Affordable Care Act Litigation



An ACA litigation calendar for March through November 2020 [11/10 pm]Note: bold covers things that have now happened; strikethrough indicates things that didn’t.3/2/20Plaintiffs’ partial summary judgment motion due in the Yale wellness case, No. 3:19-cv-1098 (D. Conn.)3/2/20Motions or status reports due in the Edmo gender confirmation case, No. 1:17-cv-151 (D. Idaho)3/3/20Federal and Michigan what-next? proposals due in the Michigan 1115 waiver case, No. 1:19-cv-3526 (D. D.C.)3/4/20US opposition to plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction/summary judgment, and cross-motion, due in the Michigan 1115 waiver case, No. 1:19-cv-3526 (D. D.C.) (recalendared)3/10/20Insurers’ supplemental briefs due in the CSR appeals, Nos. 19-1290 et al (Fed. Cir.)3/12/20US reply supporting motion to dismiss due in the Illinois public charge case, No. 1:19-cv-6334 (N.D. Ill.) (postponed)3/13/20Plaintiffs’ amended opposition to US motion to dismiss due in the Illinois public charge case, No. 1:19-cv-6334 (N.D. Ill.)3/16/20Parties’ post-Gresham motions due in the Philbrick (New Hampshire) 1115 waiver case, No. 19-5293 (D.C. Cir.) (filed 3/12)3/17/20Plaintiffs’ response to defendants’ filing due in the Michigan 1115 waiver case, No. 1:19-cv-3526 (D. D.C.) (recalendared)3/17/20Common Ground amicus due in the CSR appeals, Nos. 19-1290 et al (Fed. Cir.)3/17/20Oral argument on the US motion to dismiss the New York public charge case, No. 1:19-cv-7777 (S.D. N.Y.) [10:30 am] (rescheduled to 5/5)3/20/20Oral argument in the short term limited duration case, No. 19-5212 (D.C. Cir.)3/20/20States’ reply brief in the Medicaid managed care plans nondelegation appeal, No. 18-10545 (5th Cir.)3/24/20Plaintiffs’ summary judgment response due in the Michigan 1115 waiver case, No. 1:19-cv-3526 (D. D.C.)3/25/20US supplemental reply briefs due in the CSR appeals, Nos. 19-1290 et al (Fed. Cir.) (extension to 4/10)3/26/20US reply supporting motion to dismiss due in the Illinois public charge case, No. 1:19-cv-6334 (N.D. Ill.)3/31/20US reply due in the Michigan 1115 waiver case, No. 1:19-cv-3526 (D. D.C.) (extended to 4/7)4/1/20Defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment/opposition due in the Yale wellness case, No. 3:19-cv-1098 (D. Conn.) (being extended to April 22?)4/7/20US reply supporting summary judgment motion due in the Michigan 1115 waiver case, No. 1:19-cv-3526 (D. D.C.) (case stayed 4/2)4/8/20US motion to dismiss due in the Casa de Maryland public charge case, No. 8:19-cv-2715 (D. Md.) (filing deadlines extended)4/10/20US supplemental reply briefs due in the CSR appeals, Nos. 19-1290 et al (Fed. Cir.)4/10/20US supplemental opening brief due in the Fourth Circuit Title X appeals, Nos. 19-1614 and 20-1215 (4th Cir.)4/16/20US reply due supporting motion to dismiss in the Cook County public charge case, No. 1:19-cv-6334 (N.D. Ill.)4/22/20Defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment/opposition due in the Yale wellness case, No. 3:19-cv-1098 (to be extended to 4/29?)4/24/20Supplemental response brief due in the Fourth Circuit Title X appeals, Nos. 19-1614 and 20-1215 (4th Cir.)4/27/20Opening briefs due in the Second Circuit statutory conscience rule appeal, No. 19-4254 (2d Cir.)4/29/20Defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment/opposition due in the Yale wellness case, No. 3:19-cv-10984/29/20TRO hearing in the health care proclamation case, 3:19-cv-1743 (D. Or.)4/30/20US reply supporting its motion to dismiss/opposition to cross-motion for summary judgment due in the Maine Title X case, 1:19-cv-100 (D. Maine).5/1/20Supplemental reply brief deadline in the Fourth Circuit Title X appeals, Nos. 19-1614 and 20-1215 (4th Cir.)5/4/20Oral argument on US motion to dismiss in the Cook County public charge case, No. 1:19-cv-6334 (N.D. Ill.) (rescheduled to 6/8?)5/5/20Oral argument on the US motion to dismiss the New York public charge case, No. 1:19-cv-7777 (S.D. N.Y.) (rescheduled to coincide with the PI motion hearing 6/18)5/6/20Supreme Court oral argument in the religious and moral objections cases, Nos. 19-431 and 19-4545/6/20Plaintiffs’ oppositions to US motion to dismiss due in the Casa de Maryland public charge case, No. 8:19-cv-2715 (D. Md.) (filing deadlines extended)5/6/20Opening brief due in Franciscan Alliance’s 1557 appeal, No. 20-10093 (5th Cir.) (to be extended)5/6/20Deadline for petitioners’ opening briefs in Texas v. U.S., The Global Challenge, Nos. 19-840/19-10195/7/20Oral argument in the Baltimore Title X case, Nos. 19-1614/20-1215 (4th Cir.)5/8/20Oral argument in the Fourth Circuit public charge case, No. 19-2222 (4th Cir.)5/12/20Response due to preliminary injunction request in the New York public charge case, 1:19-cv-7777 (S.D. N.Y.)5/13/20Deadline for pro-petitioners amicus briefs in Texas v. U.S., The Global Challenge, Nos. 19-840/19-10195/15/20Reply due supporting preliminary injunction request in the New York public charge case, 1:19-cv-7777 (S.D. N.Y.)5/18/20Oral argument on preliminary injunction request and on the motion to dismiss in the New York public charge case, 1:19-cv-7777 (S.D. N.Y.)5/19/20Deadline for second round of supplemental briefing in the CSR appeals, e.g., 19-2102 (Fed. Cir.)5/20/20US reply supporting its motion to dismiss due in the Casa de Maryland public charge case, No. 8:19-cv-2715 (D. Md.) (filing deadlines extended)5/22/20Plaintiffs’ partial summary judgment reply/opposition probably due in the Yale wellness case, No. 3:19-cv-1098 (D. Conn.) (rescheduled to 6/5)5/22/20Defendants’ responsive pleading due in the Eastern Washington public charge case, 4:19-cv-5210 (E.D. Wash.)5/29/20Plaintiffs’ reply supporting their motion for summary judgment due in the Maine Title X case, 1:19-cv-100 (D. Maine)6/1/20Oral argument in the Fifth Circuit Medicaid managed care plan fees nondelegation appeal, 18-10545 (5th Cir.)6/5/20Plaintiffs’ partial summary judgment reply/opposition probably due in the Yale wellness case, No. 3:19-cv-1098 (D. Conn.)6/5/20Opening brief probably due in Franciscan Alliance’s 1557 appeal, No. 20-10093 (5th Cir.) (unopposed motion for stay filed 5/28; briefing stayed)6/8/20Oral argument, probably, on US motion to dismiss in the Cook County public charge case, No. 1:19-cv-6334 (N.D. Ill.) (moved to 7/20)6/12/20Defendant’s partial summary judgment reply probably due in the Yale wellness case, No. 3:19-cv-1098 (D. Conn.) (rescheduled to 6/26)6/15/20US opening brief due in the Ninth Circuit statutory conscience rule appeals, Nos. 20-15398/15399 and 20-35044 (9th Cir.)6/22/20Status report due in the City of Chicago special enrollment periods case, No. 1:20-cv-1566 (D. D.C.)6/25/20Deadline for initial briefs from the state and individual respondents/cross-petitioners, and from the US, in Texas v. U.S., The Global Challenge, Nos. 19-840/19-10196/26/20Defendant’s partial summary judgment reply probably due in the Yale wellness case, No. 3:19-cv-1098 (D. Conn.) (postponed to 7/3)7/2/20Deadline for amicus briefs supporting the state and individual respondents/cross-petitioners, and the US, in Texas v. U.S., The Global Challenge, Nos. 19-840/19-10197/3/20Defendant’s partial summary judgment reply probably due in the Yale wellness case, No. 3:19-cv-1098 (D. Conn.)7/6/20Briefing stay ends in the Franciscan Alliance 1557 case case, No. 20-10093 (5th Cir.) (but further unopposed motion for extension to 8/5)7/10/20Parties’ responses probably due to Ohio Montana motion to