Affordablecareactlitigation.files.wordpress.com



An ACA litigation calendar for October 2020 through June 2021 [6/5]Note: bold covers things that have now happened; strikethrough indicates things that didn’t.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.) (none made?)11/16/20Due date for US response to Texas Kansas Louisiana petition for rehearing en banc, No. 18-10545 (5th Cir.) (filed 11 9)11/17/20US response to plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion, and US motion to dismiss, due in the Southern New York public charge cases, Nos. 1:19-cv-7777 and -7993 (S.D. N.Y.)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 briefs 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.) (extended to 12 8)11/23/20Amended complaint due in the North Dakota 1557 case, No. 3:16-cv-386 (D. N.D.)11/24/20Reply briefs due in support of the U.S.’s and Little Sisters’ motions for summary judgment in the Pennsylvania religious and moral objections case, No. 2:17-cv-4540 (E.D. Pa.)11/25/20Supplemental briefs from defendants due in the Northern California religious and moral objections cases, No. 4:17-cv-5783 (N.D. Cal.) (US brief filed 11 23, Little Sisters brief filed 11 24)12/2/20(Dispositive?) motions due in the Southern New York 1557 case, No. 1:20-cv-5583 (S.D. N.Y.)12/3/20????????????? US reply brief due in the statutory conscience appeals, Nos. 20-15398/16045/35044 (9th Cir.)12/4/20????????????? Current due date for US cert response in a Ninth Circuit Title X case, No. 20-42912/4/20??????????????Supplemental reply briefs from plaintiffs due in the Northern California religious and moral objections cases, No. 4:17-cv-5783 (N.D. Cal.)12/8/20??????????????Deadline for Defendants’ 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.)12/9/20??????????????Current due date for plaintiffs’ cert response in the New York public charge case, No. 20-44912/9/20??????????????Current due date for plaintiffs’ cert response in the Fourth Circuit Title X case, No. 20-454 (extended to 12 14)12/9/20Current due date for plaintiffs’ cert response in the Seventh Circuit public charge case, No. 20-45012/10/20????????????Plaintiffs’ reply supporting summary judgment, and opposition to US motion to dismiss, due in the Southern New York public charge cases, Nos. 1:19-cv-7777 and -7993 (S.D. N.Y.)12/14/20??????????????Current due date for plaintiffs’ cert response in the Fourth Circuit Title X case, No. 20-45412/16/20Motion hearing in the Northern California religious and moral objections to contraception case, No. 4:17-cv-5783 (N.D. Cal.)12/18/20US reply supporting its motion to dismiss due in the Southern New York public charge cases, Nos. 1:19-cv-7777 and -7993 (S.D. N.Y.)12/23/20???????????Current due date for US cert response in a Ninth Circuit Title X case, No. 20-539 (filed 12/4)12/23/20Deadline for US motion/opposition in the North Dakota 1557 case, No. 3:16-cv-3861/5/21Status conference in the North Dakota 1557 case, No. 3:16-cv-386 (motion hearing 1/14)1/8/21Responses to motions due in the Southern New York 1557 case, No. 1:20-cv-5583 (S.D.N.Y.)1/8/21Supreme Court Conference to consider public charge and Title X petitions (relisted?)1/13/21US opening brief due in the Data Marketing Partnership case, No. 20-11179 (5th Cir.) (rescheduled to 2/12)1/14/21Motion hearing in the North Dakota 1557 case, No. 3:16-cv-3861/15/21Supreme Court Conference to consider public charge and Title X petitions (no, relisted)1/19/21Opening briefs probably due in the Medicaid 1115 waiver work requirement cases, Nos. 20-37 and 20-381/20/21????????????? Replies due supporting motions in the Southern New York 1557 case, No. 1:20-cv-5583 (S.D. N.Y.)1/22/21Supreme Court Conference to consider public charge and Title X petitions1/29/21Oscar Insurance supplemental brief due in the Oscar v. Blue antitrust case, No. 19-14096 (11th Cir.)2/8/21Opening brief due in the Aliera v. Kelly health sharing ministries arbitration appeal, Nos. 20-3702 and -3709 (8th Cir.) (rescheduled to 3/10 after stay)2/8/21Oral argument in the Ninth Circuit statutory conscience rule cases, e.g., Nos. 20-15398 and 20-35044 (9th Cir.) (taken off calendar)2/10/21US response due to plaintiffs’ rehearing petition in the health care proclamation case, No. 19-36020 (9th Cir.) (extended probably to 4/12)2/12/21Blue Cross/Blue Shield supplemental brief probably due in the Oscar v. Blue antitrust case, No. 19-14096 (11th Cir.)2/12/21US opening brief due in the Data Marketing Partnership case, No. 20-11179 (5th Cir.) (extended to 3/15)2/16/21US appellant’s brief due in the Whitman-Walker 1557 appeal, No. 20-5331 (D.C. Cir.) (joint stay motion filed)2/17/21Plaintiffs’ response due to U.S.’s suggestion that en banc oral argument be postponed in the Fourth Circuit public charge case, No. 19-2222 (4th