Here’s a summary of health-related litigation where there’s a Trump to Biden transition underway, or a possible transition; I’ll try to update the summary when needed.
transition-update-9-3-21 updated 9-6
Also, here is a link to Kaiser’s “interactive tool of significant health policies implemented by the Trump administration using its own authority — executive orders, agency guidance or formal regulations,” which Kaiser is also using to track “Biden administration and court actions.”
The Great Undoing: Which of Trump’s Policies Will Biden Reverse?
Links to pre-January-20 cases where a transition is underway
The Global Challenge, see https://affordablecareactlitigation.com/a-global-challenge/
The challenges to the Trump Administration association health plan regulations, see https://affordablecareactlitigation.com/whittling-away/
The challenges to the 2018/19 Trump Administration notice of benefit and policy parameters, see https://affordablecareactlitigation.com/whittling-away/
The challenges to the Trump Administration short-term limited-duration regulations, see https://affordablecareactlitigation.com/whittling-away/
The challenges to the Trump Administration 1557 regulations, see https://affordablecareactlitigation.com/aca-enforcement-directly-and-1557/
The challenges to the Trump Administration religious and moral objections regulations, see https://affordablecareactlitigation.com/religious-and-moral/
The challenges to the Trump Administration 1303 regulations, see https://affordablecareactlitigation.com/religious-and-moral/
The challenges to the Trump Administration Title X regulations, see https://affordablecareactlitigation.com/title-x-program-integrity/
The challenges to the Trump Administration statutory conscience protections, see https://affordablecareactlitigation.com/statutory-conscience-rights/
The challenges to the Trump Administration 1115 “community engagement” policies, see https://affordablecareactlitigation.com/1115-medicaid-waivers-community-engagement/
The challenges (if any) to the Trump Administration’s Medicaid block grant policies, see https://affordablecareactlitigation.com/medicaid-1115-block-grant-waivers/
The challenge to the Trump Administration’s 1332 policies, in the form of the complaint against Georgia’s 1332 waiver, see https://affordablecareactlitigation.com/1332-2/
The Trump to Biden Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters Trilogy, January 19, March 5, and June 28, 2021
86 Fed. Reg. 6138 (Jan. 19, 2021)
86 Fed. Reg. 24,140 (May 5, 2021)
86 Fed. Reg. [] (June 28, 2021)
non Federal Register version
Non-ACA cases:
The sunset rule case, County of Santa Clara v. U.S. D.H.H.S., No. 5:21-cv-1655 (N.D. Cal.), filed March 18, 2021
County-of-Santa-Clara-et-al.-v.-HHS-et-al.-Complaint-3.9.21
Stipulation for stay, April 21, 2021
Stay order, April 22, 2021
Joint status report and motion for continued stay, July 30, 2021
Continued stay order, July 30, 2021
Sunset continued stay order 7 30
The challenge to the SNAP work requirements no-waiver policy, see D.C./Bread for the City v. Dep’t of Agriculture, 1:20-cv-119 (D. D.C.), appeals, Nos. 20-5136 and 20-5371 (D.C. Cir.), https://affordablecareactlitigation.com/miscellaneous-aca-litigation/
The challenges to the Biden Administration deportation pause
A quick incomplete summary, which I’ll try to keep updated:
unworthy-immigration-agreements-litigation-6-15
And the cases:
6:21-cv-3 (S.D. Tex.)
6:21-cv-16 (S.D. Tex.)
2:21-cv-186 (D. Ariz.)
see also 2:21-cv-446 (D. Ariz)
8:19-cv-541 (M.D. Fla.), 21-11715 (11th Cir.)
