On June 1, Gov. Tom Wolf (D) issued an executive order extending the absentee ballot receipt deadline for the June 2 primary to 5:00 p.m. on June 9 (with a postmark deadline of June 2, 2020) in Allegheny, Dauphin, Delaware, Erie, Montgomery and Philadelphia counties. In all other counties, a return deadline of June 2 remains in effect.
Pennsylvania’s primary was originally scheduled to take place on April 28. On March 27, Wolf signed into law legislation postponing the primary to June 2. The law also authorized counties to consolidate polling places without court approval and begin processing mail-in ballots beginning at 7:00 p.m. on Election Day.
Pennsylvania is one of 28 states that have modified their absentee/mail-in voting procedures in response to the COVID-19 outbreak.
Gov. Tom Wolf (D) announced Thursday that he was extending Pennsylvania’s stay-at-home order through June 4 for counties in the red phase of the state’s reopening plan. The order was passed on April 1 and was originally scheduled to expire on April 30. Wolf extended the statewide order through May 8 on April 20.
Counties in the red phase of the plan can move to the yellow phase before June 4 if they meet target goals such as having fewer than 50 new confirmed coronavirus cases per 100,000 people in the last 14 days.
On April 22, Wolf announced the details of a three-phase reopening plan that would allow parts of the state to reopen at different times depending on county, city, and regional data. Twenty-four counties in the northern part of the state entered the yellow phase Friday, May 8. In the yellow phase, theaters and gyms remain closed, but some types of businesses, such as retail, can begin to reopen with restrictions. Bars and restaurants are limited to carry-out and delivery. Gatherings of more than 25 people are prohibited.
On May 8, Wolf announced that 13 additional counties would move from the red phase to the yellow phase on May 15.
Forty-three states issued statewide shutdown orders. Eight of those orders were set to last until modified or rescinded by the governor, while the other 35 had announced end dates.
As of May 8, 15 governors have ended their state’s stay-at-home orders. Twelve of those states have Republican governors and three have Democratic governors. Of the 28 states where governors have not ended their state’s stay-at-home orders, seven have Republican governors and 21 have Democratic governors. (Rhode Island’s stay-at-home order runs through the end of the day.)
On May 6, the Supreme Court of the United States declined to intervene in a lawsuit over a Pennsylvania order curtailing the operations of non-essential businesses, allowing the state supreme court’s ruling, which upheld the order, to stand.
On March 24, the plaintiffs (a number of Pennsylvania businesses) petitioned the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania to vacate Governor Tom Wolf’s (D) March 19 order restricting the operations of non-essential businesses in the state. The plaintiffs alleged that the order violated their constitutional rights to free speech, assembly, and judicial review. The plaintiffs also argued that the order violated their rights by depriving them of their property without due process or just compensation.
On April 13, the state supreme court rejected the plaintiffs’ claims, allowing the order to stand. On April 27, the plaintiffs appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of the United States, seeking a stay of enforcement of the order pending disposition of the case.
On May 6, the high court denied the plaintiffs’ application without comment.
Stay-at-home orders in North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island are set to expire tomorrow. So far, 15 states that were previously under stay-at-home orders let those orders expire. Another seven states never implemented stay-at-home orders.
After these orders expire, the states with the next expiring orders are Arizona, Delaware, Louisiana, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, and Vermont on May 15.
Although the orders vary from state to state, they include at least two common elements: the closure or curtailment of nonessential businesses in the state and requiring all residents to stay home except for essential trips for supplies or outdoor exercise.
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in five cases on May 4, 5, and 6. The court announced new procedures for conducting oral arguments via conference call. The cases had been previously postponed in March and April. The Court will use a teleconferencing system to hear oral arguments. Several new procedures were announced, including rules for which justices will ask questions based on seniority.
The case: The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) denied Booking.com‘s four applications to trademark the name Booking.com. The USPTO said the name was generic and not a protectable mark. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board upheld the USPTO’s decision.
On further appeal, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ordered the USPTO to accept two of Booking.com’s trademark applications, and remanded the case for further proceedings on the remaining two applications. The USPTO filed a motion to remand all four trademark applications and to require Booking.com to pay the USPTO’s attorneys’ fees.
The district court denied the motion to remand all four applications, but accepted the motion to pay attorneys’ fees. Both Booking.com and the USPTO appealed the district court’s ruling. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision. The USPTO petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case.
The issue: “Whether the addition by an online business of a generic top-level domain (“.com”) to an otherwise generic term can create a protectable trademark.”
The case: The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) provides federal funds to U.S.-based organizations like the Alliance for Open Society International, Inc. (AOSI). The United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003 barred AOSI from receiving the funds unless they adopted “a policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking,” known as the policy requirement.
In 2005, AOSI sought to prohibit the policy requirement’s enforcement, which the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and subsequently the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. SCOTUS upheld these decisions in Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, Inc. (2013), holding the policy requirement violated the 1st Amendment.
AOSI challenged the government’s interpretation of the Supreme Court’s opinion and obtained a permanent injunction in the Southern District of New York. USAID petitioned the Supreme Court, asking if its 2013 decision applied to “legally distinct foreign entities operating overseas that are affiliated with” U.S.-based organizations like AOSI.
The issue: “Whether—considering SCOTUS’ 2013 decision in Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International Inc., in which the court held the First Amendment bars enforcement of Congress’ policy requirement—the First Amendment further bars enforcement of that requirement with respect to legally distinct foreign entities operating overseas that are affiliated with U.S.-based organizations that receive federal funds to fight HIV/AIDS abroad.”
The case: After several years of litigation, including two U.S. Supreme Court decisions, surrounding regulatory accommodations for religious and moral objections to contraception under the ACA, the Trump administration issued regulations allowing for exceptions to the federal contraceptive mandate.
The 3rd Circuit upheld a nationwide injunction that kept the rules from going into effect holding that the states challenging the rules were likely to succeed in proving that the Trump administration violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), that the ACA did not allow the regulations, and that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) did not require them.
“(1) Whether a litigant who is directly protected by an administrative rule and has been allowed to intervene to defend it lacks standing to appeal a decision invalidating the rule if the litigant is also protected by an injunction from a different court?
(2) Whether the federal government lawfully exempted religious objectors from the regulatory requirement to provide health plans that include contraceptive coverage?”
The case: In May 2016, the American Association of Political Consultants, Inc. and three other plaintiffs initiated litigation in district court, claiming that one of the statutory exemptions to the TCPA violated the free speech clause of the 1st Amendment. The exemption—otherwise known as the government-debt exception or debt-collection exemption—allows automated calls relating to collecting debts owed to or guaranteed by the federal government.
The plaintiffs and the U.S. Government each filed motions for summary judgment in the Eastern District of North Carolina. The court denied the motion for summary judgment by the plaintiffs and granted summary judgment to the U.S. Government. Concurrently, the court rejected the plaintiffs’ free speech clause challenge. On appeal, the 4th Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment in favor of the U.S. Government, directed the severance of the debt-collection exemption from the remainder of the automated call ban, and remanded the case for further proceedings.
The issue: “Whether the government-debt exception to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991’s automated-call restriction violates the First Amendment, and whether the proper remedy for any constitutional violation is to sever the exception from the remainder of the statute.”