Cir.)2/18/21Responsive briefs probably due in the Medicaid 1115 waiver work requirement cases, Nos. 20-37 and 20-382/19/21Joint status report due in the Maryland public charge case, No. 8:19-cv-2715 (D. Md.)2/19/21Joint status report due in the Northern Illinois public charge case, No. 1:19-cv-6334 (N.D. Ill.)2/19/21Joint status report due in the Eastern Washington public charge case, No. 4:19-cv-5210 (E.D. Wa.)2/22/21Plaintiffs’ response due to US cert petition in the Ninth Circuit public charge cases, No. 20-962 (extended to 3/24)2/25/21Amicus briefs supporting respondents probably due in the Medicaid 1115 waiver work requirement cases, Nos. 20-37 and 20-382/26/21Status conference in the Northern Illinois public charge case, No. 1:19-cv-6334 (N.D. Ill.) (moved to 3/12)2/26/21Class reply due supporting its motion to dismiss US counterclaims in the Arches subclass dispute in the Health Republic class action, No. 1:16-cv-259 (Ct.Fed.Cl.) (no, parties trying to settle, stipulation or another status report due 3/19)3/1/21Oral argument in the Kwesell v. Yale wellness case, No. 3:19-cv-1098 (D. Conn.) (off the calendar)3/2/21Fifth Circuit oral argument in the DeOtte religious and moral objections case, No. 19-10754 (5th Cir.) (tentatively recalendared for late April)3/3/21Fifth Circuit oral argument in the Franciscan Alliance 1557 case, No. 20-10093 (5th Cir.)3/8/21En banc oral argument in the Fourth Circuit public charge case, No. 19-2222 (4th Cir.) (taken off the calendar)3/8/21Opening brief due in the Fourth Circuit 1902(a)(23) appeal, No. 21-1043 (4th Cir.) (extended to 3/29)3/10/21Opening brief due in the Aliera v. Kelly health sharing ministries arbitration appeal, Nos. 20-3702 and -3709 (8th Cir.) (filed 3/11)3/11/21Status conference in the Eastern Pennsylvania religious and moral objections case, No. 2:17-cv-4540 (E.D. Pa.) (off the calendar, stay entered)3/11/21Joint status report due in the Eastern Washington public charge case, No. 4:19-cv-5210 (E.D. Wash.)3/12/21Status conference in the Northern Illinois public charge case, No. 1:19-cv-6334 (N.D. Ill.) (dismissal entered)3/15/21US opening brief due in the Data Marketing Partnership case, No. 20-11179 (5th Cir.) (postponed?)3/17/21Oral argument in the Second Circuit statutory conscience protections case, No. 19-4254 (2d Cir.) (off the calendar)3/18/21Appellees’ briefs due in the Whitman-Walker 1557 appeal, No. 20-5331 (D.C. Cir.) (in abeyance)3/19/21Reply briefs probably due in the Medicaid 1115 waiver work requirement cases, Nos. 20-37 and 20-38 (moved to 3/22)3/22/21Reply briefs due in the Medicaid 1115 waiver work requirement cases, Nos. 20-37 and 20-383/24/21Plaintiffs’ response due to US cert petition in the Ninth Circuit public charge cases, No. 20-962 (petition dismissed)3/24/21U.S.’s response due to Maine CHO/Community Health Choice cert petition in the CSR cases, No. 20-1162 (now due 4/26)3/25/21Oral argument in the Southern New York 1557 case, No. 1:20-cv-5583 (S.D. N.Y.) (stayed)3/29/21Oral argument in the Medicaid 1115 waiver work requirement cases, Nos. 20-37 and 20-38 (taken off the March calendar)3/29/21Opening brief due in the Fourth Circuit 1902(a)(23) appeal, No. 21-1043 (4th Cir.)3/31/21US response due to cert petition in the Common Ground CSR case, No. 20-1200 (probably extended to 4/30)3/31/21US opening brief probably due in the Data Marketing Partnership case, No. 20-11179 (5th Cir.)4/6/21Response brief due in the Fourth Circuit 1902(a)(23) appeal, No. 21-1043 (4th Cir.) (extended to 4.28) 4/8/21US reply brief due in the Whitman-Walker 1557 appeal, No. 20-5331 (D.C. Cir.) (in abeyance)4/9/21Plaintiffs’ and US’s responses due to Texas application for a stay in the public charge case, No. 20A1504/12/21US response to rehearing en banc petition due in the proclamation case, No. 19-36020 (9th Cir.) (probably extended to 6/11)4/26/21US cert response probably due in the Maine CHO/Community Health Choice cost-sharing reductions case, No. 20-1162 (filed 4/9)4/28/21Response brief due in the Fourth Circuit 1902(a)(23) appeal, No. 21-1043 (4th Cir.) (now due 5/28)4/29/21Oral argument in the DeOtte religious and moral objections case, No. 19-10754 (5th Cir.)4/30/21US response probably due to cert petition in the Common Ground CSR case, No. 20-12004/30/21Status report due in the Northern California religious and moral objections case, No. 4:17-cv-5783 (N.D. Cal.)5/3/21Federal letter brief due in the Title X cases, Nos. 20-429/-454/-539.5/10/21Responses due to Federal letter brief in the Title X cases, Nos. 20-429/-454/-539.5/14/21Plaintiffs’ supplemental briefs due in the Franciscan Alliance 1557 case, No. 7:16-cv-108 (N.D. Tex.)5/28/21Response brief due in the Fourth Circuit 1902(a)(23) appeal, No. 21-1043 (4th Cir.) 6/1/21Plaintiffs’ cert opposition due in the Does 1557 