.2d 476 (D. N.J. 2000)

Charlie H v Whitman

===

Vienna Convention cases

U.S. v. Jimenez-Nava, 243 F.3d 192 (5th Cir. 2001)

243_F.3d_192

U.S. v. Emuegbunam, 268 F.3d 377 (6th Cir. 2001)

268_F.3d_377

Cornejo v. County of San Diego, 504 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2007)

504_F.3d_853

Mora v. New York, 524 F.3d 183 (2d Cir. 2008)

524_F.3d_183

Gandara v. Bennett, 528 F.3d 823 (11th Cir. 2008)

528_F.3d_823

Earle v. District of Columbia, 707 F.3d 299 (D.C. Cir. 2012)

707_F.3d_299

Waiver programs, and proposals, that would exclude Planned Parenthood

Idaho

Family Planning Referrals proposal, October 21, 2019

id-family-planning-referrals-pa

Family Planning Referrals completeness letter, October 28, 2019

id-family-planning-referrals-cmplt-ltr-20191028

South Carolina

Preconception Care proposal, August 23, 2018

sc-transitioning-preconception-care-pa

Preconception Care completeness letter, September 6, 2018

sc-transitioning-preconception-care-cmpltnss-ltr-090618

Tennessee

TennCare II Amendment 36 request, August 10, 2018

tn-tenncare-ii-pa4

Texas

Healthy Texas Women proposal, June 28, 2017

tx-healthy-women-pa

Healthy Texas Women completeness letter, July 5, 2017

tx-healthy-women-cmpltnss-ltr-070517

Healthy Texas Women approval, January 22, 2020

tx-healthy-women-ca

Talevski (suits against private entities)

Talevski v. Health and Hospitals Corp. of Marion County, No. 2:19-cv-13 (N.D. Ind.), No. 20-1664 (7th Cir.)

[]

Opinion and Order, March 26, 2020

4095500-0–10779

===

Analogies

Cummings complaint

Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller,No. 4:18-cv-649 (N.D. Tex., filed August 7, 2018)

Cummings complaint 8 7 18

Order dismissing complaint, January 16, 2019

177112112016

[]

Fifth Circuit opinion, January 24, 2020

19-10169 Cummings opinion

[]

Solicitor General’s views,

20210525164611783_20-219 Cummings vf

[]

Disability Organizations amicus brief,

20210830143841749_20-219 tsac Disability Organizations

[]

US amicus brief,

20210830222142004_20-219tsacUnitedStates

[]

Texas amicus brief,

20211006134712160_20-219 Amici Brief

[]

No. 20-219 (April 28, 2022)

20-219_1b82

Share this:

Like this: