Transition 2020-2021

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-8-1


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)

2021-01175

86 Fed. Reg. 24,140 (May 5, 2021)

2021-09102

86 Fed. Reg. [] (June 28, 2021)

non Federal Register version

2021-13993

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

file0.720886914097843

Stay order, April 22, 2021

file0.589722448299778

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

Texas complaint 1 22

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

Pekoske memo 1 20

Exhibit C, Paxton letter to Pekoske, January 21

Paxton letter to Pekoske 1 21

Exhibit D, Smoot affidavit

Smoot affidavit

Exhibit E, Lopez declaration

Lopez declaration

Proposed TRO

Proposed TRO

ACLU amicus filing, January 22, 2021

6 21 cv 3 ACLU

Texas ‘advisory,’ January 24, 2021

Texas advisory

Order for conference, January 24, 2021

conference setting

US opposition to TRO, January 25, 2021

US TRO op

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

US notice re e-mails 1 25

TRO, January 26, 2021

Texas v. US TRO 1 26 21

RAICES intervention papers, January 27, 2021

raices interv

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

Notice of issue

Texas opposition to RAICES intervention, February 3, 2021

Texas op Raices interv

Memorandum and order for preliminary injunction, February 23, 2021

Preliminary injunction 2 23 21

Reade amicus request, March 1, 2021

Reade amicus 3 1 21

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

TX stip dismissal

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

TL PI mo

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

TL pltf supp dec Clark

Defendants’ opposition to preliminary injunction, May 18, 2021

TL US PI op

Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction reply, May 25, 2021

TL pltf PI reply

Joint motion re case management, June 16, 2021

TL joint motion re case mgt conf

US additional authority (California v. Texas), June 17, 2021

TL US addl auth CA v TX

Plaintiffs’ response to California v. Texas, June 23, 2021

TL response to addl auth CvT

Order requesting factual update, June 24, 2021

TvUS order requesting responses

Plaintiffs’ response, June 28, 2021

TL supp br 6 28

US’s response, June 28, 2021

TL US supp advisory 6 28

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

US response Guzman Chavez 7 2

Plaintiffs’ response re Arizona, July 6, 2021

TL pltf response re Arizona

US response re hearing, July 9, 2021

TL US response re hearing

Plaintiffs’ response re hearing, July 9, 2021

TL pltfs response re hearing

US motion to consolidate with Coe, July 12, 2021

US mo consol

US motion to expedite consideration of consolidation motion, July 12, 2021

US mo expedite consol

Coe plaintiffs’ opposition to consolidation, July 15, 2021

Coe pltf consol op

Texas plaintiffs’ opposition to consolidation, July 16, 2021

TX consol op

Order denying consolidation, July 26, 2021

TX order denying consol

Arizona v. U.S. D.H.S., No. 2:21-cv-186 (D. Ariz.)

Arizona complaint with exhibits, February 3, 2021

merged_31036_-1-1612583362

az-dhs-agreement

Arizona/Montana motion for preliminary injunction, March 8, 2021

merged_31156_-1-1615325250

Immigration Law Reform Institute amicus, March 24, 2021

file0.379422494015795

US opposition to motion for preliminary injunction, March 26, 2021

merged_50842_-1-1616883219

ACLU amicus, March 26, 2021

merged_64866_-1-1616883303

Unopposed US motion for extension of time to answer, March 30, 2021

merged_21607_-1-1617203758

Order granting extension of time to answer, March 30, 2021

file0.370590941785974

Motion to transfer Puente Human Rights Movement case to Judge Bolton, March 30, 2021

merged_56708_-1-1617203830

Arizona/Montana reply supporting preliminary injunction, April 2, 2021, with exhibits