participate in the Texas v. U.S. oral argument, Nos. 19-840 and 19-1019 (no one filed?)7/13/20Parties’ responses probably due to US and House motions for divided argument in Texas v. U.S., Nos. 19-840 and 19-10197/15/20Plaintiffs’ responding briefs due in the Ninth Circuit statutory conscience rule appeals, Nos. 20-15398/15399 and 20-35044 (9th Cir.) (opposed request for 90 day extension filed and granted)7/20/20US summary judgment opposition/cross motion due in the Cook County special enrollment period case, No. 1:20-cv-1566 (D. D.C.)7/20/20Oral argument, probably, on US motion to dismiss in the Cook County public charge case, No. 1:19-cv-6334 (N.D. Ill.) (hearing stricken 7/15)7/24/20Response to preliminary injunction motion due in the Whitman-Walker Clinic 1557 case, No. 1:20-cv-1630 (D. D.C.)7/27/20Plaintiffs’ summary judgment reply/cross-motion opposition due in the Cook County special enrollment period case, No. 1:20-cv-1566 (D. D.C.)7/29/20Reply supporting preliminary injunction motion due in the Whitman-Walker Clinic 1557 case, No. 1:20-cv-1630 (D. D.C.)7/29/20Deadline for petitioners’ response/reply briefs in Texas v. U.S., The Global Challenge, Nos. 19-840/19-10197/31/20US opposition to preliminary injunction motion due in the Eastern New York 1557 case, No. 1:20-cv-2834 (E.D. N.Y.)8/3/20Preliminary injunction hearing in the Whitman-Walker Clinic 1557 case, No. 1:20-cv-1630 (D. D.C.)8/3/20US cross-motion reply due in the Cook County special enrollment period case, No. 1:20-cv-1566 (D. D.C.)8/5/20Briefing stay probably ends in the Franciscan Alliance 1557 case, No. 20-10093 (5th Cir.)8/6/20US reply brief due in the Ninth Circuit statutory conscience rule appeals, Nos. 20-15398/15399 and 20-35044 (9th Cir.) (rescheduled to 10/13)8/7/20Plaintiffs’ reply supporting preliminary injunction motion due in the Eastern New York 1557 case, No. 1:20-cv-2834 (E.D. N.Y.)8/10/20Additional US filings due in the Whitman-Walker Clinic 1557 case, No. 1:20-cv-1630 (D. D.C.)8/12/20Preliminary injunction hearing scheduled in the Eastern New York 1557 case, No. 1:20-cv-2834 (E.D. N.Y.)8/13/20Plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion due in the Columbus v. Trump case about the 2019 parameters rule, No. 1:18-cv-2364 (D. Md.)8/17/20Initial due date for plaintiffs’ responses to the U.S.’s certiorari petition in Gresham/Philbrick 1115 community engagement waiver case, No. 20-37, and Arkansas’s certiorari petition in Gresham, No. 20-38. (Extended to 10/16)8/17/20Supplemental briefing due in the Washington 1557 case, 2:20-cv-1105 (W.D. Wash.)8/18/20Deadline for reply briefs from the state and individual respondents/cross-petitioners, “limited to the question of the geographic scope of any remedial order,” or, per the Court’s April 2 order, “limited to Question 2 presented by the petition for certiorari in No. 19-1019,” in Texas v. U.S., The Global Challenge, Nos. 19-840/19-10198/20/20Second amended complaint due in the Irish 4 Reproductive Health contraception case, No. 3:18-cv-491 (N.D. Ind.)8/21/20Plaintiffs’ response due to Kaiser petition for rehearing en banc in the Schmitt 1557 case, No. 18-35846 (9th Cir.)8/26/20Supplemental briefing (on EDNY injunction) due in the Washington 1557 case, 2:20-cv-1105 (W.D. Wash.)8/28/20Supplemental briefs to be filed in the Ninth Circuit religious and moral objections cases, Nos. 19-15072/-15118/-15150, on the propriety of remanding to district court.8/31/20Appellants’ reply briefs due in the Second Circuit statutory conscience protection case, No. 19-4254 (2d Cir.)9/3/20Oral argument in the Ninth Circuit health care proclamation case, No. 19-36020 (9th Cir.)9/8/20Washington response due to order to show cause why the Washington 1557 case, No. 2:20-cv-1105 (W.D. Wash.), should not be dismissed for lack of standing (case voluntarily dismissed)9/14/20Appellees’ brief due in the DeOtte contraception case, No. 19-10754 (5th Cir.) (extended to 10/14)9/15/20Oral argument in the Ninth Circuit public charge cases, Nos. 19-17213, 19-17214, 19-35914 (9th Cir.)9/17/20Defendants’ summary judgment opposition and cross-motion due in the Columbus v. Trump case about the 2019 parameters rule, No. 1:18-cv-2364 (D. Md.) (postponed to 9/28)9/21/20Motions to dismiss due in the Irish 4 Reproductive Health contraception case, No. 3:18-cv-491 (N.D. Ind.)9/21/20Opening brief due in Franciscan Alliance’s 1557 appeal, No. 20-10093 (5th Cir.) 9/28/20Defendants’ summary judgment opposition and cross-motion due in the Columbus v. Trump case about the 2019 parameters rule, No. 1:18-cv-2364 (D. Md.)9/28/20US opening brief due in the second New York public charge appeal, No. 20-2537 (2d Cir.)10/2/20US response due to Casa de Maryland public charge petition for rehearing en banc, No. 19-2222 (4th Cir.) (postponed to 10/16)10/13/20Plaintiffs’ responding briefs due in the Ninth Circuit statutory conscience rule appeals, Nos. 20-15398/15399 20-16045, and 20-35044 (9th Cir.) 10/13/20Deadline for amended complaint in the E.S. hearing discrimination case, No. 2:17-cv-1609 (W.D. Wash.)10/14/20Appellees’ brief due in the DeOtte contraception case, No. 19-10754 (5th Cir.) (filed 10/12)10/15/20Plaintiffs’ summary judgment reply/cross-motion opposition due in the Columbus v. Trump case about the 2019 parameters rule, No. 1:18-cv-2364 (D. Md.) (postponed to 10/26)10/15/20Nominal due date for US response to Texas Kansas Louisiana petition for rehearing en banc, No. 18-10545 (5th Cir.) (unopposed motion to extend to 11 16)10/16/20Administrative record due in the New York 1557 case, No. 1:20-cv-5583 (S.D. N.Y.) (extended to 11 6)10/16/20US response due to Casa de Maryland public charge petition for rehearing en banc, No. 19-2222 (4th Cir.)10/16/20US responses due to the petitions for rehearing en banc in two of the Federal Circuit CSR appeals, Nos. 19-1633 and 19-2102 (Fed. Cir.) (to be extended to 10 23?)10/16/20Due date for plaintiffs’ responses to the U.S.’s certiorari petition in Gresham/Philbrick 1115 community engagement waiver case, No. 20-37, and Arkansas’s certiorari petition in Gresham, No. 20-3810/20/20Amended pleadings due in the Schmitt hearing discrimination case, No. 2:17-cv-1611 (W.D. Wash.)10/21/20Plaintiffs’ opposition to motions to dismiss due in the Irish 4 Reproductive Health contraception case, No. 3:18-cv-491 (N.D. Ind.)10/23/20US responses due to the petitions for rehearing en banc in two of the Federal Circuit CSR appeals, Nos. 19-1633 and 19-2102 (Fed. Cir.)10/26/20Objections due to the administrative record in the New York 1557 case, No. 1:20-cv-5583 (S.D. N.Y.) (extended to 11 16)10/26/20Plaintiffs’ summary judgment reply/cross-motion opposition due in the Columbus v. Trump case about the 2019 parameters rule, No. 1:18-cv-2364 (D. Md.)10/29/20Status conference in the New York 1557 case, No. 1:20-cv-5583 (S.D. N.Y.) (reset for 11/19)11/2/2020Plaintiffs’ response due to US motion to stay in the Eastern New York 1557 case, 1:20-cv-2834 (E.D. N.Y.) (filed 10 30)11/5/20Replies due supporting motions to dismiss in the Irish 4 Reproductive Health contraception case, No. 3:18-cv-491 (N.D. Ind.)11/6/20Administrative record to be produced in the Southern New York 1557 case, No. 1:20-cv-5583 (S.D. N.Y.)11/10/20Oral argument in Texas v. U.S., the Global Challenge, Nos. 19-840 and -1019.11/10/20Probable due date for US response to petition for rehearing en banc in the STLDI case, No. 19-5212 (D.C. Cir.)11/12/20Defendants’ reply supporting their cross-motion for