MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE v. AZAR

Civil Action No. RDB-19-1103.

MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE, Plaintiff, v. ALEX M. AZAR II, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al., Defendants.

United States District Court, D. Maryland.

July 16, 2019.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 05 U.S.C. § 702
Cause: 05 U.S.C. § 702 Administrative Procedure Act - Right of Review
Nature of Suit: 899 Other Statutes: Administrative Procedures Act / Review or Appeal of Agency Decision
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Mayor and City Council Of Baltimore, Plaintiff, represented by Andre M. Davis , Baltimore City Department Of Law, Andrew T. Tutt , Arnold and Porter Kaye Scholder LLP, pro hac vice, Drew A. Harker , Arnold and Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, pro hac vice, Faren M. Tang , Reproductive Rights and Justice Project, Yale Law School, pro hac vice, Marisa White , Arnold and Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, pro hac vice, Priscilla Joyce Smith , RRJP Clinic, Yale Law School, pro hac vice, Stephanie Toti , Lawyering Project, pro hac vice & Suzanne Sangree , City of Baltimore Law Department Senior Public Safety Counsel.

Alex M. Azar, II, in his official capacity as the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Diane Foley, M.D., in her official capacity as the Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Population Affairs, United States Department of Health and Human Services & Office of Population Affairs, Defendants, represented by Tarra DeShields Minnis , Office of the United States Attorney, Bradley Philip Humphreys , United States Department of Justice & Robert Charles Merritt , US Department Of Justice Federal Programs Branch.

Susan B Anthony List, Amicus, represented by Adam Hochschild , Hochschild Law Firm LLC, pro hac vice, Daniel Lewis Cox , The Cox Law Center, LLC & Sarah E. Pitlyk , Thomas More Society, pro hac vice.

Ohio, Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee & Texas, Amicuss, represented by William S. Consovoy , Consovoy McCarthy Park PLLC.


MEMORANDUM ORDER

Pending before this Court is Defendants' Partially Opposed Motion to Extend Time for Responding to Complaint (ECF No. 60). Defendants advise that they plan to file a motion to stay proceedings in this case pending the current appeal of the preliminary injunction...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases