|
|
| Line 2: |
Line 2: |
|
| |
|
| Do not put <u>anything</u> on this page that you want to stick around. | | Do not put <u>anything</u> on this page that you want to stick around. |
| ====Selected rulings==== | | ===Court of Appeals=== |
| In ''[[American Meat Institute v. U.S. Department of Agriculture]]'' (2013), Jackson rejected the meat packing industry's request for a preliminary injunction to block a U.S. Department of Agriculture rule requiring them to identify animals' country of origin. Jackson found that the rule likely did not violate the First Amendment.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Abbott |first=Charles |date=September 11, 2013 |title=New U.S. meat label rule survives challenge by meat packers |language=en |work=Reuters |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-meat-labeling-idUSBRE98A14U20130911 |url-status=live |access-date=May 20, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191002003455/https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-meat-labeling-idUSBRE98A14U20130911 |archive-date=October 2, 2019}}</ref><ref>''American Meat Institute v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture'', 968 F.Supp.2d 38 (D.D.C. 2013).</ref>
| | On March 30, 2021, President Joe Biden announced his intent to nominate Jackson to serve as a United States circuit judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.<ref name="WHBio">{{Cite press release|title=President Biden Announces Intent to Nominate 11 Judicial Candidates|date=March 30, 2021|url=https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/03/30/president-biden-announces-intent-to-nominate-11-judicial-candidates/|access-date=May 14, 2021|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210330150653/https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/03/30/president-biden-announces-intent-to-nominate-11-judicial-candidates/|archive-date=March 30, 2021|website=The White House}}</ref> On April 19, 2021, her nomination was sent to the Senate. President Biden nominated Jackson to the seat vacated by Judge [[Merrick Garland]], who stepped down to become attorney general.<ref>{{Cite web|date=April 19, 2021|title=Nominations Sent to the Senate|url=https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/04/19/nominations-sent-to-the-senate-11/|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210509140740/https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/04/19/nominations-sent-to-the-senate-11/|archive-date=May 9, 2021|access-date=May 14, 2021|website=The White House}}</ref> |
|
| |
|
| In ''[[Depomed v. Department of Health and Human Services]]'' (2014), Jackson ruled that the Food and Drug Administration had violated the Administrative Procedure Act when it failed to grant pharmaceutical company Depomed market exclusivity for its orphan drug, Gralise. Jackson concluded that the Orphan Drug Act required to FDA to grant Gralise exclusivity.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Kearn |first=Rebekah |date=September 12, 2014 |title=Orphan Drugmaker{{!}}Wins Exclusivity |url=https://www.courthousenews.com/orphan-drugmakerwins-exclusivity/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201025231033/https://www.courthousenews.com/orphan-drugmakerwins-exclusivity/ |archive-date=October 25, 2020 |access-date=September 20, 2020 |language=en-US}}</ref>
| | On April 28, 2021, a hearing on her nomination was held before the Senate Judiciary Committee.<ref>{{Cite web|date=April 28, 2021|title=Nominations | United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary|url=https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/meetings/04/21/2021/nominations|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210513205620/https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/meetings/04/21/2021/nominations|archive-date=May 13, 2021|access-date=May 14, 2021|website=judiciary.senate.gov}}</ref> During her confirmation hearing, Jackson was questioned about several of her rulings against the Trump administration.<ref>{{Cite news|last=Marimow|first=Ann|date=April 28, 2021|title=Biden judicial pick Ketanji Brown Jackson defends her independence in Senate hearing|newspaper=Washington Post|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/judge-ketanji-brown-jackson-defends-independence-in-senate-hearing/2021/04/28/ea4015c8-a794-11eb-8d25-7b30e74923ea_story.html|url-status=live|access-date=February 2, 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210827155730/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/judge-ketanji-brown-jackson-defends-independence-in-senate-hearing/2021/04/28/ea4015c8-a794-11eb-8d25-7b30e74923ea_story.html|archive-date=August 27, 2021}}</ref> On May 20, 2021, Jackson's nomination was reported out of committee by a 13–9 vote.