Texas v. U.S., the Unworthy Immigration Agreement case, No. 6:21-cv-3 (S.D. Tex., filed January 22, 2021)
Complaint
Note: Exhibits A-C are appended both to the Complaint and the TRO motion
Emergency TRO application
Emergency TRO application 1 22
Exhibit A, the Unworthy Immigration Agreement (executed 12/31 and 1/8)
US-Texas Agreement 12 31 20 1 8 21
Exhibit B, Pekoske memo, January 20
Exhibit C, Paxton letter to Pekoske, January 21
Exhibit D, Smoot affidavit
Exhibit E, Lopez declaration
Proposed TRO
ACLU amicus filing, January 22, 2021
Texas ‘advisory,’ January 24, 2021
Order for conference, January 24, 2021
US opposition to TRO, January 25, 2021
US response to advisory, January 25, 2021
| 01/25/2021 | Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Drew B Tipton. ZOOM HEARING held on 1/25/2021. Regarding Advisory 6 . The Court instructs Defense Counsel to submit a copy of the email referenced in the Advisory (Dkt. 6) and to preserve any evidence, emails, texts, instant messages or any other communication from January 22, 2021 forward related to the release of individuals in custody that were subject to an Order of Removal. Defense Counsel is further instructed to verify and advise the Court whether the only individuals in custody that were subject to an Order of Removal that have been released since January 22, 2021 were pursuant to the California litigation referenced in (Dkt. #9). Defense Counsel is further instructed to advise the Court of the number of individuals in custody that were subject to an Order of Removal who have been released from custody in the United States since Friday January 22, 2021 and the locations from which they were released. Appearances:Adam Kirschner. William Thomas Thompson, Patrick K Sweeten, Daniel David Hu.(Digital # 8:01-8:35)(ERO:Annette Martinez), filed.(KelliePapaioannou, 2) (Entered: 01/25/2021) |
US notice re e-mails, January 25, 2021
TRO, January 26, 2021
RAICES intervention papers, January 27, 2021
| 01/29/2021 | Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Drew B Tipton. STATUS CONFERENCE held on 1/29/2021. Motion to Intervene 28 discussed. Responses to motion due by Wednesday, February 3, 2021. Discovery issues addressed. The parties agree and the Court limits interrogatories to seven, requests for admissions to five and no requests for production. Parties may attach any evidence to supplemental briefings. Primary briefing is limited to 40 pages. Replies limited to 25 pages. Times New Roman font 12pt to be used for the body and Times New Roman 11pt to be used for footnotes. The Court discourages excessive use of footnotes. The Court orders the United States to produce the Administrative Record by 2/3/2021. Briefing schedule to be entered. Appearances:Cody Wofsy. Andre Ivan Segura, Brian C Rosen-Shaud, Adam David Kirschner, Todd Lawrence Disher, Patrick K Sweeten, Daniel David Hu.(Digital # 11:03-12:46)(ERO:Frenchie Carbia), filed.(KelliePapaioannou, 2) (Entered: 01/29/2021) |
Notice to the parties of issue, February 1, 2021
Texas opposition to RAICES intervention, February 3, 2021
Memorandum and order for preliminary injunction, February 23, 2021
Preliminary injunction 2 23 21
Reade amicus request, March 1, 2021
| 03/09/2021 | Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Drew B Tipton. STATUS CONFERENCE held on 3/9/2021. The United States deadline for filing an Answer is extended to May 27, 2021. The Parties have agreed to stay discovery until the United States Answers. Discussion held regarding the refusal of ICE to honor detainers which have historically resulted in the removal of aliens who have committed felonies and who are completing their federal sentences. Further discussion held regarding the refusal of ICE to remove aliens who have committed felonies that have requested to be deported. The Court instructs counsel for the United States to provide the name of the individual within DHS that has instructed ICE to not remove aliens who have committed felonies and who are completing their federal sentences, as well as the name of the individual within DHS that has instructed ICE to not remove aliens who have committed felonies and have requested to be deported. Appearances: Kathryn Lynn Huddleston, Adam David Kirschner, Todd Lawrence Disher, Patrick K Sweeten, Daniel David Hu.(Digital # 10:01-10:23)(ERO:Verlinda Rios), filed.(KelliePapaioannou, 2) (Entered: 03/10/2021) |
Stipulation for dismissal, May 20, 2021
