HHS @ SCOTUS
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
Title X of the Public Health Service Act, which au- thorizes federal funding for family planning services, provides that “[n]one of the funds appropriated under this subchapter shall be used in programs where abor- tion is a method of family planning.” 42 U.S.C. 300a-6. In Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1991), this Court up- held a regulation that, among other things, prohibited recipients of Title X funds from making elective- abortion referrals in Title X clinics and also required them to maintain physical separation between those clinics and any abortion-related activities. This Court explained that those referral and separation provisions were authorized by statute, the product of reasoned de- cisionmaking, and consistent with the Constitution. Re- lying on that decision, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a final rule in 2019 that rein- stated materially indistinguishable referral and separa- tion provisions. The questions presented are as follows:
-
Whether the rule falls within the agency’s statu- tory authority.
-
Whether the rule is the product of reasoned deci- sionmaking.
>https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/briefs/2020/12/13/20-429_and_20-539_opp_final.pdf
Ross @ SCOTUS
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
The President has discretion to declare “objects of historic or scientific interest that are situated on land owned or controlled by the Federal Government to be national monuments.” 54 U.S.C. 320301(a). Monu- ments “shall be confined to the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected.” 54 U.S.C. 320301(b). The questions pre- sented are:
-
Whether the court of appeals correctly held that submerged land in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone is “owned or controlled by the Federal Government.” 54 U.S.C. 320301(a).
-
Whethertheselectionofnaturalresourcesandan ecosystem as protected objects is irreconcilable with the requirement that national monuments “shall be con- fined to the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected.” 54 U.S.C. 320301(b).
>https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/briefs/2020/12/13/20-97_massachusetts_lobstermens_assoc._opp_12_4_20.pdf
SEC @ SCOTUS
QUESTION PRESENTED
Whether a federal district court has jurisdiction to hear a suit in which a respondent in an ongoing Securi- ties and Exchange Commission proceeding seeks to en- join that proceeding on account of an alleged constitu- tional defect in the proceeding.
>https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/briefs/2020/12/13/20-276_gibson_final.pdf