summary judgment due in the Columbus v. Trump case about the 2019 parameters rule, No. 1:18-cv-2364 (D. Md.) (postponed to 11/23)11/16/20Objections due to the administrative record in the New York 1557 case, No. 1:20-cv-5583 (S.D. N.Y.)11/16/20Due date for US response to Texas Kansas Louisiana petition for rehearing en banc, No. 18-10545 (5th Cir.) (filed 11 9)11/17/20Plaintiffs’ response due to US motion to stay pending appeal in the Cook County public charge case, No. 20-3150 (7th Cir.)11/19/20Status conference in the New York 1557 case, No. 1:20-cv-5583 (S.D. N.Y.)11/20/20Probable due date for US’s and intervenors’ response brief in Franciscan Alliance, No. 20-10093 (5th Cir.)11/23/20Defendants’ reply supporting their cross-motion for summary judgment due in the Columbus v. Trump case about the 2019 parameters rule, No. 1:18-cv-2364 (D. Md.)11/27/20Probable due date for Nevada response brief in Franciscan Alliance, No. 20-10093 (5th Cir.)12/3/20US reply brief due in the statutory conscience appeals, Nos. 20-15398/16045/35044 (9th Cir.)12/9/20Current due date for plaintiffs’ cert response in the New York public charge case, No. 20-44912/9/20Current due date for plaintiffs’ cert response in the Fourth Circuit Title X case, No. 20-454Notes on specific cases by subject area:The Global ChallengeIn the Texas v. U.S. Global Challenge, 4:18-cv-167 (N.D. Tex.), 19-10011 (5th Cir.), and Nos. 19-840, 19-841, and 19-1019 (U.S. Supreme Court), the Court granted certiorari on March 2, 2020, on the California petition (19-840) and the Texas and individual plaintiffs’ conditional cross-petition (19-1019), apparently holding the House of Representatives’ petition (19-841). The district court had granted partial summary judgment that the entire ACA was invalid (12/14/18), and then entered judgment under FRCP 54(b) to allow this to be appealed while staying its own order (12/30/18, see also 12/31). The Fifth Circuit granted motions to intervene by four pro-ACA states and by the U.S. House, and oral argument took place July 9, 2019. The Fifth Circuit issued its decision, determining that what remains of the individual mandate is unconstitutional but that Judge O’Connor’s severability analysis was not adequate, and remanding to him for further severability analysis, on December 18, 2019. The intervenor-defendants and the House filed cert petitions January 3, 2020, Nos. 19-840/841, along with motions to expedite consideration of the petitions. The Court denied those motions, but also denied the State plaintiffs’ motions to extend the time for responding. Responses were filed February 3, 2020. Petitioners filed replies February 12, and the petitions were distributed for the Supreme Court’s February 21 Conference. Meanwhile, Texas and the individual plaintiffs filed a conditional cross-petition for certiorari February 14, No. 19-1019. On February 24, the Court relisted the California and U.S. House petitions, and listed the conditional cross-petition, for its February 28 Conference. On the Monday following the February 28 Conference, the Court granted two of the three pending petitions.On March 20, 2020, the parties proposed a schedule to the Court that would involve briefs on May 6 (petitioners), May 13 (amici supporting petitioners), June 25 (respondents/cross-petitioners), July 2 (amici supporting respondents/cross-petitioners), July 29 (petitioners’ reply), and August 18 (cross-petitioners’ reply). On April 3, 2020, the Court granted the motion. Petitioners filed their opening briefs May 6; amici supporting petitioners filed May 13; respondents filed June 25, and pro-respondents amici filed July 2; petitioners filed replies July 29; and cross-petitioners filed replies August 18. By July 2, there were pending motions for divided argument from the U.S. and from the House of Representatives, and a pending motion to participate in the oral argument by amici Ohio and Montana. On August 19, 2020, the Court set oral argument for November 10. On August 24, the Court divided oral argument with 30 minutes for California, 10 minutes for the House, 20 minutes for the U.S., and 20 minutes for Texas and the individuals; it denied Ohio and Montana’s motion to participate.The Court held oral argument on November 10, 2020.In Maryland v. U.S., 1:18-cv-2849 (D. Md.), the case seeking to affirm the ACA, Judge Hollander granted the Government’s fully briefed motion to dismiss on February 1, 2019.Whittling AwayIn New York v. U.S., 1:18-cv-1747 (D. D.C.), the case about association health plans, the district court held oral argument on January 24, 2019, and the district court partially vacated and remanded the regulations in an opinion issued March 28. The Government has appealed, No. 19-5125 (D.C. Cir.), and the appeal was heard November 14, 2019.In Association for Community Health Plans v. U.S., 1:18-cv-2133 (D. D.C.), the case about short term limited duration plans, Judge Leon heard oral argument on May 21, 2019, and granted summary judgment to the Government on July 19. The D.C. Circuit file number is 19-5212. Appellants filed their opening brief November 4, 2019; the responding brief was filed January 21, 2020, with appellants’ reply brief filed February 25. Oral argument took place (by audio) March 20, 2020. The panel affirmed the judgment in favor of the U.S. on July 17, 2020. Plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing en banc August 31, 2020. On October 9, the D.C. Circuit ordered the U.S. to respond, and the response was filed November 10, 2020.In Columbus v. Trump, 1:18-cv-2364 (D. Md.), the case about the 2019 notice of benefit and payment parameters rule, the Government has filed a motion to dismiss (12/24) and plaintiffs have filed an amended complaint (1/25). Defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint was filed March 8, the opposition was filed May 31, and the Government filed its reply August 21, 2019. The motion to dismiss was partially granted and partially denied April 10, 2020. Plaintiffs filed their summary judgment brief August 13, defendants filed their opposition and cross-motion September 28, and plaintiffs filed an opposition/reply October 26.Cost Sharing ReductionsThere are six Court of Federal Claims cases where judgment has been entered for the insurers, who are leading the Government, 6-0, in the overall Court of Federal Claims standings. However, just after the Federal Circuit oral argument, the Federal Circuit ordered supplemental briefing to address possible double-recovery and damages-mitigation issues. Then, on August 14, 2020, the Federal Circuit issued two decisions, holding that insurers have a right to recover unpaid CSR payments in full for 2017, but that their recovery for 2018 and later should be reduced “by the amount of additional premium tax credit payments that each insurer received as a result of the government’s termination of cost-sharing reduction payments.” The insurers with 2018 and later CSR claims filed Federal Circuit petitions for rehearing on September 28. The Government’s consolidated response was filed October 23. The Federal Circuit denied rehearing en banc in a November 10 order.The Court of Federal Claims cases where judgment or partial judgment has been entered for the insurers, and the Government has appealed, are Sanford, Nos. 1:18-cv-136 (Ct.Fed.Cl.) and 19-1290 (Fed. Cir.), Montana HCO, Nos. 1:18-cv-143 (Ct.Fed.Cl.) and 19-1302 (Fed. Cir.), Community Health Choice, Nos. 1:18-cv-5 (Ct.Fed.Cl.) and 19-1633 (Fed. Cir.), Maine CHO, Nos. 1:17-cv-2057 (Ct.Fed.Cl.) and 19-2102 (Fed. Cir.), Common Ground (the opt-in class action), Nos. 1:17-cv-877 (Ct.Fed.Cl.) and 20-1286 (Fed. Cir.), and L.A. Care, Nos. 1:17-cv-1542 (Ct.Fed.Cl) and 20-1393 (Fed. Cir.). The two August 14 opinions were in four of those cases: for 2017, in Sanford HP and Montana HCO, and for 2018 and later, in Community Health Choice and Maine CHO. The two later-filed appeals, Common Ground and L.A. Care, had been stayed pending decisions in the “argued cases”; with the Federal Circuit having invited proposals from the parties within 14 days of those decisions on how the two appeals should proceed.After the January 9, 2020, oral argument in some of the Federal Circuit cases, the panel ordered supplemental briefing, with the appellant U.S. to file a supplemental brief on possible double-recovery or damages-mitigation issues by February 10, 2020, the insurers to file by March 10, and the U.S. to file reply supplemental briefs by March 25, extended to April 10. The U.S. filed its opening supplemental brief on February 10. The insurers filed their supplemental brief on March 10. The Common Ground appeal, No. 20-1286, is in abeyance, but the insurer sought and received permission to file an amicus brief to add to the supplemental briefs filed by its fellow insurers; its supplemental brief was filed March 17. The U.S. filed its reply supplemental brief April 10. After the Supreme Court issued its Maine CHO risk corridor case, the Federal Circuit ordered a second round of supplemental briefing, with simultaneous briefs filed May 19, 2020.At the Court of Federal Claims, ten CSR cases filed before 2020 have been stayed. The stayed cases are Sendero Health Plans v. U.S., No. 1:17-cv-2048, Molina Healthcare v. U.S., No. 1:18-cv-333, Health Alliance Medical Plans v. U.S., No. 1:18-cv-334, Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Vermont v. U.S., No. 1:18-cv-373, Guidewell Mutual v. U.S., No. 1:18-cv-1791, Harvard Pilgrim v. U.S., No. 1:18-cv-1820, Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Dakota, No. 1:18-cv-1983, Montana HCO (2), 1:19-cv-568, Sanford (2), 1:19-cv-569, and EmblemHealth v. U.S., No. 1:19-cv-1164. On October 2, 2020, the parties to the BC BS VT case agreed that there should be a final judgment in the insurer’s favor; the stipulation notes that the insurer did not receive any additional payments due to silver loading. Judgment was entered October 6.Trial-level proceedings have continued in Common Ground, the opt-in class action, with respect to 2019 payments, with Judge Sweeney certifying a class on May 29, 2020, but in that same order she stayed further proceedings on the merits pending the Federal Circuit’s ruling on the existing appeals; and, in L.A. Care, a 2019 benefit year judgment was entered July 14, 2020, the Government’s appeal file number being 20-2254.CSR cases filed in 2020 include MDWise Marketplace v. U.S., No. 1:17-cv-1958 (amended complaint raising CSR claims filed June 11, 2020); Maine CHO v. U.S., No. 1:20-cv-458 (2019-20 CSRs); Cigna Health v. U.S., No. 1:20-cv-546 (CSRs and risk corridors), Montana Health Co-Op v. U.S., 1:20-cv-561, Health Alliance Medical Plans v. U.S., No. 1:20-cv-565, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care v. U.S., No. 1:20-cv-578, Blue Cross of California v. U.S., No. 1:20-cv-606, Aetna Health v. U.S., No. 1:20-cv-905, Humana v. U.S., No. 1:20-cv-996, and Blue Care of Michigan v. U.S., No. 1:20-cv-1000. All, or almost all, of these cases were stayed pending final resolution of the CSR proceedings at or beyond the Federal Circuit.Risk corridor and risk adjustment casesThe Supreme Court has determined that under section 1342 of the ACA, 42 U.S.C. § 18062, plans must get risk corridor payments for 2014, 2015, and 2016. Maine Community Health Options v. U.S., No. 18-1023 (U.S., April 27, 2020). The more than 50 risk corridor cases pending in the Court of Federal Claims are now in the process of settling. By July 29, 2020, two opt-in class actions were being divided into subclasses in which the parties were stipulating that in most of the cases judgment would be entered for the insurers. On October 30, 2020, the U.S. asserted a counterclaim against one member of the dispute subclass in Health Republic class action.In the four Federal Circuit risk corridor cases, with the Federal Circuit having denied rehearing en banc on November 6, 2018, the insurers all sought certiorari, and got it. Maine Community Health Options v. U.S. is No. 18-1023; Moda v. U.S. and Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina v. U.S. are No. 18-1028; and Land of Lincoln v. U.S. is No. 18-1038. Opening briefs were filed August 30, 2019, pro-insurer amicus briefs were filed September 6, respondents’ briefs were filed October 21, and the cases were argued December 10, 2019. On April 27, 2020, the Supreme Court decided the appeals in favor of the insurers, with the lead case being Maine CHO.The Second Circuit granted an injunction pending appeal in UnitedHealthcare of New York v. Vullo, No. 18-2583 (2d Cir.); briefing was expedited, and oral argument took place February 8, 2019. The Court of Appeals requested amicus briefing from the United States, which was provided August 2; the parties’ responses to the supplemental briefing were filed September 23, 2019. On July 20, 2020, the Second Circuit reversed the district court’s no-preemption ruling.The United States filed an appeal in the risk adjustment case, New Mexico Health Connections v. U.S., No. 18-2186 (10th Cir.). Proceedings in a second case at District Court, 1:18-cv-773 (D. N.M.), were also stayed (unopposed motion, 12/26/18, order, 12/31/18), and the parties suggested in a joint status report (1/28/19) that the new case remain stayed until the Tenth Circuit resolved the appeal in the original case. Oral argument took place September 25, 2019. On December 31, 2019, the Tenth Circuit reversed Judge Browning’s ruling that had remanded the risk adjustment rules. The decision covered claims for 2018 as well as claims for earlier years, which presumably is what prompted the parties to the second risk adjustment case to agree to dismiss it.Most other risk corridor cases remained stayed in the Court of Claims through the Maine CHO decision. Anthem Blue Cross filed a new risk corridor case, No. 1:19-cv-1770, on November 18, 2019, which is being stayed; so is a case filed by Health Care Services Corp., No. 1:20-cv-259. By July 17, 2020, all of the cases that had been stayed were back underway, and about three-quarters of them had settled. The two pending class actions are Health Republic, No. 1:16-cv-259 (for 2014-15 payments not made), and Common Ground, No. 1:17-cv-877 (for 2016). On July 17, 2020, the parties in both class actions moved to have judgment entered in most of the cases for the insurers but to set off as separate subclasses the cases where the Government is asserting offsets and try those cases separately through motion practice. On October 16, 2020, the courts in both class actions ordered disbursement of 95% of the total amounts due to the non-dispute subclasses, reserving 5% for possible attorney’s fees.1557 and ACA-enforcement casesIn Franciscan Alliance v. Azar, No. 7:16-cv-108 (N.D. Tex.), the challenge to the Obama Administration’s 1557 regulations, Judge O’Connor held a hearing on September 16, 2019. On October 15, 2019, he issued a judgment vacating the Obama Administration