• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Active Filters1
109 results

United States, Petitioner v. Texas, et al.

Docket 21-588, Supreme Court of the United States (Oct. 22, 2021)
Petitioner United States
Respondent private respondents
Respondent Texas
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

Writ of certiorari DISMISSED as

Document United States, Petitioner v. Texas, et al., 21-588, Writ of certiorari DISMISSED as (U.S. Dec. 10, 2021)
Per Curiam NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash- ington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that
corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.
The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted.
The application to vacate stay presented to JUSTICE ALITO and by him referred to the Court is denied.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Application to vacate stay submitted to - Main Document

Document United States, Petitioner v. Texas, et al., 21-588, Application to vacate stay submitted to, Main Document (U.S. Oct. 18, 2021)
Again, the Fifth Circuit disputed none of this.
Put simply, there is “no harm” from the “nonenforcement of invalid legislation.” United States v. Alabama, 691 F.3d 1269, 1301 (11th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 569 U.S. 968 (2013).
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Application to vacate stay submitted to - Proof of Service

Document United States, Petitioner v. Texas, et al., 21-588, Application to vacate stay submitted to, Proof of Service (U.S. Oct. 18, 2021)
No. 21A IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPLICANT v. STATE OF TEXAS [See Attached Service List] CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE It i
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Application to vacate stay submitted to

Document United States, Petitioner v. Texas, et al., 21-588, Application to vacate stay submitted to (U.S. Oct. 18, 2021)
More than two centuries ago, Chief Justice Marshall explained that “the American union” rests on “a consti- tution the supremacy of which all acknowledge, and which imposes limits to the legislatures of the several states, which none ...
To the extent Texas means that such abortions need not be provided “in Texas” (Br. 61), Texas’s unconstitutional elimination of post-six-week abortions nonetheless stands as an obstacle to the ac- complishment of federal obligations.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Application to vacate stay submitted to - Other

Document United States, Petitioner v. Texas, et al., 21-588, Application to vacate stay submitted to, Other (U.S. Oct. 18, 2021)
None of these conditions qualifies for the medical emergency exception in S.B. 8.
The interests that were sufficient in these examples pale in comparison to the interest the United States asserts here—none of those interests involved the potential for large-scale violations of constitutional rights and frustration of core ...
... asserts authority over a State's most fundamental political processes, it strikes at the 32 This case is also unlike the post Armstrong, 575 U.S. 320, cases, where courts have declined to read in statutory causes of action where none ...
8-5, at 7) (“The risk of civil liability, damages, and certain cost of litigation if a provider offers abortion in violation of S.B. 8 (as well as the possibility of a court order stopping the provider from providing abortions) means that none of the ...
Undue Burden Even if S.B. 8 is more properly characterized as a regulation, it is nonetheless unconstitutional because it places an “undue burden” on individuals seeking an abortion.
For example, one provider describes seeing a patient “who has been taking the same contraception consistently for a decade and nonetheless found herself pregnant.
8-2, at 17).61 One provider credibly describes “particular[] concern[s] about the unaccompanied migrant teenagers 58 Gilbert continues, “I saw a patient for counseling who was eligible for an abortion under S.B. 8 but nonetheless broke ...
Currently, the relatively fortunate clients are those who are able to leave Texas, subject nonetheless to delayed abortion care, lengthy travel, and significant time away from work and home.
cite Cite Document
Analyze
+ More Snippets

Consolidated reply brief of state - Main Document

Document United States, Petitioner v. Texas, et al., 21-588, Consolidated reply brief of state, Main Document (U.S. Oct. 29, 2021)
None has merit.
Third, none the United States’ authority holds that Article III standing can be based on this kind of “sover- eign interest.” The United States primarily relies (at 14- 15) on Debs.
None applies to the Fourteenth Amend- ment generally or abortion in particular.
The United States insists (at 23-24) that Congress nonetheless meant to allow it to seek pre-enforcement review in lower federal courts for all constitutional claims.
First, assuming these cases were correctly decided, none of them supports broadly enjoining a State’s judici- ary from docketing, hearing, and adjudicating a class of tort claims without statutory authorization.
But, again, the United States cites no 25 precedent—and respondents are aware of none—that guarantees a federal forum if the state forum seems dif- ficult.
None of these problems with the United States’ claims are cured by its belated request for declaratory relief.
cite Cite Document
Analyze
+ More Snippets

Consolidated reply brief of state - Proof of Service

Document United States, Petitioner v. Texas, et al., 21-588, Consolidated reply brief of state, Proof of Service (U.S. Oct. 29, 2021)
) ) I, Simone Cintron, being duly sworn according to law and being over the age of 18, upon my oath depose and say that:
I am retained by Counsel of Record for Respondent(s) –Office of the Attorney General of Texas.
That on the 29th day of October 2021, I served the within Reply Brief for Respondents Jackson, Carlton, Thomas, Young, Benz, Paxton, and The State of Texas in the above-captioned matter upon:
In addition, the document has been submitted through the Court’s electronic filing system on the 29th day of October 2021.
Notary Public State of New York No. 01BR6004935 Qualified in Richmond County Commission Expires March 30, 2022 #308478 Executed on this 29th day of October, 2021.
cite Cite Document
Analyze
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >>