Petition this week

This week, we focused on asking the Supreme Court to consider another case involving national abortion restrictions and the constitutional challenge of restricting the repayment of “personal loans” provided by political candidates for their elections. activity.

The Supreme Court received a series of abortion challenges during 2020-21.Since the spring, two petitions have been pending: one involving The rights of unliberated minors Another related to the constitutionality of Arkansas’s law prohibiting seeking abortion for the following reasons Prenatal checkup shows Down syndrome. (This week’s petition previously covered these two petitions Here.) In May, the judge Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization Answer the broader question of whether all pre-survival prohibitions on selective abortion are unconstitutional. right now, Schmitt v. Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region, Inc. Added to the list of pending petitions regarding abortion laws.It filed a lawsuit on June 30, asking the judge to consider again prohibiting abortion based solely on the diagnosis of Down syndrome, and explicitly asking the court to consider whether to recognize the right to abortion Rowe v. Wade, Should be rejected.

In 2019, Missouri passed legislation Implement various abortion restrictions, including prohibiting abortions that are performed solely due to a diagnosis of Down syndrome. Planned Parenthood challenged the law, and the district court prevented it from taking effect. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit upheld the original verdict, and Missouri requested the Supreme Court to review.

The evidence provided by the state of Missouri shows that the abortion rate of children with Down syndrome in the United States is between 67% and 93%, which represents what the state considers a “genocide crisis” and has prompted Missouri and at least 11 other states to enact laws , To limit the disability of abortions performed on this basis.Similar laws are in Sixth circuit But ineffective Seventh CircuitThe State of Missouri urges the Supreme Court to award the certificate and consider the dispute over the Down syndrome clause and Mississippi law Dobbs.

Next, in Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz runs for election, The judges received a statement of jurisdiction that involved restricting the repayment of “personal loans” that candidates used to fund campaign activities. Federal Act Three related restrictions are imposed on campaign funds: First, candidates cannot use post-election donations to repay personal loans exceeding 250,000; second, part of personal loans exceeding 250,000 US dollars can be repaid to candidates using pre-election donations. The premise is to repay within 20 days after the election; third, if the loan of more than US$250,000 is not paid 20 days after the election, any portion of more than US$250,000 must be reclassified as a donation rather than a loan.

In 2018, Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz ran for re-election. The day before the election, Ted Cruz borrowed $260,000 from his committee. After the 20-day deadline after the election, the $10,000 of the $260,000 loan must be reclassified as a donation. Cruz subsequently received compensation of up to $250,000. The occurrence of this series of events is to establish a factual basis to challenge the “only and exclusive motive” of loan repayment restrictions. The district court ruled that the senator was eligible to file a lawsuit based on his $10,000 “economic loss” and held that the loan repayment limit violated the First Amendment. The Federal Election Commission argued that such donations made after the election to repay the candidates’ personal loans would increase the risk of corruption. The commission asked the court to remand the case for further review or refer the case to the full review of constitutional issues.

These and others Petition this week as follows:

Schmitt v. Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region, Inc.
21-3
problem: (1) Will Missouri restrict abortion simply because the unborn child may have Down syndrome in the following circumstances? Family Planning Case in Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey with Rowe v. Wade, Or whether it is an effective and reasonable abortion regulation designed to prevent the elimination of children with Down syndrome through eugenic abortion; (2) Missouri’s gestational age after 8 weeks, 14 weeks, 18 weeks and 20 weeks Whether the restrictions on abortion are absolutely invalid, or whether they are effective and reasonable abortion regulations that promote important national interests; (3) Whether the “penumbra” abortion right is recognized Rowe v. WadeAnd reiterate in section Family Planning Case in Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, Should be rejected.

Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz runs for election
21-12
problem: (1) Whether the appellee is eligible to challenge the statutory loan repayment limit 52 USC 30116(j)(2) Whether the loan repayment limit violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.

Bielitz v. Global Mentor LLC
21-26
problem: Does the right of first refusal under the Medical Device Amendment of the Food, Drugs and Cosmetics Act support Rule 12(b)(6) to reject the state common law claim, which is due to inaccurate public reports after approval and after-sales Failed to issue warnings of adverse events and claims of allegations of medical device manufacturing defects.

Arrow Highway Steel v. Dubin
21-27
problem: (1) Without showing any burden or discrimination against interstate trade, whether dormant commercial clauses can be used to invalidate the application of a state’s neutral and non-discriminatory charging regulations to defeat former residents’ judgments Implementation; (2) Whether dormant commercial clauses apply to state regulations that have no expected or proven impact on interstate commerce.