Whether the Vaccine Act's delegation of power to the Secretary of Health and Human Services violates the separation of powers and presentment clause of the U.S. Constitution

No question identified. : APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI Kenneth S. Robbins Counsel of Record Margery S. Bronster Robert M. Hatch BRONSTER FUJICHAKU ROBBINS, ALC 1003 Bishop Street, Suite 2300 Honolulu, Hawai'i 96813 Telephone: (808) 524-5644 Facsimile: (808 599-1881 Counsel for Petitioners Angela M. Walker, Tessa Needham, and Shanie D. Roman Allison Mullins L. Cooper Harrell TURNING POINT LITIGATION MULLINS DUNCAN HARRELL & RUSSELL PLLC 300 N. Green Street, Suite 2000 Telephone: (336) 645-3320 Facsimile: (336) 645-3330 Counsel for Petitioners Angela M. Walker, Tessa Needham, and Shanie D. Roman Bijan Esfandiari WISNER BAUM 1 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 1750 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 207-3233 Facsimile: (310) 820-7444 Counsel for Petitioners Angela M. Walker, Tessa Needham, and Shanie D. Roman TO THE HONORABLE JOHN F. ROBERTS, JR. CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES AND CIRCUIT JUSTICE FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT: Pursuant to Supreme Court Rules 13.5, 22, and 30, Petitioners Tessa Needham, Angela M. Walker, and Shanie D. Roman respectfully request a 60-day extension of time, up to and including February 1, 2026, to file a petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit to review that court’s decision in In re: Gardasil Prod. Liab. Litig. 151 F.4th 178 (4th Cir. 2025) (attached as Exhibit A). In the case below, the Fourth Circuit consolidated three appeals into a single proceeding. See /bid. The Third Circuit issued its opinion on September 4, 2025. Jbid. Petitioners did not seek rehearing. Absent an extension of time, Petitioner’s petition would be due on December 3, 2025. S. Ct. R. 13.1. This Application is being filed more than ten days before the current deadline in compliance with Supreme Court Rule 13.5. The jurisdiction of this Court is based on 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1). Petitioners intend to file a joint petition seeking review of the Fourth Circuit’s judgment under Supreme Court Rule 12.4. Petitioners counsel has contacted Respondent’s counsel, and Respondent does not oppose Petitioner’s request for an extension of time. This case presents, inter alia, the question of whether the National Childhood Injury Act (“Vaccine Act”), 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-1 et seq. delegated power to alter the text of the Vaccine Act to the Secretary of Health and Human Services in violation of the separation of powers and the presentment clause, article I, section 7, clause 2 of the United States Constitution. The Vaccine Act is a rare statute that contains an express non-severability clause. Pub. L. No. 99-660, Title III, § 332 (“42 U.S.C. 300aa1 — note’ NONSEVERABILITY”); Barr v. A, Ass’n of Political Consultants, Inc., 140 S. Ct. 2335, 2349 (2020). 28 U.S.C. § 2403(a) may apply to this proceeding and Petitioners are serving this Application on the Solicitor General of the United States. The Third Circuit certified to the Attorney General the fact that the constitutionality of an Act of Congress was drawn in to question by the appeal below. Walker v. Merck & Co., Inc., No. 24-1828 (L), 24-1831, Doc. 17 (4 Cir. Sept. 17, 2024). Petitioners are only three out of hundreds of plaintiffs whose claims were consolidated into an MDL proceeding in the Western District of North Carolina. Jn re Gardasil Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 3:22-md-03036-KDB (Aug. 8, 2022), ECF No. 1. The district court entered judgment on the pleadings on Petitioners’ claims before the claims of the other MDL plaintiffs prompting the first appeal from the district court. Ibid., ECF Nos. 172, 173, 176 (Aug. 28, 2024). The district court then entered judgment against most of the other MDL plaintiffs prompting a second appeal. Jbid., ECF No. 311 (April 10, 2025). The reply brief in the second appeal is due on December 15, 2025. Walker, Doc. 94. The district court’s judgments against Petitioners and the other MDL plaintiffs are based on application of the Vaccine Act t