<ref>{{Cite web|date=May 20, 2021|title=Results of Executive Business Meeting|url=https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Results%20of%20Executive%20Business%20Meeting%20May%2020,%202021.pdf|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220129030805/https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Results%20of%20Executive%20Business%20Meeting%20May%2020,%202021.pdf|archive-date=January 29, 2022|access-date=January 27, 2022|publisher=Senate Judiciary Committee}}</ref> On June 10, 2021, cloture was invoked on her nomination by a vote of 52–46.<ref>{{Cite web|date=June 10, 2021|title=On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Ketanji Brown Jackson to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit)|url=https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=117&session=1&vote=00229|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210611002821/https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=117&session=1&vote=00229|archive-date=June 11, 2021|access-date=June 10, 2021|website=www.senate.gov}}</ref> On June 14, 2021, the United States Senate confirmed Jackson in a 53–44 vote.<ref>{{Cite web|date=June 14, 2021|title=On the Nomination (Confirmation: Ketanji Brown Jackson, of the District of Columbia, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit)|url=https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1171/vote_117_1_00231.htm|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220126170858/https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1171/vote_117_1_00231.htm|archive-date=January 26, 2022|website=www.senate.gov|publisher=United States Senate|accessdate=June 15, 2021}}</ref> She received her judicial commission on June 17, 2021.<ref>{{Cite web|title=U.S. Court of Appeals – D.C. Circuit – Ketanji Brown Jackson|url=https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/home.nsf/Content/VL+-+Judges+-+KBJ|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210624202750/https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/home.nsf/Content/VL+-+Judges+-+KBJ|archive-date=June 24, 2021|access-date=June 20, 2021|website=www.cadc.uscourts.gov}}</ref> |
|
| |
|
| In ''[[Pierce v. District of Columbia]]'' (2015), Jackson ruled that the D.C. Department of Corrections violated the rights of a deaf inmate under the Americans with Disabilities Act because jail officials failed to assess the inmate's need for accommodations when he first arrived at the jail.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Zapotosky |first=Matt |date=September 12, 2015 |title=Judge rules D.C. Corrections must pay damages in case of deaf inmate |language=en-US |work=The Washington Post |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/judge-rules-dc-corrections-must-pay-damages-in-case-of-deaf-inmate/2015/09/12/34a9fda4-58bd-11e5-abe9-27d53f250b11_story.html |url-status=live |access-date=September 20, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210207153758/https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/judge-rules-dc-corrections-must-pay-damages-in-case-of-deaf-inmate/2015/09/12/34a9fda4-58bd-11e5-abe9-27d53f250b11_story.html |archive-date=February 7, 2021 |issn=0190-8286}}</ref>
| | Jackson's first decision as a court of appeals judge invalidated a 2020 rule by the Federal Labor Relations Authority that had restricted the bargaining power of federal-sector labor unions.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Supreme Court Hopeful Tosses Labor Policy in Debut Ruling (3)|url=https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/bargaining-policy-tossed-in-judge-jacksons-debut-circuit-ruling|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220201230833/https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/bargaining-policy-tossed-in-judge-jacksons-debut-circuit-ruling|archive-date=February 1, 2022|access-date=February 1, 2022|website=news.bloomberglaw.com|language=en}}</ref> |
| | |
| In April and June 2018, Jackson presided over two cases challenging the Department of Health and Human Services' decision to terminate grants for teen pregnancy prevention programs two years early.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Hansler |first=Jennifer |date=June 4, 2018 |title=HHS loses another court battle over teen pregnancy prevention grant funding |url=https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/02/politics/hhs-teen-pregnancy-program-dc-district-court/index.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201128143954/https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/02/politics/hhs-teen-pregnancy-program-dc-district-court/index.html |archive-date=November 28, 2020 |access-date=September 21, 2020 |website=CNN}}</ref> Jackson ruled that the decision to terminate the grants early, without any explanation for doing so, was arbitrary and capricious.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Barbash |first=Fred |last2=Paul |first2=Deanna |date=March 19, 2019 |title=The real reason the Trump administration is constantly losing in court |language=en-US |work=The Washington Post |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/the-real-reason-president-trump-is-constantly-losing-in-court/2019/03/19/f5ffb056-33a8-11e9-af5b-b51b7ff322e9_story.html |url-status=live |access-date=September 21, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200924110102/https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/the-real-reason-president-trump-is-constantly-losing-in-court/2019/03/19/f5ffb056-33a8-11e9-af5b-b51b7ff322e9_story.html |archive-date=September 24, 2020 |issn=0190-8286}}</ref>