Texas and Louisiana v. U.S., No. 6:21-cv-16 (S.D. Tex., filed April 6, 2021)
Complaint
Texas Louisiana complaint 4 6 21
Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction motion, April 27, 2021
Advocates for Victims of Illegal Alien Crime amicus, May 11, 2021
TL advocates for victims of illegal alien crime amicus
Plaintiffs’ supplemental declaration (Clark), May 18, 2021
Defendants’ opposition to preliminary injunction, May 18, 2021
Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction reply, May 25, 2021
Joint motion re case management, June 16, 2021
TL joint motion re case mgt conf
US additional authority (California v. Texas), June 17, 2021
Plaintiffs’ response to California v. Texas, June 23, 2021
Order requesting factual update, June 24, 2021
TvUS order requesting responses
Plaintiffs’ response, June 28, 2021
US’s response, June 28, 2021
US notice of supplemental authority (Arizona), June 30, 2021
US notice supp auth (Arizona) 6 30
Plaintiffs’ notice of supplemental authority (Johnson v. Guzman-Chavez), July 1, 2021
Pltf notice addl auth (Johnson)
US response re Guzman-Chavez, July 2, 2021
Plaintiffs’ response re Arizona, July 6, 2021
US response re hearing, July 9, 2021
Plaintiffs’ response re hearing, July 9, 2021
US motion to consolidate with Coe, July 12, 2021
US motion to expedite consideration of consolidation motion, July 12, 2021
Coe plaintiffs’ opposition to consolidation, July 15, 2021
Texas plaintiffs’ opposition to consolidation, July 16, 2021
Order denying consolidation, July 26, 2021
Preliminary injunction, August 19, 2021
US notice of appeal, August 20, 2021
US motion for stay, August 20, 2021
Scheduling order, August 21, 2021
| 08/23/2021 | Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Drew B Tipton. STATUS CONFERENCE held on 8/23/2021. The Court heard argument on Defendants Emergency Motion to Stay 82 . The Defendants originally misunderstood the reporting requirements in the August 19, 2021 Memorandum Opinion and Order 79 to be injunctive relief. The Court explained to the Parties that the reporting requirements are a case management tool to monitor compliance and to gather information that would be relevant and helpful for the Court in making a final determination at trial. The Court went through the four reporting requirements with the Parties one by one. The Defendants requested certain modifications to those reporting requirements that the Court will address by separate Order. The parties will confer and file any suggested revisions to these reporting requirements by September 1, 2021. The first report is continued until October 5, 2021. The Parties will confer and propose a schedule for discovery and trial. Appearances: Brian C Rosen-Shaud, Adam David Kirschner, Daniel David Hu, Joseph Scott StJohn, Patrick K Sweeten, William Thomas Thompson.(Digital # 9:00-9:53)(ERO:Nicole Tirado), filed.(KelliePapaioannou, 2) (Entered: 08/24/2021) |
Fifth Circuit # 21-40618
US motion for stay pending appeal, August 23, 2021
Administrative stay and order, August 25, 2021
Plaintiffs’ opposition to stay, August 30, 2021
US reply supporting stay, September 1, 2021
5C US reply supporting stay 9 1
Joint notice, September 1, 2021
Fifth Circuit notice re oral argument on Sept. 8, September 3, 2021
5C notice re oral argument for 9 8
| 09/08/2021 | ORAL ARGUMENT HEARD before Judges Southwick, Graves, Costa. Arguing Person Information Updated for: Sarah Elaine Harrington arguing for Appellant Acting Director Johnson, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Appellant Secretary Mayorkas, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Appellant Acting Commissioner Miller, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Appellant Tracy Renaud, Appellant United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Appellant United States Customs and Border Protection, Appellant United States Department of Homeland Security, Appellant United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Arguing Person Information Updated for: Benjamin D. Wilson arguing for Appellee State of Louisiana [21-40618] (PFT) [Entered: 09/08/2021 11:09 AM] |
Fifth Circuit opinion, September 15, 2021
5C TX v. US 21-40618_opinion 9 15 21
Plaintiffs’ motion for extra-record discovery, September 15, 2021
TL mo for extra record discovery 9 15
US discovery opposition, September 22, 2021
====
Arizona v. U.S. D.H.S., No. 2:21-cv-186 (D. Ariz.)
