No. 22-250
Matthew Brach, et al. v. Gavin Newsom, Governor of California, et al.
Tags: article-iii article-three case-or-controversy civil-rights due-process emergency-powers executive-action mootness pandemic-restrictions standing
Latest Conference:
2023-02-17
(distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (from Petition)
Is a case moot under Article III's case or controversy requirement when the governor rescinds the offending policy after it is challenged in court, but the declaration of emergency remains in place and the governor retains the authority to reinstate the policy?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Is a case moot under Article III's case or controversy requirement when the governor rescinds the offending policy after it is challenged in court, but the declaration of emergency remains in place and the governor retains the authority to reinstate the policy?
Docket Entries
2023-02-21
Motion for leave to file amicus brief out of time filed by California Constitutional Rights Foundation DENIED.
2023-02-21
Petition DENIED.
2023-01-11
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/17/2023.
2023-01-06
Reply of petitioners Matthew Brach, et al. filed.
2022-12-28
Brief of respondents Gavin Newsom, Governor of California, et al. in opposition filed.
2022-12-27
Motion for leave to file amicus brief out of time filed by California Constitutional Rights Foundation.
2022-11-09
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including December 28, 2022.
2022-11-08
Motion to extend the time to file a response from November 28, 2022 to December 28, 2022, submitted to The Clerk.
2022-10-28
Response Requested. (Due November 28, 2022)
2022-10-19
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/4/2022.
2022-10-11
Waiver of right of respondent Gavin Newsom, et al. to respond filed.
2022-09-13
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 17, 2022)
Attorneys
California Constitutional Rights Foundation
Gavin Newsom, et al.
Michael James Mongan — State of CA, Department of Justice, Respondent
Samuel Passchier Siegel — California Department of Justice, Respondent
Matthew Brach, et al.
Harmeet Kaur Dhillon — Dhillon Law Group Inc., Petitioner