Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED Title X of the Public Health Service Act, which authorizes federal funding for family planning services, provides that “[nJlone of the funds appropriated under this subchapter shall be used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning.” 42 U.S.C. 300a-6. In Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 178 (1991), this Court upheld a regulation that, among other things, prohibited recipients of Title X funds from making elective-abortion referrals in Title X clinics and also required them to maintain physical separation between those clinics and any abortion-related activities. This Court explained that those referral and separation provisions were authorized by statute, the product of reasoned decisionmaking, and consistent with the Constitution. Relying on that decision, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a final rule in 2019 that reinstated materially indistinguishable referral and separation provisions. The questions presented are as follows: 1. Whether the rule falls within the agency’s statutory authority. 2. Whether the rule is the product of reasoned decisionmaking. (I)
2021-05-17
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.
2021-03-12
Joint stipulation to dismiss the case pursuant to Rule 46.1 filed.
2021-02-12
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/19/2021.
2021-01-19
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/22/2021.
2020-12-23
Reply of petitioners Alex M. Azar, et al. filed. (Distributed)
2020-12-23
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/8/2021.
2020-12-14
Brief of respondent Mayor and City Council of Baltimore in opposition filed.
2020-12-08
Letter waiving the 14-day waiting period for the distribution of the petition for a writ of certiorari pursuant to Rule 15.5. filed.
2020-12-08
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted in part; the time is further extended to and including December 14, 2020.
2020-12-07
Petitioners response to motion for further extension of time to file a response filed.
2020-12-05
Motion to extend the time to file a response from December 9, 2020 to February 5, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
2020-11-09
Brief amici curiae of American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists, et al. filed.
2020-11-03
Blanket Consent filed by Respondent, Mayor and City Council of Baltimore
2020-11-03
Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, Alex M. Azar, et al.
2020-11-02
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including December 9, 2020.
2020-10-30
Motion to extend the time to file a response from November 9, 2020 to December 9, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.
2020-10-07
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 9, 2020)