Arizona complaint with exhibits, February 3, 2021
Arizona/Montana motion for preliminary injunction, March 8, 2021
Immigration Law Reform Institute amicus, March 24, 2021
US opposition to motion for preliminary injunction, March 26, 2021
ACLU amicus, March 26, 2021
Unopposed US motion for extension of time to answer, March 30, 2021
Order granting extension of time to answer, March 30, 2021
Motion to transfer Puente Human Rights Movement case to Judge Bolton, March 30, 2021
Arizona/Montana reply supporting preliminary injunction, April 2, 2021, with exhibits
Minute entry, April 8, 2021
Immigration organizations amicus, May 6, 2021
Defendants’ motion to dismiss, May 6, 2021
Arizona supplemental brief, May 7, 2021
ACLU supplemental brief, May 13, 2021
US opposition to motion for preliminary injunction, May 13, 2021
Arizona opposition to US motion to dismiss, May 13, 2021
Immigration Law Reform Institute amicus, May 18, 2021
US notice of additional authority (Florida), May 19, 2021
Arizona supplement to supplemental brief, May 19, 2021
US supplemental brief, May 21, 2021
US notice re immigration priorities, June 7, 2021
US notice of additional authority (California v. Texas), June 17, 2021
Arizona response to additional authority, June 17, 2021
US notice, June 28, 2021
Arizona response to US notice, June 28, 2021
Order granting motion to dismiss/denying preliminary injunction, 6/30/2021
Notice of appeal, June 30, 2021
Motion for emergency stay, July 1, 2021
Ninth Circuit #: 21-16118
Motion for reconsideration, July 2, 2021
Scheduling order re injunction pending appeal response, July 7, 2021
Scheduling order re reconsideration response, July 8, 2021
US opposition to motion for injunction pending appeal, July 9, 2021
Plaintiffs’ reply supporting stay, July 11, 2021
Plaintiffs’ additional deposition excerpts, July 12, 2021
Order denying emergency motion for injunction pending appeal, July 15, 2021
Arizona Ninth Circuit motion for injunction pending appeal, July 15, 2021
US opposition to motion for reconsideration, July 16, 2021
Reply supporting reconsideration, July 23, 2021
US opposition to Ninth Circuit motion for injunction pending appeal, July 23, 2021
ACLU amicus, July 23, 2021
Ninth Circuit order directing responses re status of reconsideration motion below, July 27, 2021
9C order directing responses re recon below
Arizona response, July 27, 2021
US response, July 29, 2021
Ninth Circuit order denying injunction pending appeal w/o prejudice, July 30, 2021
9C order denying ipa w o prejudice
Arizona notice of order and request for expedited ruling, August 9, 2021
Additional Arizona materials (copy of Ninth Circuit order), August 9, 2021
Order denying motion for reconsideration, August 12, 2021
Arizona Ninth Circuit motion for reconsideration, August 13, 2021
Ninth Circuit order denying reconsideration and scheduling further briefing, August 19, 2021
Arizona additional authority (SD Tex), August 24, 2021
Arizona additional authority (MPP), August 24, 2021
US opposition to renewed emergency motion for injunction pending appeal, August 25, 2021
9C US op to emergency ipa 8 25
ACLU renewal of amicus, August 25, 2021
US notice of additional authority (Tipton), August 30, 2021
US notice of additional authority (MPP), August 30, 2021
Arizona reply supporting injunction pending appeal, September 1, 2021
9C AZ corrected reply supporting ipa
Arizona opening brief, September 1, 2021
Arizona motion to reinstate briefing schedule, September 1, 2021
9C AZ mo reinstate briefing schedule
Order denying injunction pending appeal, September 3, 2021
US motion for abeyance and stay, October 4, 2021
9C AZ v US US abeyance mo 10 4 21
Arizona opposition to abeyance, October 12, 2021
=============
Puente Human Rights Movement v. Brnovich, No. 2:21-cv-446 (D. Ariz)
Complaint, March 16, 2021
Unopposed motion for extension of time to answer, March 29, 2021
Order granting motion for extension of time to answer, March 29, 2021
Motion to transfer Puente Human Rights Movement case to Judge Bolton, March 30, 2021
US filing supporting transfer, April 6, 2021
Arizona filing opposing transfer, April 13, 2021
Reply supporting transfer, April 20, 2021
Order refusing to transfer, May 14, 2021
