Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Samuel Armstrong v. Gavin Newsom, Governor of California, et al.
Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 21-55060 · judgment December 21, 2021
Before the decision, roughly the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for counsel with five or more prior petitions here, a Ninth Circuit decision below, and a dissent in the court below (flagged in the petition), and down for a state or local-government respondent.
Question presented
Did Governor Newsom’s Executive Order N-33-20, mandating that Californians “stay home” to prevent the spread of COVID-19, violate the rights of petitioner and all similarly-situated Californians guaranteed to them by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? In evaluating the due process claim, does Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) provide the governing standard, or does a stricter level of scrutiny apply to such emergency measures taken during a proclaimed public crisis, as suggested by more-recent precedent like Roman Cath. Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 141 S. Ct. 63, 208 L. Ed. 2d 206 (2020)?
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Michael James Confusione
Hegge & Confusione, LLC
For respondent
Lisa W. Chao
California Attorney General
Proceedings
- Oct 03 2022Petition DENIED.
- Jun 22 2022DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/28/2022.
- Jun 08 2022Waiver of right of respondent Gavin Newsom to respond filed. (Revised waiver form uploaded 6/22/22)
- May 16 2022Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due June 22, 2022)
- Mar 10 2022Application (21A484) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until May 20, 2022.
- Mar 07 2022Application (21A484) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from March 21, 2022 to May 20, 2022, submitted to Justice Kagan.