regulations on transgender and abortion rights, remanding the matter to the agency, and allowing intervention. On November 21, 2019, Judge O’Connor issued an order partially revising his judgment. Franciscan Alliance filed a notice of appeal January 21, 2020, which has the file number 20-10093 (5th Cir.). Intervenors appear not to have appealed themselves but also appear to be participating in Franciscan Alliance’s appeal. Franciscan Alliance’s opening brief was due June 5, 2020, but that was stayed pending Supreme Court resolution of related Title VII cases. The Supreme Court issued a decision in Bostock v. Clayton County on June 15, 2020. The U.S. filed an unopposed motion July 2 asking for 30 days to conduct settlement negotiations, and the Fifth Circuit stayed briefing until August 5. On August 11, the Fifth Circuit issued an order resuming briefing, and Franciscan Alliance’s opening brief was filed September 21. The U.S.’s, and intervenors’, responsive briefs currently are due November 20.There were also injunctive orders in North Dakota v. Burwell, No. 3:16-cv-386 (D. N.D.), which apparently remain in effect, as indicated by the August 5, 2020 and October 5, 2020 status reports filed in that case.Litigation to challenge the Administration’s 1557 regulations, released June 12, 2020, and set to take effect in mid-August, has begun: see Whitman-Walker Clinic v. U.S. D.H.H.S., No. 1:20-cv-1630 (D. D.C.), Asapansa-Johnson Walker v. Azar, No. 1:20-cv-2834 (E.D. N.Y.), BAGLY v. U.S. D.H.H.S., No. 1:20-cv-11297 (D. Mass.), State of Washington v. U.S. D.H.H.S., No. 2:20-cv-1105 (W.D. Wash.), and State of New York v. U.S. D.H.H.S., No. 1:20-cv-5583 (S.D. N.Y.). In the D.C. case, Judge Boasberg set an expedited briefing schedule, held a preliminary injunction hearing August 3, 2020, and solicited supplemental briefing from the Government, which was filed August 10. In the Eastern New York case, Judge Block set an expedited briefing schedule and held a preliminary injunction hearing August 12, 2020. In the Western Washington case, Judge Robart held a preliminary injunction hearing on August 14, 2020, and ordered supplemental briefing to be filed August 17, 2020, by 10 am PDT, which was done.In the D.C. case, No. 1:20-cv-1630 (D. D.C.), Judge Boasberg issued a partial preliminary injunction on September 2, 2020. The U.S. filed a notice of appeal on October 31. The D.C. Circuit file number is 20-5331.In the Eastern New York case, No. 1:20-cv-2834 (E.D. N.Y.), Judge Block issued an order enjoining the new regulation on August 17, 2020, and a clarification order on October 29. The U.S. filed a notice of appeal October 16, 2020, No. 20-3580, and a district court motion for stay October 26; plaintiffs’ response to the stay motion was filed October 30. Judge Block issued an order November 2 staying further proceedings in his court pending the Second Circuit appeal; his injunction remains in effect.In the Southern New York case, plaintiffs moved for summary judgment September 10, 2020; Judge Hellerstein denied the motion without prejudice as premature September 22.In the Western Washington case, Judge Robart directed the parties to file supplemental briefs on the effect of Judge Block’s decision, which they did on August 26, and then denied the motion for preliminary injunction on August 28, requiring the plaintiff to show cause within 10 days why the case should not be dismissed for lack of standing; plaintiffs then dismissed the case, without prejudice, on September 8. There is “live” litigation in many other 1557, ACA-enforcement, and Eighth Amendment cases. On July 17, 2020, the Ninth Circuit decided two significant hearing-discrimination cases, Schmitt and E.S., Nos. 18-35846 and -35892. There has also been major litigation activity in two lactation-services cases and an inadequate-network case.In Schmitt, the Ninth Circuit held that plaintiffs should be allowed to amend their complaint to allege that the design of the plans they were challenging, which did not cover hearing aids but did cover cochlear implants, was intentionally discriminatory. In E.S., a memorandum opinion, the Ninth Circuit remanded for the same purpose and on the same grounds as in Schmitt. At the trial level, the two cases are Nos. 2:17-cv-1609 and -1611 (W.D. Wash.). In Schmitt, defendant Kaiser petitioned for rehearing en banc; the panel asked plaintiffs to file a response; and the Circuit denied rehearing en banc in an order released August 27, 2020. The E.S. plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on October 13, 2020, and the Schmitt plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint on October 20.In Condry, No, 3:17-cv-183 (N.D. Cal.), a class certification motion having been argued on April 25, 2019, and denied May 23, without prejudice to refiling with redefined classes; the motion was refiled September 9 and heard on November 21, with Judge Chhabria denying a motion to intervene December 19, and expressing skepticism about further proceedings, but then partly granting and partly denying class certification in a December 23, 2019 order. Plaintiffs filed petition-to-appeal paperwork in the Ninth Circuit under Civil Rule 23(f), Ninth Circuit file #s 20-80005 and 80006, defendants filed an opposition January 16, 2020, and the Ninth Circuit denied the petition on March 2, 2020. On September 4, 2020, the parties stipulated for partial relief for the named plaintiffs, and apparently contemplate cross-appeals on some of the class-related questions. Their stipulated final judgment was approved September 15, 2020, and plaintiffs and at least one of the defendants have filed appeals, Nos. 20-16823 and 20-16857.In Briscoe, No. 1:16-cv-10294 (N.D. Ill.) plaintiffs’ motion for class certification was heard on November 7, 2019, and was denied without prejudice in January, 2020; on February 14, 2020, plaintiffs submitted a new motion for class certification, along with a motion for reconsideration: both were fully briefed by March 31, 2020. Judge Blakey denied the renewed motion for class certification September 24, 2020.In Harvey, No. 2:18-cv-12 (E.D. Wash.), the inadequate-network case, the district court denied class certification on May 12, 2020, and plaintiffs filed an interlocutory appeal on May 26, No. 20-35468 (9th Cir.), but then dismissed the appeal. There was then, on September 14, 2020, a stipulation to dismiss the original case, which was granted September 15.Contraception cases: challenges to the religious and moral exemption regulationsOn Wednesday, July 8, 2020, the Supreme Court reversed the Third Circuit in the Little Sisters of the Poor/Trump v. Pennsylvania cases, Nos. 19-431 (Little Sisters) and 19-454 (U.S.), and remanded for further proceedings.At the trial level, plaintiffs had filed a motion for a preliminary injunction on December 18, 2018, and Judge Wendy Beetlestone had issued a nationwide preliminary injunction January 14, 2019. In the second round of appeals, Nos. 17-3752, 18-1253, 19-1129, and 19-1189, the Third Circuit had issued an opinion affirming the nationwide injunction July 12, 2019. The U.S. and Little Sisters filed opening briefs March 2, 2020, and Pennsylvania filed its brief April 1; the case was scheduled for oral argument April 29, 2020, but that was postponed to May 6 and took place on that date.After the Ninth Circuit’s opinion with respect to the interim final rules (12/13/18), California filed an amended challenge to the new final rules, California