case, No. 20-13746/1/21Ministries’ reply brief due in the Kelly health sharing ministries appeal, 20-3702 (8th Cir.)6/2/21Next joint status report, with info on negotiations, due in the Yale wellness case, 3:19-cv-1098 (D. Conn.)6/4/21Defendants’ and intervenor-defendants’ supplemental briefs due in the Franciscan Alliance 1557 case, No. 7:16-cv-108 (N.D. Tex.)6/10/21US opening brief due in the Religious Sisters of Mercy 1557 appeal, 21-1890 (8th Cir.)6/11/21US response to rehearing en banc petition probably due in the proclamation case, No. 19-36020 (9th Cir.) (moot?)6/15/21US and plaintiffs’ responses due to Texas motion tin intervene in the Northern Illinois public charge case, No. 1:19-cv-6334 (N.D. Ill.)6/15/21Plaintiff’s brief due in the Data Marketing Partnership ERISA appeal, 20-11179 (5th Cir.)6/18/21Plaintiffs’ supplemental reply briefs due in the Franciscan Alliance 1557 case, No. 7:16-cv-108 (N.D. Tex.)7/1/21Proposed intervenors’ reply due supporting Texas motion tin intervene in the Northern Illinois public charge case, No. 1:19-cv-6334 (N.D. Ill.)7/9/21Hearing on Texas motion tin intervene in the Northern Illinois public charge case, No. 1:19-cv-6334 (N.D. Ill.)7/26/21Opening US brief due in the Religious Sisters of Mercy 1557 appeal, No. 21-1890 (8th Cir.)7/26/21Oral argument in the Condry 1557 case, No. 20-16823/16857 (9th Cir.)Notes 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.On February 10, 2021, the U.S. filed a letter explaining its different legal position.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 late January, 2021, the parties agreed to hold the appeal in abeyance.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. The D.C. Circuit denied the petition for rehearing en banc on January 26, 2021.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, plaintiffs filed an opposition/reply October 26, and defendants filed a reply December 8. On March 4, 2021, Judge Chasanow granted summary judgment on some issues to plaintiffs and on other issues to defendants, vacating four of nine challenged provisions.Cost Sharing ReductionsThe Federal Circuit has ruled that insurers with cost-sharing reductions payments claims for 2017, or for 2018 and later claims unaffected by any changes in rates meant to respond to the Government’s failure to make initial CSR payments from fall 2017 on, should get payments from the Judgment Fund. 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.). It has also ruled that insurers who have 2018 and later claims that have been affected by rate changes should have their recoveries 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.” 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.), see also Common Ground (the opt-in class action), Nos. 1:17-cv-877 (Ct.Fed.Cl.) and 20-1286 (Fed. Cir.).On February 19, 2021, Maine CHO and Community Health Choice filed a cert petition, No. 20-1162; the U.S.’s conditional cross-petition was filed April 9, No. 20-1432. Another petition, from Common Ground, has the file number 20-1200; the U.S.’s response was filed April 30, with its conditional cross-petition having the file number 20-1536. Plaintiffs opposed the conditional cross-petitions on May 17, 2021.Meanwhile, the remaining CSR cases generally were stayed, either at the Federal Circuit or at the Court of Federal Claims. At the Federal Circuit: L.A. Care, Nos. 1:17-cv-1542 (Ct.Fed.Cl) and 20-1393 and -2254 (Fed. Cir.); BC BS VT, No. 1:18-cv-373 (Ct.Fed.Cl) and 21-1380 (Fed. Cir); and BC BS ND, No. 1:18-cv-1983 (Ct.Fed.Cl.) and 21-1389 (Fed. Cir.). At the Court of Federal Claims: 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, EmblemHealth v. U.S., No. 1:19-cv-1164; 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, Sanford Health Plan v. U.S., No. 1:20-cv-746, Aetna Health v. U.S., No. 1:20-cv-905, Humana v. U.S., No. 1:20-cv-996, Blue Care of Michigan v. U.S., No. 1:20-cv-1000, and Highmark, Inc., v. U.S., No. 1:20-cv-1686. In one case, MDWise Marketplace v. U.S., No. 1:17-cv-1958 (amended complaint raising CSR claims filed June 11, 2020), the Court of Federal Claims issued a judgment in the insurer’s favor on March 19, 2021. The U.S. has appealed, No. 21-1957.On October 2, 2020, the parties to the BC BS VT case, No. 1:18-cv-373, 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 5. The U.S. reserved its right to appeal, which it exercised on November 30 [No. 21-1380 (Fed. Cir.)]