US motion to dismiss, June 14, 2021
Arizona motion to dismiss, June 14, 2021
Voluntary dismissal, July 12, 2021
Order dismissing case with prejudice, July 13, 2021
Florida v. United States, No. 8:21-cv-541 (M.D. Fla., filed March 8, 2021)
Complaint, with exhibits
Florida v. US complaint w exhibits
[]
Order denying preliminary injunction, May 18, 2021
Florida notice of appeal, May 19, 2021
Eleventh Circuit # 21-11715
Unopposed Florida motion to stay trial level proceedings, May 20, 2021
Unop FL mo stay trial proceedings
Stay order, May 24, 2021
FL v US imm stay order 5 24 21
Florida motion to expedite appeal, May 26, 2021
US opposition to expediting, June 1, 2021
Florida reply supporting expediting, June 2, 2021
Order expediting appeal, June 3, 2021
Florida opening brief, June 14, 2021
Advocates for Victims of Illegal Alien Crime amicus, June 16, 2021
11C Adv Victims Illegal A Crime amicus
US opposing brief, July 12, 2021
ACLU amicus, July 15, 2021
Florida reply, August 2, 2021
Order for supplemental briefing, August 19, 2021
Eleventh Circuit Florida additional authority (S.D. Tex.), August 24, 2021
US supplemental letter brief, August 30, 2021
US response to Florida additional authority (S.D. Tex.), September 1, 2021
Florida supplemental letter brief, September 8, 2021
US notice of supplemental authority (Texas), September 20, 2021
Florida response to US notice, September 21, 2021
11C FL response to US supp auth
| 09/24/2021 | Oral argument held. Oral Argument participants were Henry Charles Whitaker for Appellant State of Florida and H. Thomas Byron, III for Appellees USA, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, United States Department of Homeland Security, United States Customs and Border Protection and Acting Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection. [Entered: 09/24/2021 09:20 AM] |
US supplemental authority (guidelines), October 1, 2021
===========
The DACA case, as decided July 16, 2021
Texas v. U.S., No. 1:18-cv-68 (S.D. Tex., July 16, 2021)
The US case against Texas interference
United States of America v. State of Texas, No. 3:21-cv-173 (W.D. Tex., filed July 30, 2021)
Complaint
Motion for TRO and preliminary injunction, July 30, 2021
Texas opposition to TRO, with appendix, August 2, 2021
Hearing held, August 2
US reply, August 3, 2021
TRO, August 3, 2021
Vacating a Trump Administration immigration policy by agreement at the Supreme Court
SUPREME COURT MOTION PRACTICE IN THE MIGRANT PROTECTION PROTOCOLS CASE, No. 19-1212
US motion to hold further briefing in abeyance, February 1, 2021
20210201143843402_19-1212 Innovation Law Lab – Motion to Hold in Abeyance – FINAL
| Feb 03 2021 | Motion to hold further briefing in abeyance and remove the case from the February 2021 argument calendar GRANTED. |
Texas et al motion to intervene, May 18, 2021
20210518155508880_19-1212 Motion to Intervene
Plaintiffs’ opposition to motion to intervene, June 1, 2021
US opposition to motion to intervene, June 1, 2021
20210601210757011_19-1212 Innovation Law Lab – Intervention Opp – final
US suggestion of mootness and motion to vacate, June 1, 2021
20210601211037408_Innovation Law Lab – Suggestion of Mootness – final
Plaintiffs’ opposition to motion to vacate, June 11, 2021
19-1434_ancf20210611143025132_19-1212 Mayorkas v Innovation Law Respondents Opposition to Motion to Vacate
US reply supporting motion to vacate, June 15, 2021
20210615154911362_19-1212 United States reply in support of vacatur
Proposed intervenors’ reply/response, June 15, 2021
20210615174855379_Mayorkas v. Innovation Law Lab. – Rep ISO Intervention
US letter reply re intervention and vacatur, June 18, 2021
20210618101655665_Innovation Law Lab supp letter iso vacatur – Final_
| Jun 21 2021 | Motion for leave to intervene filed by States of Texas, Missouri, and Arizona dismissed as moot. |
| Jun 21 2021 | The motion to vacate the judgment is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit with instructions to direct the District Court to vacate as moot the April 8, 2019 order granting a preliminary injunction. See United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U. S. 36 (1950). |
At the district court level in Texas:
Texas and Missouri v. Biden, No. 2:21-cv-67 (N.D. Tex.)