v. Wright, No. 4:17-cv-5783 (N.D. Cal.); an order enjoining the new regulations issued January 13. In the original appeal, No. 18-15255, Little Sisters filed a petition for certiorari on March 13, No. 18-1192, which has now been denied. In the second round of appeals, Nos. 19-15072, 19-15118, and 19-15150, the Ninth Circuit decided in the appellees’ favor October 22, 2019. Both Little Sisters and the Administration obtained permission to file for cert by February 19, 2020, and did so on that date, Nos. 19-1038 and 19-1053. California filed its opposition March 20. On July 9, 2020, the Supreme Court vacated the Ninth Circuit decision and remanded for further proceedings in light of its Little Sisters opinion. On August 13, the Ninth Circuit called for supplemental briefs on the propriety of remanding the cases to the district court, which the parties filed August 28. The Ninth Circuit issued a remand order October 8, 2020.Massachusetts had been denied standing to challenge the rules, but got that denial reversed at the First Circuit; it then filed a motion for summary judgment on July 31, 2019, with a Government response and motion to dismiss filed August 30, the Commonwealth’s opposition filed September 26, and a final Government reply brief filed October 21, 2019. After the Supreme Court took cert in Pennsylvania v. Trump, Massachusetts’ case was stayed on February 7, 2020.Meanwhile, there is a Texas case, DeOtte, No. 4:18-cv-825 (N.D. Tex.), where religiously motivated employers and individuals received nationwide class certification, and then a nationwide summary judgment order granting the requested exemptions on June 5, 2019. Nevada had sought intervention and been denied, but has appealed, with the U.S. appealing and then dismissing its appeal; both appeals are Fifth Circuit file number 19-10754 (5th Cir.). Nevada filed its opening brief on December 19, 2019. After the Court took certiorari in the Pennsylvania v. Trump case, the U.S. moved for a stay of the DeOtte appeal, which the Fifth Circuit granted. Plaintiffs have renewed their motion to dismiss the part of Nevada’s appeal that disputes the merits, and on August 3, 2020, Nevada opposed that motion. On August 14, the Fifth Circuit issued orders resuming briefing and directing the motion to dismiss to be carried with the case, that is, resolved when the merits are resolved. The DeOtte plaintiffs filed their appellees’ brief October 12, 2020.On October 15, 2020, the Fifth Circuit vacated an order dismissing Diarlam v. Trump, No. 18-20440, and remanded for further inquiries into mootness. The case was an attack on the ACA generally and specifically on its requirements that women’s health services be provided. It had been dismissed on mootness grounds. The trial court case number is 4:16-cv-307 (S.D. Tex.).Also, a federal district court in the Northern District of Indiana has largely denied a motion to dismiss that challenges a settlement between the U.S. and the University of Notre Dame, which had sued in 2013 to attack the Obama Administration’s exemptions. Irish 4 Reproductive Health v. U.S. D.H.H.S., No. 3:18-cv-491 (N.D. Ind.) (Order on motions to dismiss, January 16, 2020). The case had since been stayed awaiting the ruling in Pennsylvania v. Trump; after the decision, the parties presented differing views to the district court about how to proceed, and the district court set a motion-to-dismiss briefing schedule.Title X casesThere is litigation in the Northern District of California, in Maine, in Maryland, in Oregon, and in the Eastern District of Washington. Orders for injunctive relief issued in all three West Coast cases, 3:19-cv-1184 (N.D. Cal.), 6:19-cv-317 (D. Or.), and 1:19-cv-3040 (E.D. Wash.). The United States filed notices of appeal and motions for stay pending appeal in the West Coast cases, and briefing began in 19-15974, 19-35386, and 19-35394. A Ninth Circuit panel granted the Government’s request for a stay on June 20, 2019, but the Circuit then granted en banc review of that order, but then the Circuit said on July 11 that the stays of the preliminary injunctions would remain in effect. The Ninth Circuit cases were argued September 23, 2019. The en banc court upheld the rule in an opinion dated February 24, 2020. Petitions for what amounts to rehearing en banc were filed, but were denied on May 8, 2020. There have been two cert petitions from the Ninth Circuit cases, one in American Medical Ass’n v. Azar, No. 20-429 (filed 9 22 20), and the other in Oregon/California v. Azar, No. 20-539 (apparently filed 10 5 20 but not docketed until 10 23). The U.S.’s cert responses are currently due December 4, 2020.The Maine Family Planning plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction, 1:19-cv-100 (D. Me.), was heard on April 24, 2019 and denied on July 3; an appeal was filed, No. 19-1836 (1st Cir.), and then dismissed by plaintiffs, who are now proceeding again in district court. The US filed a motion to dismiss, plaintiffs have filed a motion for summary judgment, and the district court granted summary judgment to the US on June 9, 2020. Plaintiffs have appealed (No. 20-1781 (1st Cir.))The court in Maryland issued a preliminary injunction, 1:19-cv-1103 (D. Md.), but the Fourth Circuit then stayed it, No. 19-1614 (4th Cir.), and denied a motion for rehearing en banc. Oral argument was held September 18, 2019. Meanwhile, the district court conducted summary judgment proceedings and, on February 14, 2020, granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs on some counts. The Government’s appeal is in No. 20-1215 (4th Cir.). On Friday, March 27, 2020, the Fourth Circuit granted a motion to hear the appeals en banc, consolidated the appeals, and ordered an expedited supplemental briefing schedule, while (March 30) denying a stay. Initial en banc oral argument was held May 7, 2020. On September 3, 2020, the en banc Fourth Circuit invalidated the Title X regulations. On October 7, 2020, the US filed a cert petition, No. 20-454. Plaintiffs’ cert response is currently due December 9, 2020.Statutory conscience rule casesThree cases are in the Northern District of California, Nos. 3:19-cv-2405 (N.D. Cal.), 4:19-cv-2769 (N.D. Cal.), and 5:19-cv-2916 (N.D. Cal.); three cases are in the Southern District of New York, Nos. 1:19-cv-4676, -5433, and -5435 (S.D. N.Y.); and one case is in the Eastern District of Washington, 2:19-cv-183 (E.D. Wash.). Motions for preliminary injunction were filed in all seven cases, but were on hold for several months because the Administration postponed the rules’ effective date. On November 6, 2019, the judge in the Southern New York cases issued a 147-page opinion invalidating the rule. On December 18, the Christian Medical and Dental Associations, which had intervened in the Southern New York case, appealed to the Second Circuit (No. 19-4254); the US then joined the appeal. Opening briefs were filed April 27, 2020, and amicus briefs have been filed at various times during the next month. Plaintiffs filed their appellee brief July 27, and appellants filed their reply briefs on August 31.On November 7, 2019, the judge in the Eastern Washington case granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs, with a written order issuing November 21. The U.S.’s appeal has the file number 20-35044 (9th Cir.).On November 19, 2019, the judge in the Northern California cases granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs: judgment was entered January 