. On December 18, 2020, the plaintiff moved for summary affirmance on the theory the case was controlled by Sanford; on December 22, 2020, the U.S. opposed this motion and suggested a stay; on February 2, 2021, the Federal Circuit summarily affirmed.On October 14, 2020, the parties in BC BS ND, No. 1:18-cv-1983, moved for entry of a stipulated judgment; the stipulation notes that the insurer did not receive any additional payments due to silver loading. Judgment was entered October 15. The U.S. then appealed December 9, file number 21-1389. It then filed an unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal January 23, 2021, which the Federal Circuit granted on February 2.On December 18, 2020, the parties in Guidewell Mutual, No. 1:18-cv-1791, moved for entry of a stipulated judgment; the stipulation notes that the insurer did not receive any additional payments due to silver loading. Judgment was entered December 22, 2020. The U.S. appealed on February 16, 2021, No. 21-1688 (Fed. Cir.), and then filed an unopposed motion to dismiss its appeal on April 7, granted April 12.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, despite the lack of an appropriation for most of the payments due. 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 have mostly settled. By July 29, 2020, two opt-in class actions had been divided into subclasses in which the parties were stipulating that in most of the cases, not involving U.S. claims to an offset against the awards, judgment would be entered for the insurers. Health Republic Insurance Co. v. U.S., No. 1:16-cv-259; Common Ground Healthcare Cooperative v. USA, No. 1:17-cv-877. 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. On October 30, 2020, the U.S. asserted a counterclaim against two members of the dispute subclass in the Health Republic class action; plaintiffs moved to dismiss the counterclaim November 20, and briefing was completed by February 26, 2021. In April, 2021, the last remaining member of the Common Ground class settled its claims, as did the plaintiff in the Lacewell (New York) case, No. 1:17-cv-1185. In the Conway (Colorado) case, No. 1:18-cv-1623, the Court of Federal Claims ruled that offsets to the Government would not be allowed; the Government appealed, No. 20-1292 (Fed. Cir.), but on May 17, 2021, the Federal Circuit affirmed.1557 and ACA-enforcement casesThe Biden Administration announced on May 10, 2021, that it would be enforcing section 1557 to protect the rights of individuals who are gay or transgender, and has begun to inform the courts considering the cases against the Obama Administration and Trump Administration regulations that it intends to promulgate 1557 regulations.In 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 and the intervenors filed responsive briefs November 20, and Franciscan Alliance filed its reply December 11. The Fifth Circuit heard oral argument March 3, 2021, and remanded April 15, 2021, suggesting that Judge O’Connor re-evaluate things in light of at least seven intervening developments. On remand, Judge O’Connor set a schedule for supplemental briefing, with plaintiffs filing their supplemental brief May 14, 2021, and the US and the intervenor filing theirs June 4, 2021.There were also injunctive orders in North Dakota v. Burwell, No. 3:16-cv-386 (D. N.D.), which remained in effect, as indicated by the August 5, 2020 and October 5, 2020 status reports filed in that case. Plaintiffs moved on November 6, 2020, for an order lifting the stay and, among other things, allowing them to file an amended complaint, which they did on November 23. They also filed a motion for summary judgment. The U.S. filed a response December 23, and there was a motion hearing January 14, 2021. Judge Welte then, on January 19, 2021, granted a permanent injunction to the Catholic Benefit Association plaintiffs, but denied similar relief to the State of North Dakota. The parties agreed that final judgment should be entered, and Judge Welte’s order to that effect issued February 19, 2021. On April 20, 2021, the U.S. filed an appeal, No. 21-1890.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 – and the U.S.’s opening brief was filed January 19, 2021. Meanwhile, the U.S. filed a motion to dismiss in district court; briefing was complete January 19, 2021. After Judge Boasberg inquired about a change in policy, the parties agreed to stay both the district court case and the appeal, which the courts agreed to the week of February 15.In the Massachusetts case, No. 1:20-cv-11297 (D. Mass.), the U.S. has moved to dismiss, and briefing on that motion was completed December 9, 2020. On March 3, 2021, the U.S. moved for a stay, noting that plaintiffs were opposed. Plaintiffs filed an opposition March 17. On March 18, Judge Saris set a hearing on the motion for stay for May 10. At that hearing, she denied the motion for a stay.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. The US filed another notice of appeal November 10, this time from the October 29 clarification order. The Second Circuit file number is 20-3827. Briefing began on January 19, 2021, with the U.S.’s opening brief. On March 15, the parties jointly requested that the appeal be held in abeyance, and on March 18, the Second Circuit granted that request.