Supreme Court Report

Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →

John J. Dierlam v. Joseph R. Biden, Jr., President of the United States, et al.

Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, No. 23-20401 · judgment February 29, 2024


Certiorari denied · October 7, 2024
Pre-decision estimate: 0% cert probability

Before the decision, well below the 4.1% base rate, with no standout signals pointing toward a grant.

Questions presented

Issues Presented This case has a history of over 8 years. This document will focus primarily on events dating from the the issuance of the Motion for Clarification from the District Court Judge, which I requested as little or no statements from the court had been made other than tacit agreement with the defendants. That memorandum also qualifies as an analysis of mootness and standing required by the 5th Circuit Appeals Court after they remanded and vacated the initial dismissal by the district court. The 3AC contains 21 claims against the government most of which violate Constitutional rights. Other than the previous Appeals court decision, which made no decision of the merits but requested a mootness and standing analysis by the district court, this memorandum by the District Court is the only document produced by the court regarding its position in this case. Although the following issues existed previous to this Memorandum, they were crystallized in this document and form the basis for this appeal. This petition is grounded in Supreme Court Rules 10(a) and (c).

  1. Is it a proper exercise of discretion for an Appeals Court to sanction raising the bar presented by the elements of standing and mootness to a virtually unattainable level despite an admission of guilt by the defendants, evidence of continuing and expanding violations to which they admitted culpability, and for the growing injuries caused by these violations especially in the pleading phase as indicated by Supreme Court precedent? Ride 10(a) and (c) is involved here.

  2. The lower court decisions conflict with Janus v. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY, AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, COUNCIL 31, No. 16-1466 (U.S. June 27, 2018) as the ACAin like manner creates a compelled association thus evoking ride 10(c).

  3. Much evidence indicates that the health insurance companies are “State Actors,” which violate Constitutional Rights of citizens on behalf of the government. The evidence

Counsel of record

For petitioner
John J. Dierlam

For respondent
Elizabeth B. Prelogar
Solicitor General

Case

Conference history
Distributed for 1 conference

Proceedings

  1. Oct 07 2024
    Petition DENIED.
  2. Sep 11 2024
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/30/2024.
  3. Sep 03 2024
    Waiver of right of respondent Biden, President of U.S., et al. to respond filed.
  4. Jul 27 2024
    Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due September 3, 2024)