This case concerns the legality of the United States Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) June 19th, 2020 implementation of a rule under Section 1557 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (commonly known as the Affordable Care Act or Obamacare), that (1) removed “sexual orientation, sex stereotyping, and gender identity” from the definition of sex discrimination, (2) included a religious exemption, and (3) redefined the scope of entities covered under the rule.
On July 16th, 2020 the state of Washington filed this lawsuit under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. § 706) against the HHS and its Secretary in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. Washington sought an injunction against, and vacatur of, the rule as well as declaratory relief. Washington alleged that the rule exceeded HHS’s statutory authority and was arbitrary and capricious. Additionally, Washington alleged that the rule violated the equal protection and substantive due process clauses of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
After the Affordable Care Act was passed in 2010, the HHS in 2016 issued a rule under Section 1557 that included sexual orientation, sex stereotyping, and gender identity as part of its definition of sex discrimination and lacked a religious exemption. However, as a result of a lawsuit filed in August 2016, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas vacated that rule's definition of sex discrimination on October 15, 2019 (
Franciscan Alliance, LLC v. Burwell). The HHS’ 2020 rule tracked the result of
Franciscan Alliance. However, as Washington’s initial complaint pointed out, on June 15, 2020 the United States Supreme Court held in
Bostock v. Clayton County that sex discrimination under Title VII included discrimination because of sexual orientation and gender identity.
Along with its complaint, Washington filed a motion for a preliminary injunction on the grounds that its claims were likely to succeed, the rule would “irreparably harm” the state and its residents, and that an injunction would promote fairness and serve the public interest. Several amicus briefs were filed in support of the injunction.
Before ruling on the preliminary injunction, on August 18, 2020, the HHS gave notice of the decision in
Walker v. Azar against the HHS (E.D.N.Y. No. 20-cv-02834). The case was substantially similar to this case, and the
Walker court had decided to grant a preliminary injunction against the HHS. Following the notice, the court in this case (Judge James L. Robart) ordered each party to show cause regarding the impact of
Walker. Both parties did so.
On August 28th, the court issued an order denying Washington’s preliminary injunction. Judge Robart ruled that before considering the merits of Washington’s claim, he had to consider Washington’s standing. Washington claimed it had standing because the rule would cause: (1) “additional costs or other economic harms . . . resulting from an increase in discrimination against Washingtonians or decreased healthcare coverage for Washingtonians; and (2) increased administrative costs.”
Particularly in light of the protections afforded by
Bostock, Judge Robart found that Washington lacked “sufficient evidence to show that the 2020 Rule’s decision not to define on the basis of sex will yield an increase in discrimination against LGBTQ individuals or a decrease in available healthcare or health insurance coverage for that population,” and therefore ruled that all of Washington’s arguments concerning potential direct harm were insufficient. Moreover, the “administrative costs” raised by Washington also failed to support standing as they would be “self-inflicted.” Judge Robart also found Washington lacked standing to challenge the rule’s religious exceptions for “many of the same reasons.” 2020 WL 5095467. He then ordered Washington to show cause in 10 days as to why the case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
On September 8th, Washington gave notice of its voluntary dismissal of the case, and on September 9th, 2020 the case was closed.
Madeline Buday - 09/17/2020
compress summary