| |
| | |
| In ''[[American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. Trump]]'' (2018), Jackson invalidated provisions of three executive orders that would have limited the time federal employee labor union officials could spend with union members, the issues that unions could bargain over in negotiations, and the rights of disciplined workers to appeal disciplinary actions. Jackson concluded that the executive orders violated the right of federal employees to collectively bargain, as guaranteed by the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Vazquez |first=Maegan |date=August 25, 2018 |title=Judge strikes down sections of Trump exec orders for federal workers in victory for unions |url=https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/25/politics/donald-trump-executive-orders-unions/index.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201019153652/https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/25/politics/donald-trump-executive-orders-unions/index.html |archive-date=October 19, 2020 |access-date=May 20, 2020 |website=[[CNN]]}}</ref> The D.C. Circuit vacated this ruling on jurisdictional grounds in 2019.<ref>''American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. Trump'', 318 F.Supp.3d 370 (D.D.C. 2018), ''vacated'', 929 F.3d 748 (D.C. Cir. 2019).</ref>
| |
| | |
| In 2018, Jackson dismissed that 40 wrongful death and product liability lawsuits stemming from the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, which had been combined into a single multidistrict litigation. Jackson held that under the doctrine of ''forum non conveniens'', the suits should be brought in Malaysia, not the United States. The D.C. Circuit affirmed this ruling in 2020.<ref>''In re Air Crash Over Southern Indian Ocean on March 8, 2014'', 352 F.Supp.3d 19 (D.D.C. 2018), ''aff'd'', 946 F.3d 607 (D.C. Cir. 2020).</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Stempel |first=Jonathan |date=November 23, 2018 |title=U.S. judge dismisses litigation over missing Malaysia Airlines flight |language=en |work=Reuters |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-malaysiaairlines-mh370-lawsuit-idUSKCN1NS25B |url-status=live |access-date=May 20, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201120180052/https://www.reuters.com/article/us-malaysiaairlines-mh370-lawsuit-idUSKCN1NS25B |archive-date=November 20, 2020}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=December 12, 2018 |title=Judge Dismisses US Lawsuits Filed Over Malaysia Airlines Disappearance |url=https://finance.yahoo.com/news/judge-dismisses-us-lawsuits-filed-101631778.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220129004837/https://finance.yahoo.com/news/judge-dismisses-us-lawsuits-filed-101631778.html |archive-date=January 29, 2022 |access-date=May 20, 2020 |website=[[Yahoo! Finance]] |language=en-US}}</ref>
| |
| | |
| In 2019, in ''Center for Biological Diversity v. McAleenan'', Jackson held that Congress had, through the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, stripped federal courts of jurisdiction to hear non-constitutional challenges to the U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security's decision to waive certain environmental requirements to facilitate construction of a [[Mexico–United States barrier|border wall]] on the United States and Mexico border.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Grzincic |first=Barbara |date=September 6, 2019 |title=IN BRIEF: Trump administration can waive enviro laws for border wall - judge |language=en |work=Reuters |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/border-wall-waiver-lawsuit-idUSL2N25X00X |url-status=live |access-date=May 20, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190909091550/https://www.reuters.com/article/border-wall-waiver-lawsuit-idUSL2N25X00X |archive-date=September 9, 2019}}</ref>
| |
| | |