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. On November 19, 2020, the court set a briefing schedule under which briefing on cross-motions was completed January 20. On February 10, 2021, the U.S. filed an unopposed motion to stay. On February 11, Judge Hellerstein set oral argument for March 25. However, on February 12, he entered the stay the parties had requested.Another D.C. case, Chinatown, No. 1:21-cv-331 (D. D.C.), challenging the Trump Administration’s repeal of language access provisions, was filed in February 2021 and stayed in late May.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. 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 and a fourth amended complaint in December. In E.S., defendants moved to dismiss on December 11, 2020, and the motion was fully briefed by January 29, 2021. In Schmitt, defendants filed a motion to dismiss March 18, 2021.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. Briefing is complete, and the Ninth Circuit will hold oral argument in July, 2021.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. The parties then settled, with a minute entry memorializing the settlement dated November 13, 2020.In 1557 “Does” cases having to do with networks requiring people to get AIDS medications at specialty pharmacies, the Sixth Circuit held that this did not violate Section 504 and therefore did not violate 1557, but the Ninth Circuit, seeing the same relationship between Section 504 and 1557 that the Sixth Circuit did, applied Ninth Circuit 504 precedent to hold that plaintiffs stated a case under 504 and 1557. The defendants’ cert petition is 20-1374, and plaintiffs’ cert opposition was filed June 1, 2021. 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.Renewed summary judgment briefing is being done in the Eastern Pennsylvania litigation, No. 2:17-cv-4540 (E.D. Pa.), with final briefing completed on November 24, 2020. Judge Beetlestone set on a status conference for March 11, but has now entered a stay.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. Renewed summary judgment briefing is also being done in the Northern California litigation, No. 4:17-cv-5783 (N.D. Cal.), with final briefing finished by December 4, 2020, and a motion hearing held on December 16. After the U.S. moved for a stay March 1, 2021, Judge Gilliam entered a stay order March 2, staying further proceedings, with a status report filed April 30, disclosing that the U.S. wants more time to evaluate the case, while plaintiffs want a prompt ruling.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. After the Supreme Court’s decision, the court lifted the stay and the parties filed supplemental briefs. On January 19, 2021, Judge Gorton granted summary judgment to the U.S.. Massachusetts has appealed, First Circuit file # 21-1706, and the appeal has been stayed.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, and Nevada filed its reply brief November 16. Oral argument was set for March 2, 2021, but was recalendared for April 26, then April 29, when it was held.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.), and plaintiff filed a second amended complaint in early May.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. On November 24, 2020, it ordered that plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment be held in abeyance pending its own decision on the motion to dismiss.Title X casesOn Monday, February 22, the Supreme Court took cert in the three pending Title X cases, AMA v. Cochran, No. 20-429, Cochran v. Mayor and Council of Baltimore, No. 20-454, and Oregon v. Cochran, No. 20-539.On Friday, March 12, the United States agreed with plaintiffs in those cases to dismiss the petitions; while, earlier that week, a group of States and a group led by the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists attempted to intervene or present oral argument. The motions to dismiss, and the motions to intervene, were all unresolved by close of business April 14.On April 15, 2021, the Biden Administration published proposed Title X regulations in the Federal Register, with a comment deadline of May 17. The proposed regulations would be substantively similar to the regulations in effect until 2019.On April 26, the Court issued an order directing the U.S. to “address[] the following question: Whether the Government intends to continue to enforce the challenged rule and regulations outside the State of Maryland until the completion of notice and comment; and, if further litigation is brought against the challenged rule and regulations outside of Maryland, how the Government would intend to respond.” That letter brief was filed May 3, 2021, and the parties’ and prospective intervenors’ responses were filed May 10. The Court dismissed the petitions, with conditions, later in May.There 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 response in the AMA case, filed December 4, 2020, suggested the Court should take this (and other) Title X cases. Plaintiffs have filed cert replies, and on December 23, 2020, the cases were distributed for the January 8, 2021, Conference. They were then relisted for the January 22, 2021 Conference, but the Court did not act on them; on February 12, it relisted the petitions for the February 19 Conference.