[]
Consolidation order, June 29, 2021
[]
Opinion, August 13, 2021
US trial-level motion for stay, August 16, 2021
Texas response to motion for stay, August 17, 2021
Order denying motion for stay, August 17, 2021
US emergency motion for stay, August 17, 2021
Fifth Circuit request for response, August 17, 2021
[Pro-immigration amicus]
[Pro-immigration amicus]
Opposition, August 18, 2021
[Anti-immigration amicus]
US reply supporting stay, August 19, 2021
Fifth Circuit opinion/order, August 19, 2021
US application for stay, No. 21A21, August 20, 2021
20210820162350223_Texas v. Biden Stay Application
20210820162554567_Texas v. Biden Stay Appendix – final-1
Order by Justice Alito, August 20, 2021
ACLU amicus, August 23, 2021
20210823100247753_8.23.21 ACLU Motion for Leave to File and Amicus Brief 21A21
Non-profit organizations amicus, August 23, 2021
20210823085748543_Biden v TX NGO Amici Motion and Brief Final to File 2021.08.23
Al Otro Lado, August 23, 2021
20210823201439760_motion for amicus and amicus brief AOL Biden v TX no highlights
Texas response, August 24, 2021
20210824164319966_21A21 OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR A STAY PENDING APPEAL
Indiana amicus, August 24, 2021
Immigration Reform Law Institute amicus, August 24, 2021
20210824163332874_IRLI MPP Stay Amicus
US reply, August 24, 2021
20210824185014969_Biden v. Texas 21A21 – Reply iso stay application final
| Aug 24 2021 | Application (21A21) denied by the Court. The applicants have failed to show a likelihood of success on the claim that the memorandum rescinding the Migrant Protection Protocols was not arbitrary and capricious. See Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 591 U. S. ___ (2020) (slip op., at 912, 17-26). Our order denying the Government’s request for a stay of the District Court injunction should not be read as affecting the construction of that injunction by the Court of Appeals. Justice Breyer, Justice Sotomayor, and Justice Kagan would grant the application. |
Intervening on appeal at the Supreme Court to defend a prior Administration’s regulation
SUPREME COURT MOTION PRACTICE IN THE TITLE X CASES, Nos. 20-429, 20-454, 20-539
Ohio motion to intervene in Supreme Court case, March 8, 2021
20210308151317902_Title X Intervention Motion
Joint stipulation to dismiss, March 12, 2021
20210312173545229_20-429 and 20-539 – AMA v. Cochran – Oregon v. Cochran – Stipulation to Dismiss
American Ass’n of Pro-Life Ob’s and Gyn’s motion to interevene or present oral argument in Supreme Court case, March 12, 2021
AAPLObGyn’s motion for leave to file supplemental brief, and supplemental brief, March 15, 2021
Ohio et al motion for leave to file supplemental brief, and supplemental brief, March 15, 2021
20210315162546294_Motion for Leave to File Supp Brief
US opposition to motions to intervene, March 18, 2021
20210318164758577_20-429 et al. American Medical Assn et al. Govt Opp to Motions to Intervene
State petitioners’ opposition to motions to intervene, March 18, 2021
20210318191449392_20-539 States of Oregon et al Opposition to Motions to Intervene.Final
AMA, et al, opposition to motions to intervene, March 18, 2021
20210318192845954_20-429 and 20-454 – AMA v. Cochran – Opposition to Motions to Intervene
Ohio supplemental filing and motion for leave to file, March 19, 2021
20210319081851347_SCOTUS Motion for Leave to File Supp Brief re Intervention
AAPLObGyn supplemental filing and motion for leave to file, March 19, 2021
Ohio reply supporting intervention, March 19, 2021
20210319150728838_Reply ISO Intervention
AAPLObGyn reply supporting intervention, March 22, 2021
20210322130659907_2021.03.22 Reply in Support of Motion to Intervene with Declaration
US letter to the Court, April 15, 2021
20210415103405665_Letter 20-429 20-454 20-539
Order, April 26, 2021
20-429 ) AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSN., ET AL. V. BECERRA, SEC. OF H&HS, ET AL.
20-454 ) BECERRA, SEC. OF H&HS, ET AL. V. MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL BALTIMORE
20-539 ) OREGON, ET AL. V. BECERRA, SEC. OF H&HS, ET AL.
The Acting Solicitor General is directed to file a letter brief addressing the following question: Whether the Government intends to continue to enforce the challenged rule and regulations outside the State of Maryland until the completion of notice and comment; and, if further litigation is brought against the challenged rule and regulations outside of Maryland, how the Government would intend to respond. The brief, not to exceed three pages, is to be filed by Monday, May 3, 2021. The non-federal parties and the proposed intervenors may submit any responses in letter briefs, not to exceed three pages each, by
Monday, May 10, 2021.