8, 2020 in the San Francisco (3:19-cv-2405) and the Santa Clara (3:19-cv-2916) cases. The US filed appeals on March 6, 2020, Nos. 20-15398 and 20-15399 (9th Cir.). The appeals are being consolidated with the Eastern Washington appeal. The Ninth Circuit consolidated the three cases on May 8, 2020, and set a briefing schedule. Meanwhile, California asked Judge Alsup to enter a 54(b) judgment in its case, 3:19-cv-2769 (N.D. Cal), which would have allowed it to maintain all of its claims, but the judge denied the motion on March 20, 2020. The parties then agreed to a final judgment, entered on May 26, 2020; the US’s appeal has the file number 20-16045. On June 3, the U.S. filed a motion to consolidate this appeal with the other pending Ninth Circuit appeals.The U.S. filed its opening Ninth Circuit brief on June 15, 2020, and plaintiffs’ answering briefs were due October 13. San Francisco and California filed that day. Miscellaneous ACA litigationIn the Medicaid managed care plans fees nondelegation case, Texas v. U.S., No. 7:15-cv-151 (N.D. Texas), the parties told the district court that they were generally agreed on an equitable disgorgement amount so final judgment could be entered. Judge O’Connor denied a request for pre- and post-judgment interest. He entered final judgment July 30, 2019, and stayed the judgment pending briefing on staying execution against it. That briefing is complete, with the US’s reply filed September 17. In the appeal, No. 18-10545 (5th Cir.), the U.S.’s opening brief was filed November 20, 2019, and the parties agreed on a schedule for further briefing: the states filed their appellees’ and cross-appellants’ brief on January 29, 2020, with Wisconsin filing a separate letter adopting parts of the states’ arguments. The U.S. filed its reply/response February 28, and the plaintiffs filed their reply March 20, 2020. The Fifth Circuit held oral argument June 1, and entered a decision reversing the district court on July 31. Plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing en banc on September 14, 2020. On October 5, the Fifth Circuit directed the U.S. to file a response, which by agreement was due November 16, but which the U.S. filed November 9.Medicaid 1115 litigationOn March 27, 2019, in the Kentucky waiver case, Stewart v. Azar, 1:18-cv-152 (D. D.C.), and the Arkansas waiver case, Gresham v. Azar, 1:18-cv-1900 (D. D.C.), Judge Boasberg issued decisions vacating both approvals; and on April 4, he certified his judgments in both cases for appeal under Civil Rule 54(b). The Government and Kentucky and Arkansas all appealed, Nos. 19-5094-95-96-97 (D.C. Cir.), and the Government moved to expedite the appeals. The D.C. Circuit entered an agreed-upon semi-expedited briefing schedule. Oral argument took place October 11, 2019. After Kentucky Gov. Bevin was defeated for re-election, new Gov. Beshear filed a request to dismiss Kentucky’s appeal based on the Commonwealth’s having terminated the waiver. The Government’s response suggested that the underlying decision be vacated, and appellants opposed that suggestion. The D.C. Circuit dismissed the appeal and declined to vacate Judge Boasberg’s orders. On February 14, 2020, the D.C. Circuit affirmed the district court’s invalidation of the Arkansas waiver.A third case was filed against the New Hampshire waiver, Philbrick v. Azar, No. 1:19-cv-773 (D. D.C.); it’s also been assigned to Judge Boasberg. The parties did expedited briefing, oral argument took place on July 23, and Judge Boasberg issued a decision invalidating the work requirement on July 29; he then entered final judgment on one count of the complaint August 27, 2019. The Government and New Hampshire filed appeals October 25; they’ve been assigned the file numbers 19-5293 and 19-5295. On November 13, the Government filed an unopposed motion to have the cases held in abeyance pending rulings in the Kentucky and Arkansas appeals. On February 14, the day the D.C. Circuit decided the Arkansas case, it issued an order directing the parties to file post-Gresham motions by March 16, 2020. The US filed an unopposed motion to have the D.C. Circuit enter a summary affirmance of Judge Boasberg’s order; the D.C. Circuit granted that motion May 20.During the week of July 13, 2020, the U.S. filed a combined petition for certiorari in Gresham and Philbrick, No. 20-37, and Arkansas filed a cert petition in Gresham, No. 20-38. By August 3, New Hampshire had not yet filed. Plaintiffs’ responses were filed October 16, 2020. The U.S. and Arkansas filed replies supporting their petitions on November 4. The Court set initial consideration of the petitions for the November 20 Conference.A fourth case was filed in late September against the Indiana waiver, Rose v. Azar, No. 1:19-cv-2848 (D. D.C.). Indiana has announced that it does not intend to proceed with the work requirement portions of the waiver until the other work requirement cases are resolved; the judge is trying to decide whether to stay the case or proceed with the challenge to the other parts of the waiver. After a hearing on November 21, 2019, he issued orders setting a briefing schedule on the question of what might differentiate the Indiana case from the cases currently pending at the D.C. Circuit. On December 9, defendants (HHS and Indiana) announced their intentions to continue to brief these matters, and they filed briefs January 6, 2020, with plaintiffs responding on January 27, and defendants’ replies filed February 10. Judge Boasberg entered a stay April 6, 2020. On October 29, 2020, the U.S. notified the court that it had issued a conditional extension of the waiver’s community engagement provisions earlier that week.A fifth case, against the Michigan waiver, Young v. Azar, No. 1:19-cv-3526 (D. D.C.), was filed November 22, 2019: the most recent post-Gresham filings are proposals by Michigan and the U.S. about how to handle issues other than the work requirements, both proposals filed March 3, 2020. The district court entered an order about the work requirements March 4. Plaintiffs filed their response March 24, 2020. Judge Boasberg entered a stay April 2, 2020.Public charge litigationIn No. 19A785, the Supreme Court issued an order on January 27, 2020, staying the Second Circuit’s nationwide injunction; and, in No. 19A905, the Court issued an order on February 21, 2020, staying the Seventh Circuit’s Illinois-specific injunction. That does not put any ongoing proceedings in those appeals before the Court. On April 13, 2020, New York filed a motion asking the Supreme Court to lift the stay of the injunction; the US opposed this on April 20, 2020, and New York filed a reply April 22. The Illinois plaintiffs filed a similar motion April 17, with the US opposing it on April 23, 2020. The Supreme Court denied both motions to lift the stays April 24, 2020, with the suggestion that plaintiffs might be able to seek relief in district court. Plaintiffs in the New York case did so, and oral argument on their motion for preliminary injunction took place May 18, 2020, with the district court issuing a pandemic-related injunction July 29; the Second Circuit narrowed that injunction to only Second Circuit states August 12.Circuit by circuit:Second Circuit. In the two Southern District of New York cases, State of New York [plus Connecticut and Vermont] v. U.S. D.H.S., No. 1:19-cv-7777 (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Daniels issued a nationwide preliminary injunction. The US