Abortion restrictions and contributions to Ted Cruz’s campaign

0
PETITIONS OF THE WEEK

This week, we highlight cert petitions asking the Supreme Court to consider, among other things, another case involving state abortion restrictions, as well as a constitutional challenge to limits on reimbursement for ” personal loans ”made by political candidates at their own election. campaigns.

The Supreme Court received a series of abortion challenges during the 2020-2021 term. Two petitions have been pending since the spring: one concerns the rights of unemancipated minors and the other concerns the constitutionality of an Arkansas law prohibiting abortions requested on the basis of a prenatal test indicating Down syndrome. (This week’s petitions previously covered these two petitions here.) In May, judges awarded cert in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization to answer the larger question of whether all predictability bans on elective abortions are unconstitutional. Now, Schmitt v. Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region, Inc. adds to the list of pending petitions on abortion laws. Filed on June 30, she asks judges to consider another ban on abortions performed solely on the basis of a diagnosis of trisomy 21, and she explicitly asks the court to examine whether the right to abortion, recognized in Roe vs. Wade, must be canceled.

In 2019, Missouri passed legislation imposing various restrictions on abortion, including a ban on abortions performed solely because of a diagnosis of Down’s syndrome. Planned Parenthood challenged the law and the district court prevented it from coming into force. The United States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit upheld and Missouri requested a Supreme Court review.

Missouri presents evidence that the abortion rate for children with Down’s syndrome in America is between 67% and 93%, which represents what the state considers a “genocidal crisis” and prompts Missouri and at least 11 other states enact laws restricting abortions performed on the basis of disability. Similar laws have been applied in the 6th Circuit but invalidated in the 7th Circuit. Missouri urges Supreme Court to grant certificate and consider Down syndrome provision alongside Mississippi law challenged in Dobbs.

Then in Federal Election Commission c. Ted Cruz for the Senate, judges are presented with a declaration of jurisdiction implying restrictions on the repayment of a candidate’s “personal loans” made to finance an election campaign. Federal law imposes three relevant restrictions on campaign funds: First, candidates must not use post-election contributions to repay personal loans over $ 250,000; second, portions of a personal loan that exceed $ 250,000 can only be repaid to the candidate through pre-election contributions if repayment is made within 20 days of the election; and third, if a loan over $ 250,000 remains unpaid 20 days after the election, any portion over $ 250,000 must be requalified as a contribution rather than a loan.

In 2018, Senator Ted Cruz, R-Tex., Ran for re-election. A day before the general election, Ted Cruz loaned $ 260,000 to his committee. After the 20-day deadline following the election had expired, $ 10,000 of the $ 260,000 loan was to be reclassified as a contribution. Cruz was then reimbursed the statutory maximum of $ 250,000. This series of events was carried out with “the sole and exclusive motivation” to establish the factual basis for challenging the loan repayment restrictions. The district court ruled that the senator had standing to bring an action based on the $ 10,000 “financial loss” he suffered and ruled that the limitation on loan repayment violated the First Amendment. The Federal Election Commission argues that such contributions made after an election, to repay personal loans made by the candidate, create an increased risk of corruption, and the commission asks the court to refer for further consideration of standing. or submit the case for consideration in plenary to decide the constitutional question.

These and others petitions of the week are below:

Schmitt v. Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region, Inc.
21-3
Problems: (1) If Missouri’s restriction on abortions performed only because the unborn child may have Down syndrome is categorically invalid under Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey and Roe vs. Wade, or whether it is valid and reasonable abortion regulation that seeks to prevent the elimination of children with Down syndrome through eugenic abortion; (2) whether Missouri’s restrictions on abortions performed after eight, 14, 18, and 20 weeks gestational age are categorically invalid, or whether they are valid and reasonable abortion regulations that advance interests important to the state; and (3) if the “penumbra” right to abortion recognized in Roe vs. Wade, and partially reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, must be canceled.

Federal Election Commission c. Ted Cruz for the Senate
21-12
Problems: (1) Do the respondents have standing to challenge the legal limit on the repayment of the loan of 52 USC 30116 (j); and (2) whether the loan repayment limit violates the First Amendment freedom of speech clause.

Tickets c. Mentor Worldwide, LLC
21-26
Problem: Does Preemption Under Medical Device Amendments To Food, Drugs And Cosmetics Act Support Rejection Of Rule 12 (b) (6) Of State Common Law Claims Alleging Failure To warning due to inaccurate post-sale post-approval public reporting of unwanted drugs and allegations of faulty manufacture of medical devices.

Arrow Highway Steel v. Dubin
21-27
Problems: (1) Can the dormant trade clause be used to invalidate the application of a neutral and non-discriminatory toll law of a state to defeat the execution of the stipulated judgment of a former resident when there is no evidence of burden or discrimination against interstate commerce; and (2) whether the dormant commerce clause applies to state law without intended or demonstrated effect on interstate commerce.

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.