October 2, 2023 Honorable Danny Bickell, Deputy Clerk Supreme Court of the United States Office of the Clerk 1 First Street, N.E.

Washington, D.C. 20543 James Garfield Broadnax v. Texas, No. 23-248 Re:

Dear Mr. Bickell: This letter is to request a 20-day extension of time to November 3, 2023, in which to file the Brief in Opposition in the above-styled case.

The Court docketed Petitioner James Garfield Broadnax’s petition for writ of certiorari on September 14, 2023.

Respondent is seeking this extension due to undersigned counsel’s capital and non- capital dockets, supervisory duties, and other work-related obligations.

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland Honorable Paula Xinis, District Judge Motion to Withdraw Appearance as Counsel Leslie E. John of the law firm Ballard Spahr LLP hereby moves to withdraw her appearance as counsel for Montgomery County Branch of the NAACP, Montgomery County Progressive Asian American Network, Asian American Youth Leadership Empowerment and Development, CASA, Inc., and Identity, Inc., Amici in this matter, as she will no longer practice law at Ballard Spahr LLP.

Counsel of record—Ballard Spahr LLP, NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc., Asian Americans Advancing Justice-AAJC, and

Accordingly, Ms. John’s withdrawal will not result in prejudice or delay.

This motion complies with the type-volume limitations of Fed. R. App. P. 27(d)(2)(A), as the motion contains 98 words.

Mr. Scott S. Harris Clerk Supreme Court of the United States One First Street, N.E.

Re: Broadnax v. Texas, No. 23-248 Dear Mr. Harris: I am counsel of record for Petitioner in the above-captioned matter.

I write to clarify a factual statement in the procedural history of this case, as set forth in the Petition for a Writ Certiorari filed on September 5, 2023.

11.071 §5(a)(1), and was appropriately presented for consideration in Mr. Broadnax’s subsequent state habeas application.

A copy of this letter is being distributed via FedEx and e-mail to counsel for Respondent in this action.

Supreme Court of the United States

As required by Supreme Court Rule 33.1(h), I certify that the document contains - 7,861 words, excluding the parts of the document that are exempted by Supreme Court Rule 33.1(d).

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

eTies Swornteto and subscribed before methis 5th day of September 2023. gsMMig.

My commission expires March 14, 2028.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on September5, 2023, three (3) copies of the PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARIin the above-captioned case were served, as required by U.S. Supreme Court Rule 29.5(c), on the following:

“gett Qe AY Byte ae &S Oe :2 Exe (10%

District of Columbia - .

My commission expires March 14, 2028.

... this jury and there was a disproportionate number of African- Americans who were struck,” and “it does concern me quite a bit that one hundred percent of the African-Amer- ican jurors were struck from the panel and that there are none ...

The State struck her nonetheless.

None of these White prospective jurors was asked to look at Mr. Broadnax while hearing a detailed description of the death penalty; and none was struck by the State.

Asthe Court was informed, the orderis currently in effect, and has not been revised or withdrawn.

However, in light of recent Executive Orders, the Commission no longer defends paragraphs 39 and 40 of the order, which updated Form395-B to include the collection of non-binary genderinformation.

Under the circumstances, there are no current plans to propose withdrawal or revision of the order for Commission vote.

There therefore remains a live controversy between the parties over the order’s lawfulness.

Respectfully submitted, [s/ William J. Scher WilliamJ.

Lyle W. Cayce, Clerk of Court United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Office of the Clerk F. Edward Hebert Building 600 S. Maestri Place New Orleans, LA 70130-3408

Re: Response by Respondent United States of America to Petitioners’ Rule 28(j) Letter in National Religious Broadcasters v. FCC, No.24-60219, and Texas Association of Broadcasters v. FCC, No. 24-60226

I write to respond to Petitioners’ 28(j) letter submitted January 24, 2025.

The United States acknowledges that much of the Federal Communications Commission’s data collection through Form 395-B is mandated by statute.

Nevertheless, to the extent such data collection is not statutorily required and is inconsistent with recent Executive Orders, including Defending Women from Gender Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government (Jan. 20, 2025) and Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity (Jan. 21, 2025), the United States no longer subscribes to the views in the Brief for Respondents submitted November 4, 2024.

(a) The Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security shall ensure that males are not detained in women’s prisons or housed in women’s detention centers, including through amendment, as necessary, of Part 115.41 of title 28, Code of Federal Regulations and interpretation guidance regarding the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Document:96 Page:11 Date Filed: 01/24/2025 (c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create anyright or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

Illegal DEI and DEIA policies not only violate the text and spirit of our longstanding Federal civil-rights laws, they also undermine our national unity, as they deny, discredit, and underminethe traditional American values of hard work, excellence, and individual achievementin favor of an unlawful, corrosive, and pernicious identity-based spoils system.

(iii) In accordance with Executive Order 13279 of December 12, 2002 (Equal Protection of the Lawsfor Faith-Based and Community Organizations), the employment, procurement, and contracting practices of Federal contractors and subcontractors shall not consider race, color, sex, sexual preference, religion, or national origin in ways that violate the Nation'scivil rights laws.

(c) This order is not intended to and does not createany right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

The court prefers no more than 5 minutes for rebuttal.

Amicus Oo Intervenor According to this court's rules, a cross or separate appeal will be argued with the initial appeal during the same argument, unless the court directs otherwise.

If a case involves a cross appeal, the party who first files a notice of appeal is considered the appellant unless the parties otherwise agree or the court directs otherwise.

If separate appellants support the same argument, they are to avoid duplication of argument.

(Counsel Name) #1 Jessica T. Nyman #2 Jared M. Kelson (Time in Minutes) (Rebuttal Time)* #3 #4 #5

Jessica T. Nyman (Full Name) counsel, acknowledge receiving notice that the below case has been scheduled for as oral argument with the rt of Appeals (Case Number) National Relig Broadcasters

If a case involves a cross appeal, the party who first files a notice of appeal is considered the appellant unless the parties otherwise agree or the court directs otherwise.

If separate appellants support the same argument, they are to avoid duplication of argument.

(Counsel Name) Jessica T. Nyman Jared M. Kelson (Time in Minutes) (Rebuttal Time)* #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 *Rebuttal time for appellants only.

The court prefers no more than 5 minutes for rebuttal.

The Court held that the SEC had failed to tie these rules to the purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and, therefore, lacked authority to approve them.

Whereas Nasdaq would have required companies to explain why they did not meet the government's diversity targets, the FCC’s rules expressly “prohibit...the use of...Form 395-B data” for any purpose other than monitoring and reporting on industry employmenttrends.

Moreover, the FCC’s “authority to regulate broadcast media” under the Communications Act is comparatively “broad.” FCC v. Prometheus Radio Project, 592 U.S. 414, 418 (2021).

The FCC has long understood that authority to allow the collection and disclosure of demographic data from broadcasters, and Congress has ratified that view.

This is thus not a case in which the agency has “claimed to discover in [vague language of] a long-extant statute an unheralded power.” Ex. A.33 (quoting West Virginia v. EPA, 597 U.S. 697, 724 (2002)).