No. 21-1469

Samuel Armstrong v. Gavin Newsom, Governor of California, et al.

Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2022-05-23
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response Waived Experienced Counsel
Tags: 14th-amendment due-process emergency-powers executive-order fourteenth-amendment jacobson-v-massachusetts judicial-review public-health roman-cath-diocese-v-cuomo
Key Terms:
DueProcess FirstAmendment
Latest Conference: 2022-09-28
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Did Governor Newsom's Executive Order N-33-20 violate the Due Process Clause?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Did Governor Newsom’s Executive Order N-33-20, mandating that Californians “stay home” to prevent the spread of COVID-19, violate the rights of petitioner and all similarly-situated Californians guaranteed to them by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? In evaluating the due process claim, does Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) provide the governing standard, or does a stricter level of scrutiny apply to such emergency measures taken during a proclaimed public crisis, as suggested by more-recent precedent like Roman Cath. Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 141 8. Ct. 63, 208 L. Ed. 2d 206 (2020)?

Docket Entries

2022-10-03
Petition DENIED.
2022-06-22
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/28/2022.
2022-06-08
Waiver of right of respondent Gavin Newsom to respond filed. (Revised waiver form uploaded 6/22/22)
2022-05-16
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due June 22, 2022)
2022-03-10
Application (21A484) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until May 20, 2022.
2022-03-07
Application (21A484) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from March 21, 2022 to May 20, 2022, submitted to Justice Kagan.

Attorneys

Gavin Newsom, et al.
Lisa W. ChaoCalifornia Attorney General, Respondent
Samuel Armstrong
Michael James ConfusioneHegge & Confusione, LLC, Petitioner