appealed, Nos. 19-3591/3595 (2d Cir.).The stay motion in the Second Circuit cases, Nos. 19-3591/3595, was argued on January 7, 2020, and denied on January 8. The Supreme Court stayed the nationwide injunction on January 27. Second Circuit merits briefing was completed February 14, 2020, and the case was argued March 2. Motion to dismiss and preliminary injunction proceedings are underway in the district court case. On July 29, 2020, the district court entered a nationwide preliminary injunction against enforcing the public charge rule for the duration of the pandemic. On August 4, 2020, the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s original preliminary injunction, but limited it to Second Circuit states. On August 7, the US moved in its Second Circuit appeal, No. 20-2537, for a stay pending appeal, and plaintiffs filed an opposition to an administrative stay. On August 12, the Second Circuit stayed the injunction with respect to all states outside the Second Circuit. On September 11, the Second Circuit stayed the preliminary injunction in its entirety. The US filed its brief September 28. The U.S. filed a cert petition October 7, 2020, No. 20-449. Plaintiffs’ response is currently due December 9, 2020.Fourth Circuit. In the Maryland case, No. 8:19-cv-2715 (D. Md.), Judge Grimm issued a nationwide injunction. The U.S. appealed, No. 19-2222 (4th Cir.).On December 9, 2019, the Fourth Circuit granted a stay in the Maryland case, No. 19-2222. On December 20, plaintiffs in the Fourth Circuit case filed a request for rehearing en banc of the stay order. The Fourth Circuit directed the Government to file a response by January 6, 2020, which was done; it has denied rehearing en banc of the stay order. Merits briefing was completed on February 3, 2020. Oral argument was rescheduled to May 8, 2020. On August 5, 2020, the Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s preliminary injunction order. Plaintiffs have moved for rehearing en banc, and on September 22, 2020, the Fourth Circuit directed the U.S. to file a response, which was filed October 16.Seventh Circuit. In the Northern Illinois case, No. 1:19-cv-6334 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Feinerman issued a preliminary injunction covering Illinois. The U.S. appealed, No. 19-3169 (7th Cir.).On December 23, 2019, the Seventh Circuit denied a stay pending appeal in No. 19-3169; it then set a briefing schedule, under which merits briefing was completed February 4. On February 10, it denied a renewed motion for stay pending appeal. On February 13, the Government filed a motion for stay in the Supreme Court, No. 19A905; plaintiffs filed an opposition February 19, and the Government filed a reply February 20. The Supreme Court granted the stay February 21. The district court denied the Government’s motion to dismiss the trial-level proceedings in a May 19, 2020, order. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s anti-Rule preliminary injunction June 10, 2020. The U.S. moved for rehearing en banc July 27, 2020. The Seventh Circuit denied rehearing en banc August 12. The US filed a cert petition October 7, 2020, No. 20-450. The district court held summary judgment arguments October 29, 2020, and granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs on November 2. The U.S. promptly appealed, No. 20-3150, and requested an administrative stay, which the Seventh Circuit granted November 3.Ninth Circuit. In the three Northern California cases, City and County of San Francisco [plus Santa Clara County] v. U.S. C.I.S., No. 4:19-cv-4717 (N.D. Cal.), State of California [plus D.C., Maine, Pennsylvania and Oregon], v. D.H.S., No. 4:19-cv-4975 (N.D. Cal.), and La Clinica de la Raza [plus other nongovernmental organizations] v. Trump, No. 4:19-cv-4980 (N.D. Cal.), motions for preliminary injunctions were granted, covering the plaintiff local governments. The US appealed, Nos. 19-17213/17214 (9th Cir.)In the Eastern Washington case, State of Washington [plus Virginia, Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, the Michigan AG, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, and Rhode Island] v. U.S. D.H.S., No. 4:19-cv-5210 (E.D. Wash.), Judge Peterson issued a nationwide preliminary injunction. The U.S. appealed, No. 19-35914 (9th Cir.).On December 5, 2019, the Ninth Circuit granted stays pending appeal in the three Ninth Circuit cases, Nos. 19-17213/17214 and 35914. On December 19, plaintiffs in the Ninth Circuit cases filed requests for reconsideration en banc of the stay orders, and on December 20, the Ninth Circuit requested responses from the Government to be filed by January 10, 2020, which the Government provided. On February 18, 2020, the Ninth Circuit denied rehearing en banc of the stay orders. Merits briefing in all three preliminary injunction appeals is complete, and oral argument took place September 15, 2020.Health care entry prohibition litigationDoe v. Trump, No. 3:19-cv-1743 (D. Or.), was filed October 30, 2019, and Judge Simon issued a TRO November 2. Plaintiffs filed motions for a preliminary injunction and for class certification November 8, and the Government filed an opposition to the preliminary injunction on November 15. Plaintiffs filed their reply November 19. After a hearing on November 22, Judge Simon issued a preliminary injunction November 26. The Government filed a notice of appeal December 4, No. 19-36020, and requested a stay. Plaintiffs opposed this on December 16. The Ninth Circuit denied a temporary stay in a December 20 order and held oral argument on the stay motion on January 9, 2020. There was an expedited briefing schedule for the merits appeal; the US filed its opening brief January 2, 2020, and plaintiffs filed their appellees’ brief on January 30. The US filed its reply brief February 20. Judge Simon certified two classes in an order dated April 7, 2020. A motion for a TRO, involving a subgroup of younger visa applicants, was heard April 29, 2020, and denied shortly afterwards. The Ninth Circuit denied a stay of Judge Simon’s principal preliminary injunction on May 4, 2020. Oral argument took place September 3.Wellness program litigationAARP’s suit against Yale University, No. 3:19-cv-1098 (D. Conn.), was filed July 16; an amended complaint was filed October 17, 2019, and defendants filed their answer November 15. Defendants filed a motion on November 26 asking for proceedings to be stayed while the EEOC promulgates new wellness program regulations. Judge Dooley denied the stay December 2, 2019. Plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion was filed March 2, 2020, defendant filed its opposition and cross-motion April 29, plaintiffs filed their reply/opposition June 5; and defendant filed its reply July 3.Special enrollment periodsOn June 15, 2020, the City of Chicago filed a case, No. 1:20-cv-1566 (D. D.C.), arguing that the Administration had a legal duty to set up a special enrollment period in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. A scheduling conference with respect to Chicago’s request for a preliminary injunction was held on June 18, with a status report due June 22. Based on that status report, Judge Kelly entered a briefing schedule, with briefing to be completed August 3; briefing was completed that day. Nothing happened in the next two months, and plaintiffs filed supplemental information October 5 anticipating a renewed motion. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download