Petitioners’ unopposed request for 2d extension to file opening briefs, April 29, 2021
20210429100438321_Extension letter 20-429 20-454 20-539 merit 2-1
US letter responding to April 26 order, May 3, 2021
20210503144133267_20-429 Am Med 20-454 and 20-539
Ohio letter responding to US letter, May 10, 2021
20210510152701058_Title X Response Letter
American Ass’n of Pro Life OB GYN letter, May 10, 2021
20210510163928117_2021.05.10 Response Letter Brief_Final-1
| 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. VIDED. |
Intervening on appeal to defend a prior Administration’s regulation (Supreme Court, Ninth Circuit)
SUPREME COURT AND NINTH CIRCUIT MOTION PRACTICE IN ONE OF THE PUBLIC CHARGE CASES, Nos. 20-449, 20-450, and 20-962; Nos. 19-17213, 19-17214, and 19-35044 (9th Cir.)
Stipulation to dismiss petition, March 9, 2021
20210309095806348_20-962 – USCIS v City and County of San Francisco Dismissal Stipulation
| Mar 09 2021 | Petition Dismissed – Rule 46. |
US notice re Cook County case and new policy, March 10, 2021
US letter re dismissal of petition, March 10, 2021
9C US letter re cert dismissal 3 10 21
Arizona motion to intervene, March 10, 2021
9C Arizona motion to intervene 3 10 21
South Carolina motion to join Arizona intervention, March 11, 2021
US opposition to intervention, March 22, 2021
Plaintiffs’ joint opposition to intervention, March 22, 2021
Intervening to defend a religious exception to a civil rights statute
Hunter v. U.S. Dep’t of Education, No. 6:21-cv-474 (D. Or., filed March 29, 2021)
Complaint
Motion to intervene, with memo, April 9, 2021
Western Baptist declaration
William Jessup declaration
Phoenix Seminary declaration
Intervenors’ proposed motion to dismiss, May 13, 2021
U.S. opposition to motion to intervene,
Fireworks Federalism
Noem v. Haaland, No. 3:21-cv-3009 (D. S.D., filed April 30, 2021)
Motion/memo for preliminary injunction, with exhibits, April 30, 2021
Motion to expedite briefing schedule, May 3, 2021
SD mo to expedite briefing 5 3 21
US opposition to expediting briefing, May 6, 2021
Order expediting briefing, May 6, 2021
Order expediting briefing 5 6 21
US Answer, May 13, 2021
Order denying preliminary injunction, June 2, 2021
Intervening on appeal to defend a state law (case taken by the Supreme Court, March 29, 2021)
EMW Women’s Surgical Center v. Friedlander, No. 19-5516 (6th Cir.)
Sixth Circuit order denying intervention, June 24, 2020
Sixth Circuit order rejecting Cameron petition for rehearing en banc, July 16, 2020
6C order rejecting rheb petition
Cameron petition for cert, No. 20-601, October 30, 2020
20201030151534720_Cameron PFC Petition-1
Arizona et al brief in support, December 7, 2020
20201207135426780_20-601 Amici Brief States
Plaintiffs’ opposition to Cameron cert petition, February 5, 2021
20210205130341140_20-601 Cameron v EMW Women Surgical Center Brief in Opposition
Cameron reply, February 19, 2021
20210219152550103_20-601 Reply in Support of Cert
Order, No. 20-601, March 29, 2021
| Mar 29 2021 | Petition GRANTED limited to Question 1 presented by the petition. |
[Question 1:] Whether a state attorney general vested with the power to defend state law should be permitted to intervene after a federal court of appeals invalidates a state statute when no other state actor will defend the law.
| Apr 27 2021 | Motion to extend the time to file the briefs on the merits granted. The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner’s brief on the merits is extended to and including June 14, 2021. The time to file respondents’ brief on the merits is extended to and including August 13, 2021. |
Barry Cushman, The Judicial Reforms of 1937, 61 William and Mary Law Review 995 (2020)
Disability Law Center comments on Anchorage Intervention 2020 proposal