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 appeal was stayed in January pending Supreme Court resolution of the pending cert petitions.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 was filed December 14, 2020. The U.S. has filed a cert reply, and on December 23, 2020, the case was distributed for the January 8, 2021 Conference. It was relisted for the January 22, 2021 Conference, but the Court took no action on it; on February 12, it relisted the petition for the February 19 Conference.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. Oral argument had been set for March 17, 2021, but in early February, the parties agreed to take the case off the calendar, and the Second Circuit accepted the parties’ agreement.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. The U.S. filed its reply brief December 3. Oral argument had been set for February 8, 2021. In late January, 2021, the parties in the Ninth Circuit cases agreed to hold the appeals in abeyance, and the Ninth Circuit took the cases off the oral argument calendar. 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. On February 12, 2021, the panel issued a revised opinion. On April 9, the Fifth Circuit voted 11-5 not to take the case up en banc, with an impassioned dissent from Judge Ho.In the Oscar Insurance v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida exclusive dealing litigation, No. 19-14096 (11th Cir.), after Congress passed and President Trump signed the Competitive Health Insurance Reform Act, the Eleventh Circuit called for supplemental briefing. Oscar filed its supplemental brief January 29, 2021, and the Blues filed their supplemental brief February 12. Later in February, it appears that the parties settled: they filed joint paperwork asking that the appeal be dismissed with prejudice.Medicaid 1115 litigationOn December 4, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court took cert in the Arkansas and New Hampshire 1115 waiver cases, Nos. 20-37 and 20-38. Oral argument has been calendared for March 29, 2021. On February 22, 2021, the U.S. asked the Court to vacate the Court of Appeals’s decisions against the work requirement waivers and remand the cases to CMS. Arkansas filed an opposition that same day, February 22, and the U.S. filed a reply memo February 24. On March 11, the Court took the cases off the March oral argument calendar. On April 5, the Court issued an order holding the cases in abeyance.The U.S.’s and the states’ opening briefs had been filed on January 19, 2021, with oppositions being filed February 18, and reply briefs filed March 22.On February 12, 2021, the U.S. had sent letters to Arkansas and New Hampshire, and to other States, signaling that it was planning to change its position on work requirement waivers, and giving the States 30 days to submit additional materials supporting work requirement waivers before the Federal Government started proceedings to withdraw waiver authority. Plaintiffs called these filings to the Supreme Court’s attention in their respondents’ brief, filed February 18; The U.S. called attention to those letters in its February 22 motion to vacate. On March 17, 2021, the U.S. sent letters to Arkansas and New Hampshire withdrawing its waiver authority for work requirements and giving the States an opportunity administratively to appeal. (It sent similar letters to Michigan and Wisconsin April 6.) Arkansas has filed an administrative appeal, but New Hampshire has not.On 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, but did not act on them, eventually relisting them for December 4, and then taking them that same day.