merged_45919_-1-1617502900

Minute entry, April 8, 2021

21839225-0–117298

Immigration organizations amicus, May 6, 2021

merged_91026_-1-1620495521

Defendants’ motion to dismiss, May 6, 2021

merged_85196_-1-1620495582

Arizona supplemental brief, May 7, 2021

merged_76276_-1-1620495649

ACLU supplemental brief, May 13, 2021

merged_27247_-1-1620941501

US opposition to motion for preliminary injunction, May 13, 2021

merged_57062_-1-1621104123

Arizona opposition to US motion to dismiss, May 13, 2021

merged_12387_-1-1621104180

Immigration Law Reform Institute amicus, May 18, 2021

file0.296646156153781

US notice of additional authority (Florida), May 19, 2021

merged_17760_-1-1621613368

Arizona supplement to supplemental brief, May 19, 2021

merged_17168_-1-1621613469

US supplemental brief, May 21, 2021

merged_87067_-1-1621983816

US notice re immigration priorities, June 7, 2021

file0.211787631540698

US notice of additional authority (California v. Texas), June 17, 2021

merged_74028_-1-1624034575

Arizona response to additional authority, June 17, 2021

file0.984373817957145

US notice, June 28, 2021

file0.448293075469461

Arizona response to US notice, June 28, 2021

file0.868775772667629

Order granting motion to dismiss/denying preliminary injunction, 6/30/2021

AZ order dismissing

Notice of appeal, June 30, 2021

file0.735580690941912

Motion for emergency stay, July 1, 2021

merged_94641_-1-1625535047

Ninth Circuit #: 21-16118

Motion for reconsideration, July 2, 2021

merged_29354_-1-1625535129

Scheduling order re injunction pending appeal response, July 7, 2021

file0.969264885216159

Scheduling order re reconsideration response, July 8, 2021

file0.905766780060855

US opposition to motion for injunction pending appeal, July 9, 2021

file0.00435577290239664

Plaintiffs’ reply supporting stay, July 11, 2021

file0.567825769345415

Plaintiffs’ additional deposition excerpts, July 12, 2021

merged_79440_-1-1626188666

Order denying emergency motion for injunction pending appeal, July 15, 2021

file0.235351978141022

Arizona Ninth Circuit motion for injunction pending appeal, July 15, 2021

9C pltf ipa mo

US opposition to motion for reconsideration, July 16, 2021

file0.019701929568452

Reply supporting reconsideration, July 23, 2021

file0.0494686861440066

US opposition to Ninth Circuit motion for injunction pending appeal, July 23, 2021

9C US ipa op 7 23

ACLU amicus, July 23, 2021

9C ACLU amicus

Puente Human Rights Movement v. Brnovich, No. 2:21-cv-446 (D. Ariz)

Complaint, March 16, 2021

merged_6975_-1-1617204394

Unopposed motion for extension of time to answer, March 29, 2021

merged_57566_-1-1617204424

Order granting motion for extension of time to answer, March 29, 2021

file0.0942785316530141

Motion to transfer Puente Human Rights Movement case to Judge Bolton, March 30, 2021

merged_56708_-1-1617203830

US filing supporting transfer, April 6, 2021

21821393-0–118275

Arizona filing opposing transfer, April 13, 2021

21851750-0–12209

Reply supporting transfer, April 20, 2021

file0.290404212000919

Order refusing to transfer, May 14, 2021

file0.191690124842477

US motion to dismiss, June 14, 2021

merged_19041_-1-1623795438

Arizona motion to dismiss, June 14, 2021

merged_82252_-1-1623795523

Voluntary dismissal, July 12, 2021

file0.055395064680976

Order dismissing case with prejudice, July 13, 2021

file0.216709245034632

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

Order denying PI

Florida notice of appeal, May 19, 2021

FL notice of appeal

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

11C FL mo expedite

US opposition to expediting, June 1, 2021

11C US expedite op

Florida reply supporting expediting, June 2, 2021

11C FL expedite reply

Order expediting appeal, June 3, 2021

11C expediting order

Florida opening brief, June 14, 2021

11C FL opening br

Advocates for Victims of Illegal Alien Crime amicus, June 16, 2021

11C Adv Victims Illegal A Crime amicus

US opposing brief, July 12, 2021

11C US appellee br

ACLU amicus, July 15, 2021

11C ACLU amicus

The DACA case, as decided July 16, 2021

Texas v. U.S., No. 1:18-cv-68 (S.D. Tex., July 16, 2021)

DACA decision 7 16 21

DACA order 7 16 21

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

20210601182404018_19-1212 Mayorkas v Innovation Law Lab Respondents Opposition to Motion to Intervene

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).

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

20210312142720890_20-429 Motion to Intervene of The American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians Gynecologists

AAPLObGyn’s motion for leave to file supplemental brief, and supplemental brief, March 15, 2021

20210315161031026_20-429 Motion for leave to file a supplement brief in support of intervention and proposed supplemental brief_FINAL

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

20210319121745519_20-429 Motion for Leave to File a Supplement Brief in Support of Intervention and Brief in Support of Intervention

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

042621zor_e18f

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 2021Petition Dismissed – Rule 46.

US notice re Cook County case and new policy, March 10, 2021

merged_58850_-1-1615473350

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

9C SC amicus join mo

US opposition to intervention, March 22, 2021

9C US op interv

Plaintiffs’ joint opposition to intervention, March 22, 2021

9C state pltfs interv op

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

7373227-0–82516

Motion to intervene, with memo, April 9, 2021

merged_13281_-1-1623253299

Western Baptist declaration

7388428-0–71068

William Jessup declaration

7388450-0–71229

Phoenix Seminary declaration

7388459-0–71299

Intervenors’ proposed motion to dismiss, May 13, 2021

merged_3167_-1-1623253715

U.S. opposition to motion to intervene,

7460300-0–71731

Fireworks Federalism

Noem v. Haaland, No. 3:21-cv-3009 (D. S.D., filed April 30, 2021)

Noem v. Haaland complaint

Motion/memo for preliminary injunction, with exhibits, April 30, 2021

Noem v. Haaland PI ms

Motion to expedite briefing schedule, May 3, 2021

SD mo to expedite briefing 5 3 21

US opposition to expediting briefing, May 6, 2021

US op to exped 5 6 21

Order expediting briefing, May 6, 2021

Order expediting briefing 5 6 21

US Answer, May 13, 2021

US answer

Order denying preliminary injunction, June 2, 2021

Order denying fireworks PI

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

6C order denying intervention

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 2021Petition 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)

SSRN-id3389453

Disability Law Center comments on Anchorage Intervention 2020 proposal

DLC analysis — Anchorage Intervention 2020 x