Whether the government that adopted a discriminatory law is absolved of traceability for standing purposes when the law is based on judicial precedent

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Classed by law as a ‘less-than, and treated for some purposes as property rather than a person, Petitioner Baby Jane seeks constitutional equality under the law, as provided for in the three-prong equal protection test of Levy v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 68 (1968). While the Tenth Circuit agreed she has a right to equal protection, it declined to hold the government responsible for its discriminatory law, holding that this Court’s precedents of Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) absolve the government of traceability for an equal protection violation, thus setting up a circuit clash between the Tenth Circuit and the D.C. Circuit. The questions presented are: 1. Whether, when a provision in state statute or the United States Code is based on judicial precedent, the government that adopted the law is absolved of traceability for standing purposes or whether traceability should be measured by the Block v. Meese, 793 F.2d 1303 (D.C. Cir. 1986) standard, affirmed by this Court in Dep’t of Commerce v. N.Y., 139 S. Ct. 2551 (2019). 2. Whether Levy and its three-prong test is the controlling precedent in equal protection challenges involving unborn children instead of Roe and Casey and whether Roe and Casey ought to be reassessed, overruled, and replaced with an explicit recognition of the inclusion of unborn children in Fourteenth Amendment protection for purposes of equal protection and substantive due process rights. ii LIST OF PROCEEDINGS e Doe v. Hunter, No. 19-5005 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Judgment entered Dec. 6, 2019. Petition for panel rehearing denied Feb. 24, 2020, and mandate issued March 3, 2020. e Doev. Hunter, Case No. 18-cv-408, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma. Judgment entered Nov. 30, 2018. There are no additional proceedings in any court Counsel is aware of that are directly related to this case.