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.In April, 2021, Tennessee plaintiffs filed suit against the TennCare III block grant approval. McCutchen v. Becerra, No. 1:21-cv-1112 (D. D.C.).In May, 2021, Texas filed suit against HHS over HHS’s recission of Trump Administration approval of one of Texas’s 1115 waivers. Texas v. Richter, No. 6:21-cv-191 (E.D. Tex.) The recission was based on HHS having approved a modification of Texas’s waiver quite different from the modification Texas had originally submitted.1332 litigationAfter the Trump Administration granted a 1332 waiver to Georgia that would, among other things, allowed Georgia to turn enrollment over to other entities than , providers sued, in Planned Parenthood Southeast v. Azar, No. 1:21-cv-117 (D. D.C.). On March 18, 2021, the parties filed a consent motion giving the U.S. an extension of time to answer. On March 25, Georgia moved to intervene, and on March 26, the district court granted that motion.Public charge litigationOn February 22, 2021, the Supreme Court took cert in U.S. D.H.S. v. New York, No. 20-449. On March 9, 2021, the U.S. agreed with plaintiffs to dismiss the three pending petitions, Nos. 20-449, 20-450, and 20-962. It then dismissed its second Seventh Circuit appeal, in No. 20-3150 (7th Cir.), thereby putting into effect the district court’s final judgment vacating the public charge rule, in No. 1:19-cv-6334 (N.D. Ill.). The District Court then dismissed the rest of the case by agreement of the parties.As this was taking place, the U.S. put out notice that because the District Court decision vacating the rule was in effect, it was ending enforcement of the public charge rule and reverting to the public charge policies in effect since 1999.Additionally, groups of states led by Arizona and Ohio filed motions March 10 and March 11 to intervene in the Ninth Circuit cases, Nos. 19-17213, 19-17214, and 19-35044. Plaintiffs and the U.S. opposed these motions March 22. The same groups, led by Texas, filed motions March 11 to intervene and recall the mandates in the Seventh Circuit case, No. 20-3150, and the Fourth Circuit case, No. 19-2222. On March 15, the Seventh Circuit denied the motions. On March 18, the Fourth Circuit denied the motions. On April 8, the Ninth Circuit denied the motions, with a lengthy dissent from Judge VanDyke.Finally, on March 19 Texas and other states filed an application for a stay in the Supreme Court, No. 20A150. The Chief Justice entered an order requesting a response to the stay application by April 9, and plaintiffs and the U.S. filed responses that day. Texas filed a reply April 13. On April 26, the Court issued an order denying the motion to intervene but inviting Texas to refile paperwork in the Northern District of Illinois. Texas filed a motion to intervene and a 60(b) motion May 12. Judge Feinerman has set a briefing schedule and will hear argument on the motions July 9.Arizona has also led a group of States in trying again to intervene, this time from the Ninth Circuit decisions. The file number is 20M81, and the motion was fully briefed by May 19, 2021. On June 1, the Supreme Court put the motion to intervene in abeyance, pending a cert petition from the Ninth Circuit’s refusal to allow petitioners to intervene.In 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.In the Southern District of New York, Maryland, Northern Illinois, Eastern Washington, and Northern California cases, the U.S. has filed notices that under a February 2, 2021 executive order, the Biden Administration will be reviewing public charge policy. In a number of these cases, courts have ordered a joint status report to be filed by February 19: reports were filed in the Northern California, Maryland, Southern New York, and Eastern Washington cases, and also, with more substantive import, in the Northern Illinois case. A second joint status report, filed February 24 in the Eastern Washington case, also illuminated the differences between the parties just before they reached agreement.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 had issued a nationwide preliminary injunction. The US had 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, and plaintiffs ultimately filed their answering briefs December 28, with the US’s reply brief filed January 19, 2021. The U.S. filed a cert petition October 7, 2020, No. 20-449. Plaintiffs’ responses were filed December 9, 2020. The U.S.’s reply was filed later that month, and on December 23, 2020, the Court distributed the petition for its January 8, 2021 Conference. It then relisted the petition for the January 22, 2021 Conference, but took no action on it at that time; on February 12, it relisted the petition for the February 19 Conference.At the trial level, plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment October 27, 2020, on the theory that the purported Acting Secretary who signed off on the final rule was not properly appointed to the Assistant Secretary position. Briefing on this motion, and on a new U.S. motion to dismiss, is complete.On March 15, 2021, the U.S. and plaintiffs stipulated for withdrawal of the U.S.’s Second Circuit appeal, No. 20-2537, and the Circuit issued an order to this effect on March 17.Fourth Circuit. In the Maryland case, No. 8:19-cv-2715 (D. Md.), Judge Grimm had issued a nationwide injunction. The U.S. had 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. On