No. 25-752
Heather Swanson, et al. v. Michael T. Hilgers, Attorney General of Nebraska, et al.
Response Waived
Tags: constitutional-challenge due-process midwife-practice rational-basis-review rule-12(b)(6) separation-of-powers
Latest Conference:
2026-02-20
Question Presented (from Petition)
1. Does rational basis review permit courts, at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage, to treat plaintiffs' well-pleaded factual allegations as irrelevant?
2. Does rational basis review permit courts to uphold a law without any inquiry into whether the means bear a rational connection to the government's stated ends?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Does rational basis review permit courts, at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage, to treat plaintiffs' well-pleaded factual allegations as irrelevant and uphold a law without inquiry into whether the means bear a rational connection to the government's stated ends?
Docket Entries
2026-02-23
Petition DENIED.
2026-01-28
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/20/2026.
2026-01-21
Waiver of right of respondent Att'y Gen., NE Hilgers, et al. to respond filed.
2026-01-20
Waiver of Att'y Gen., NE Hilgers, et al. of right to respond submitted.
2025-12-22
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due January 28, 2026)
2025-10-14
Application (25A423) granted by Justice Kavanaugh extending the time to file until December 20, 2025.
2025-10-09
Application (25A423) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from November 20, 2025 to December 20, 2025, submitted to Justice Kavanaugh.
Attorneys
Att'y Gen., NE Hilgers, et al.
Cody Steven Barnett — Nebraska Department of Justice, Respondent
Heather Swanson, et al.
Joshua Warren Polk — Pacific Legal Foundation, Petitioner