| In 2019, Jackson issued a preliminary injunction in ''Make The Road New York v. McAleenan'', blocking an agency rule that would have expanded "fast-track" deportations without immigration court hearings for undocumented immigrants.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Hsu |first=Spencer S. |date=September 28, 2019 |title=Judge bars Trump fast-track deportation policy, saying threat to legal migrants was not assessed |language=en |work=The Washington Post |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/judge-bars-trump-fast-track-deportation-policy-saying-threat-to-legal-migrants-was-not-assessed/2019/09/28/cf3d237e-e1ed-11e9-b199-f638bf2c340f_story.html |url-status=live |access-date=May 20, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200625033827/https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/judge-bars-trump-fast-track-deportation-policy-saying-threat-to-legal-migrants-was-not-assessed/2019/09/28/cf3d237e-e1ed-11e9-b199-f638bf2c340f_story.html |archive-date=June 25, 2020}}</ref> Jackson found that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security had violated the Administrative Procedure Act because its decision was arbitrary and capricious and the agency did not seek public comment before issuing the rule.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Gerstein |first=Josh |date=September 28, 2019 |title=Judge blocks Trump plan to expand fast-track deportations |work=Politico |url=https://www.politico.com/news/2019/09/28/judge-blocks-trump-fast-track-deportations-007717 |url-status=live |access-date=May 20, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200625181818/https://www.politico.com/news/2019/09/28/judge-blocks-trump-fast-track-deportations-007717 |archive-date=June 25, 2020}}</ref>
| |
| | |
| In 2019, Jackson issued a ruling in ''Committee on the Judiciary of the U.S. House of Representatives v. McGahn'' in which the House Committee on the Judiciary sued Don McGahn, former White House Counsel for the Trump administration, to compel him to comply with the subpoena to appear at a hearing on its [[Data_Visualizations/Impeachment|impeachment inquiry]] on issues of alleged obstruction of justice by the administration. McGahn declined to comply with the subpoena after U.S. President Donald Trump, relying on a legal theory of executive testimonial immunity, ordered McGahn not to testify. In a lengthy opinion, Jackson ruled in favor of the House Committee and held that senior-level presidential aides "who have been subpoenaed for testimony by an authorized committee of Congress must appear for testimony in response to that subpoena" even if the President orders them not to do so.<ref>{{Cite web |date=November 25, 2019 |title=Committee on the Judiciary of the U.S. House of Representatives v. McGahn, No. 19-cv-2379 (KBJ), Slip Op. at 116 |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191206055200/https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2019cv2379-46}}</ref> Jackson rejected the administration's assertion of executive testimonial immunity by holding that "with respect to senior-level presidential aides, absolute immunity from compelled congressional process simply does not exist."<ref name="autogenerated1">{{Cite web |date=November 25, 2019 |title=Committee on the Judiciary of the U.S. House of Representatives v. McGahn, No. 19-cv-2379 (KBJ), Slip Op. at 115 |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191206055200/https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2019cv2379-46}}.</ref> According to Jackson, that conclusion was "inescapable precisely because compulsory appearance by dint of a subpoena is a legal construct, not a political one, and per the Constitution, no one is above the law."<ref name="autogenerated1" /><ref>{{Cite news |last=Thomsen |first=Jacqueline |date=November 25, 2019 |title='No One Is Above the Law': Judge Says Donald McGahn Must Comply With House Subpoena for His Testimony |work=Law.com |url=https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2019/11/25/no-one-is-above-the-law-judge-says-donald-mcgahn-must-comply-with-house-subpoena-for-his-testimony/?slreturn=20191026004215 |url-status=live |access-date=November 26, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220129073944/https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2019/11/25/no-one-is-above-the-law-judge-says-donald-mcgahn-must-comply-with-house-subpoena-for-his-testimony/?slreturn=20191026004215 |archive-date=January 29, 2022}}.</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Samuelsohn |first=Darren |last2=Cheney |first2=Kyle |last3=Desiderio |first3=Andrew |date=November 25, 2019 |title=Don McGahn must testify about time as White House lawyer, judge rules |url=https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/25/mueller-star-witness-must-testify-to-congress-judge-rules-073622 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191126213847/https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/25/mueller-star-witness-must-testify-to-congress-judge-rules-073622 |archive-date=November 26, 2019 |access-date=November 26, 2019 |website=Politico |language=en}}</ref> Jackson's use of the phrase "presidents are not kings" gained popular attention in subsequent media reporting on the ruling.