December 3, 2020, the Fourth Circuit decided to review the decision en banc, tentatively calendaring oral argument for its January 22-29 2021 session; oral argument is now calendared for March 8, although on February 5 the U.S. suggested to the Fourth Circuit that oral argument be postponed, and on February 11, the Fourth Circuit asked for a response from plaintiffs. Plaintiffs’ response, filed February 17, explains that they and the U.S. have not been able to agree on terms for postponing the oral argument and so plaintiffs oppose postponement. On February 24, the Fourth Circuit entered an order taking the case off the oral argument calendar. On March 1, at the trial level, the district court noted that the Biden Administration review was underway and denied a U.S motion to dismiss without prejudice, subject to reinstatement once the review was finished.Seventh Circuit. In the Northern Illinois case, No. 1:19-cv-6334 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Feinerman had issued a preliminary injunction covering Illinois. The U.S. had 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; plaintiffs’ response was filed December 9. The district court held summary judgment arguments October 29, 2020, and granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs on November 2 on their Administrative Procedure Act claims, vacating the public charge rule on a nationwide basis. The U.S. promptly appealed, No. 20-3150, and requested a stay pending appeal and an administrative stay; the Seventh Circuit granted the administrative stay November 3. Plaintiffs’ opposition to a stay pending appeal was filed November 17, 2020. The U.S. filed a reply supporting cert, and, on December 23, 2020, the Court distributed the petition for its January 8, 2021 Conference. It then relisted the petition for the January 22, 2021 Conference, but took no action on it at that time; on February 12, it relisted the petition for the February 19 Conference.The joint status report filed February 19 explains the parties’ differences, particularly with respect to plaintiffs’ equal protection claim that the public charge policy depends on white nationalism. The joint status report filed March 5 reminds Judge Feinerman that the Supreme Court has taken cert in the New York case but has taken no action on his case. (Lots has happened since.)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. On December 2, 2020, a Ninth Circuit panel affirmed the preliminary injunctions against the public charge rule, but held that they should not be nationwide. On January 20, 2021, the Ninth Circuit stayed its mandate pending Supreme Court resolution of the pending cert petitions. On January 21, 2021, the Court docketed a U.S. cert petition, No. 20-962.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. On December 31, 2020, the Ninth Circuit panel reversed Judge Simon’s ruling. Plaintiffs moved for en banc rehearing on January 19, 2021. On January 20, the panel requested a response from the US within 21 days. The U.S. then requested and received two extensions; its response will be due June 11. On May 14, the U.S. rescinded the proclamation.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. The case was set for hearing March 1, 2021, but on February 23, the parties notified the court that they had initiated serious settlement discussions, and the court took the cases off the calendar.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 late January, 2021, the Biden Administration announced a special enrollment period, to begin February 15, 2021. On February 2, 2021, after Judge Kelly inquired, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the case.Health sharing ministriesSeveral people claiming to have been victimized by Aliera/Trinity, the health sharing ministries organizations, have sued, and defendants have raised defenses that include compulsory arbitration. Courts in Western Washington and Eastern Wisconsin have accepted that argument and ordered arbitration, No. 2:19--cv-1281 (W.D. Wash.), No. 2:20-cv-492 (E.D. Wis.), while courts in Western Missouri and Colorado have rejected it, No. 3:20-cv-5038 (W.D. Mo.); No. 1:20-cv-2130 (D. Colo.). Aliera has appealed the Western Missouri decision to the Eighth Circuit, Nos. 20-3702 and -3709 (8th Cir.), and briefing concluded in early June, 2021, after the district court decided not to change its no-arbitration ruling. The ministries have appealed the Colorado order to the Tenth Circuit, Nos. 21-1185/1186/1187 (10th Cir.), where briefing has been stayed pending a district court ruling on a motion to alter or amend. Another case is pending in Eastern California, No. 2:20-cv-867 (E.D. Cal.). ................
................

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

Google Online Preview   Download