Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether a litigant who is directly protected by an administrative rule and has been allowed to intervene to defend it lacks standing to appeal a decision invalidating the rule if the litigant is also protected by an injunction from a different court?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED Since 2011, federal courts have repeatedly considered whether forcing religious objectors to provide health plans that include contraceptive coverage violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Over and over again, this Court has reviewed these cases on an emergency basis or on the merits. Yet it has never definitively resolved the RFRA dispute. In 2016, an eight-Justice Court in Zubik v. Burwell did not reach the RFRA question and instead remanded for the parties to try to reach a resolution, on the evident assumption that the executive branch possessed the power to provide broader accommodations and/or exemptions. After months of negotiations (and an intervening election), the agencies finally agreed to promulgate new rules providing a broader exemption, seemingly bringing an end to this long-running dispute. Those new rules were challenged, however, by several states, resulting in a nationwide injunction on the theory that RFRA and the Affordable Care Act not only do not require, but do not even allow, the religious exemption rules. That nationwide injunction has stagnated other cases, and it conflicts with the judgments of many courts that have issued final orders affirmatively requiring comparable exemptions under RFRA. The rights of religious objectors—including the Little Sisters’ right to defend an exemption—remain very much at issue. The questions presented are: 1. Whether a litigant who is directly protected by an administrative rule and has been allowed to intervene to defend it lacks standing to appeal ii a decision invalidating the rule if the litigant is also protected by an injunction from a different court? 2. Whether the federal government lawfully exempted religious objectors from the regulatory requirement to provide health plans that include contraceptive coverage?
Docket Entries
2020-08-10
JUDGMENT ISSUED.
2020-04-26
Reply of petitioners Donald J. Trump, et al. filed (in 19-454). (Distributed)
2020-04-24
Reply of petitioner The Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home filed (in 19-431). (Distributed)
2020-04-08
Brief amici curiae of Professors of Civil Procedure and Federal Courts filed (in 19-454). (Distributed)
2020-04-08
Brief amici curiae of National League of Cities, United States Conference of Mayers, International City/County Management Association and International Municipal Lawyers Association filed (in 19-454). (Distributed)
2020-04-08
Brief amicus curiae of Public Citizen filed (in 19-454). (Distributed)
2020-04-08
Brief amici curiae of Public Interest Law Center and Five Affiliated Lawyers' Committees filed (in 19-454). (Distributed)
2020-03-23
Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix in No. 19-431 filed by petitioner GRANTED.
2020-03-19
The record received from the U.S.C.A. 3rd Circuit has been electronically filed.
2020-03-09
Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix in No. 19-454 filed by petitioners GRANTED.
2020-03-09
Brief amici curiae of Nicholas Bagley and Samuel L. Bray filed (in 19-454).
2020-03-09
Brief amici curiae of Michael Stokes Paulsen and Kevin C. Walsh filed (in 19-431).
2020-03-09
Brief amicus curiae of Christian Business Owners Supporting Religious Freedom filed (in 19-431).
2020-03-05
Motion for leave to dispense with printing the joint appendix in No. 19-431 filed by petitioner (in 19-431).
2020-03-02
Brief of petitioner The Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home filed (in 19-431).
2020-03-02
Brief of Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al. filed (in 19-454).
2020-03-02
Motion for leave to dispense with printing the joint appendix in No. 19-454 filed (in 19-454).
2020-02-26
Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 3rd Circuit.
2020-01-13
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/17/2020.
2019-12-23
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/10/2020.
2019-12-20
Reply of petitioner The Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home filed.
2019-12-09
Brief of respondents Commonwealth of Pennsylvania et al. in opposition filed.
2019-11-01
Brief amicus curiae of Christian Legal Society filed.
2019-11-01
Brief amici curiae of United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, et al. filed.
2019-11-01
Brief amicus curiae of First Liberty Institute filed.
2019-10-28
Brief amici curiae of Residents and Families of Residents at Homes of the Little Sisters of the Poor filed.
2019-10-24
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted in part; the time is extended to and including December 9, 2019.
2019-10-23
Letter of October 23, 2019 from counsel for petitioners received.
2019-10-22
Motion to extend the time to file a response from November 1, 2019 to December 16, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
2019-10-08
Blanket Consent filed by Petitioners, The Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home.
2019-10-01
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 1, 2019)
Attorneys
186 Members of the United States Congress
Administrative Law Scholars
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Association of University Women; the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees; and 14 Additional Professional, Labor, and Student Associations
American Center for Law and Justice
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Nurses Association, American Academy of Nursing, Physicians for Reproductive Health, and Nurses for Sexual and Reproductive Health
Catholics For Choice, et al.
Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence
Center for Health Law & Policy Innovation of Harvard Law School, et al.
Christian Business Owners Supporting Religious Freedom
Cities of Oakland, St. Paul, and 30 Additional Cities and Counties
City of St. Paul, Minnesota
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania et al.
Constitutional Law Scholars
Howard University School of Law, Civil and Human Rights Clinic
Independent Women's Law Center
Inner Life Fund and Institute for Faith and Family
Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc. and Human Rights Campaign
March for Life Education and Defense Fund
Michael Stokes Paulsen and Kevin C. Walsh
National League of Cities, United States Conference of Mayers, International City/County Management Association and International Municipal Lawyers Association
New Civil Liberties Alliance
Nicholas Bagley and Samuel L. Bray
Phyllis C. Borzi and Daniel J. Maguire
Planned Parenthood Federation of America, National Health Law Program, National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, Raising Women's Voices for the Health Care We Need
Professor Douglas Laycock
Professors - Zachary D. Clopton, Amanda Frost, Suzette Malveaux, Alan Trammell
Professors of Criminal Law, Former State Attorneys General, and Former United States Department of Justice Officials
Public Interest Law Center and Five Affiliated Lawyers' Committees
Religious and Civil-Rights Organizations
Residents and Families of Residents at Homes of the Little Sisters of the Poor
The American Civil Liberties Union, et al
The Catholic Association Foundation, et al.
The Catholic Benefits Association
The International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc., the Coalition for Jewish Values, Asma T. Uddin, Pastor Robert Soto, and Imam Ossama Bahloul
The Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home
The National Women’s Law Center, the National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum, the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Justice, SisterLove, Inc. and 50 Additional Organizations
The States Of Texas, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, And West Virginia
U.S. Women’s Chamber of Commerce, National Association for Female Executives and Businesses
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, et al.
Yale Law School Program for the Study of Reproductive Justice