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Durkee |first=Alison |date=November 25, 2019 |title='Presidents Are Not Kings': Federal Judge Destroys Trump's 'Absolute Immunity' Defense Against Impeachment |url=https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/11/mcgahn-testify-subpoena-absolute-immunity-ruling |url-status=live |magazine=[[Vanity Fair (magazine)|Vanity Fair]] |language=en |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200709001234/https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/11/mcgahn-testify-subpoena-absolute-immunity-ruling |archive-date=July 9, 2020 |access-date=May 20, 2020}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Yaeger |first=Lynn |date=December 1, 2019 |title=The Week in Washington: 'Presidents Are Not Kings!' |url=https://www.vogue.com/article/the-week-in-washington-president-donald-trump-presidents-are-not-kings |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200924153809/https://www.vogue.com/article/the-week-in-washington-president-donald-trump-presidents-are-not-kings |archive-date=September 24, 2020 |access-date=May 20, 2020 |website=[[Vogue (magazine)|Vogue]] |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=November 26, 2019 |title=Judge tells Trump he's not a king – the President is not so sure |url=https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/26/politics/donald-trump-constitution-supreme-court-executive-power/index.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200520044051/https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/26/politics/donald-trump-constitution-supreme-court-executive-power/index.html |archive-date=May 20, 2020 |access-date=May 20, 2020 |website=[[CNN]]}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Reilly |first=Ryan J. |date=November 25, 2019 |title='Presidents Are Not Kings': Judge Orders Trump Lawyer McGahn To Testify Before Congress |url=https://www.huffpost.com/entry/don-mcgahn-testimony-ruling-trump-mueller-ukraine_n_5ddbf046e4b0d50f3293d9d7 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200513081224/https://www.huffpost.com/entry/don-mcgahn-testimony-ruling-trump-mueller-ukraine_n_5ddbf046e4b0d50f3293d9d7 |archive-date=May 13, 2020 |access-date=May 20, 2020 |website=[[Huffington Post]] |language=en}}</ref> In noting that Jackson took four months to resolve the case, including writing a 120 page opinion, ''The Washington Post'' wrote: "That slow pace contributed to helping Mr. Trump run out the clock on the congressional oversight effort before the 2020 election."<ref name="nyt" /> The ruling was appealed by the U.S. Department of Justice,<ref>{{Cite web |last=Hsu |first=Spencer S. |date=November 28, 2019 |title=Appeals court stays ruling that former White House counsel Donald McGahn must comply with House subpoena |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/justice-department-asks-to-stay-court-ruling-that-former-white-house-counsel-donald-mcgahn-must-comply-with-house-subpoena-pending-appeal/2019/11/27/ddf2c708-112b-11ea-b0fc-62cc38411ebb_story.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191127194740/https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/justice-department-asks-to-stay-court-ruling-that-former-white-house-counsel-donald-mcgahn-must-comply-with-house-subpoena-pending-appeal/2019/11/27/ddf2c708-112b-11ea-b0fc-62cc38411ebb_story.html |archive-date=November 27, 2019 |access-date=November 27, 2019 |newspaper=The Washington Post}}</ref> and the D.C. Circuit affirmed part of Jackson's decision nine months later in August 2020.<ref>{{Cite news |title=Appeals court rejects key argument against McGahn subpoena |language=en |work=Politico |url=https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/07/appeals-court-rules-mcgahn-must-testify-392562 |url-status=live |access-date=February 1, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200807145405/https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/07/appeals-court-rules-mcgahn-must-testify-392562 |archive-date=August 7, 2020}}</ref> While the case remained pending, on June 4, 2021, McGahn testified behind closed doors under an agreement reached with the Biden administration.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Savage |first=Charlie |last2=Fandos |first2=Nicholas |date=June 4, 2021 |title=McGahn testifies about Trump's efforts to obstruct the Russia inquiry |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/04/us/politics/mcgahn-trump-russia-inquiry.html?name=undefined®ion=BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT&block=storyline_reading_list_recirc&action=click&pgtype=Article&variant=1_reading_list |url-status=live |access-date=December 10, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211210045757/https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/04/us/politics/mcgahn-trump-russia-inquiry.html?name=undefined®ion=BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT&block=storyline_reading_list_recirc&action=click&pgtype=Article&variant=1_reading_list |archive-date=December 10, 2021}}</ref>
| |
