On September 11, 2015, two Planned Parenthood clinics and three Arkansas Medicaid patients filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. The plaintiffs sued the Arkansas Department of Human Services, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for violations of the Medicaid Act and the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The plaintiffs asked the court for declaratory and injunctive relief, enjoining the Department of Human Services from excluding Planned Parenthood as a Medicaid provider.
Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed that on August 15, 2015, the Department had notified the Planned Parenthood clinics that it would soon terminate their Medicaid provider agreements. While the Department gave no reason for the termination, a press release by Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson indicated that the decision was in reaction to videos released by anti-abortion advocates claiming that Planned Parenthood clinics in other states had illegally sold fetal tissues. The plaintiffs claimed that such videos were both misleading and had no relevance to their ability to offer quality Medicaid services. Further, they claimed that termination of their Medicaid provider agreements violated the Medicaid Act by denying the individual plaintiffs their right to choose the willing and qualified health care provider of their choice; the First and Fourteenth Amendment by penalizing the individual plaintiffs for their constitutionally protected association with abortion providers; and the Equal Protection Clause by singling the plaintiffs out for unfavorable treatment.
On September 18, 2015, U.S. District Judge Kristine G. Baker issued a temporary restraining order enjoining the Department from suspending Medicaid payments to the clinics for the following 14 days. On October 2, 2015, the court issued a preliminary injunction enjoining the Department from suspending Medicaid payments to the clinics for services received by the individual plaintiffs. On October 5, 2015, the Department appealed the preliminary injunction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
While the appeal was pending, on October 5, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class of all Medicaid patients receiving or desiring to receive health services from Planned Parenthood. The court granted class certification on January 25, 2016. On March 3, 2016, the court amended the class certification to remove any requirement that the plaintiffs notify class members.
On September 28, 2016, the court issued a new preliminary injunction, enjoining the Department from suspending Medicaid payments to the clinics for services received by any members of the plaintiff class. This included any Arkansas Medicaid patient who received services from the clinics.
On October 27, 2016, the Department appealed the second preliminary injunction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. This appeal was consolidated with the Department’s October 5, 2015 appeal of the first preliminary injunction. On November 30, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint.
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion regarding the preliminary injunction on August 16, 2017. 867 F.3d 1034. The court (Judges Colloton, Melloy, and Shepherd), vacated both preliminary injunctions in a 2-1 opinion. The court found that the plaintiffs did not have a likelihood of success on the merits of their claims, because the Medicaid Act did not unambiguously create a federal right for individual patients that can be enforced under § 1983. Judge Melloy dissented, because he would join the four other circuit courts and numerous district courts that all have found a private right of enforcement under the Medicaid Act.
After the Eighth Circuit issued its opinion, the plaintiffs again filed a motion for the district court to grant a preliminary injunction on January 19, 2018, this time on their constitutional claims rather than their Medicaid Act claim. The court denied this motion on July 30, 2018. While the court was considering that motion, the Department filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the Medicaid Act claim; the court denied that motion on March 24, 2019. It concluded that judgment on the pleadings was neither necessary nor helpful at this stage of the litigation. In the same order, the court also denied the plaintiffs’ motion to stay the proceedings.
On March 20, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion for stay, claiming that they were not able to effectively pursue discovery due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The court granted stay on the same day. The plaintiffs further filed motions for stay on May 15, 2020 and July 15, 2020, which the court granted on the days they were filed. This case is ongoing.
Gabriela Hybel - 03/20/2017
Michael Beech - 04/01/2019
Bogyung Lim - 08/03/2020
compress summary
