H.R. 2617, sec. 5131 (enrolled version)
Omnibus bill language, released December 20, 2022, see Division FF, title V, subtitle D, sec. 5131, pages 3854-66
Explanatory language for Title V
FY 2023 Omnibus summary DRAFT 12.20.2022 Title V
[other explanatory language?]
CMS “unwinding” memo, January 5, 2023
===
Coronavirus federalism materials
Letter to Secretary Azar from Democratic AGs, April 3, 2020
CA NC COVID-19 healthcare exchange letter plus IA
6008
Families First Coronavirus Response Act, Pub. L. 116-127
Section 6008
Section 6008, highlighting “such benefits”
CMS FAQs, April 13, 2020
covid-19-section-6008-CARES-faqs_1
CMS FAQs, June 30, 2020
National Health Law Program, The Maintenance of Effort Provision Protects Services, August 10, 2020
CMS and other agencies, Additional Policy and Regulatory Revisions in Response to the COVID–19 Public Health Emergency, 85 Fed. Reg. 71,142 (Nov. 6, 2020)
CMS fact sheet and power point
covid-19-tech-factsheet-ifc-433400
Families USA analysis, November 17, 2020
MCD-463_Trump-Admin-and-Medicaid-Cuts-Issue-Brief_v2-12-8-20
Stimulus bill/omnibus bill, as released Dec. 21, 2020
Explanation of the Labor/HHS omnibus bill provisions, released Dec. 21, 2020
Explanation of the COVID-19 stimulus provisions, released Dec. 21, 2020
Summary of H.R. 133 Coronavirus Relief Provisions
Abbe R. Gluck, Intrastatutory Federalism and Statutory Interpretation: State Implementation of Federal Law in Health Reform and Beyond, 121 Yale Law Journal 534 (2011)
What is more, the Supreme Court has suggested that the federalism clear-statement rule is of limited applicability when a federal regulatory regime is enforced through a statutory cooperative-federalism framework, as Section 7411(d) is. See AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Util. Board, 525 U.S. 366, 378 n.6 (1999) (noting appeals to States’ rights as “most peculiar” in the context of “a federal program administered by 50 independent state agencies”); see also Alaska Dep’t of Env’t Conservation v. EPA, 540 U.S. 461 (2004) (declining to adopt dissent’s proposed clear-statement rule for federal constraints on state implementation decisions in cooperative-federalism program). See generally Abbe Gluck, Intrastatutory Federalism and Statutory Interpretation: State Implementation of Federal Law in Health Reform and Beyond, 121 YALE L.J. 534, 555–556 (2011).
American Lung Ass’n v. EPA, Nos. 19-1140 et al. (D.C. Cir., Jan. 19, 2021), slip op. at 94
===
Chianne D. v. Weida, No. 3:23-cv-985 (N.D. Fla., filed August 22, 2023)
Complaint
Click to access chianne-d-complaint-8-22-23.pdf
Motion for class certification, August 22, 2023
Click to access chianne-d-class-cert-ms-8-22-23.pdf
Motion for preliminary injunction, August 22, 2023
Click to access chianne-d-pi-ms-8-22-23.pdf
Proposed preliminary injunction order, August 22, 2023
Notice of status conference for 8/29, August 28, 2023
Click to access chianne-d-notice-of-status-conf-8-28-23.pdf
Minute entry, August 29, 2023
Click to access chianne-d-minute-entry-8-29-23.pdf
The parties are directed to submit either joint or competing proposed briefing
schedules no later than 5:00 p.m. on September 8, 2023.
| 08/31/2023 | 26 | ENDORSED ORDER: No later than September 8, 2023, counsel for Plaintiffs shall file a notice under seal identifying the full names of the Plaintiffs in this matter. Signed by Judge Marcia Morales Howard on 8/31/2023. (JW) (Entered: 08/31/2023) |
Parties’ proposed briefing schedule, September 8, 2023
Chianne D parties proposed schedule 9 8 23
Action or Event Date or Deadline
Defendants’ Responses to Plaintiffs’
Motions.
October 6, 2023 (28 days from filing
joint briefing schedule).
Plaintiffs’ Reply to Defendants’
Responses to Plaintiffs’ Motions.
October 16 (10 days after Defendants’
responses are due).1
Hearing and oral argument on
Plaintiffs’ Motions.
Between October 23 and November 3
(7 to 18 days after Plaintiffs’ replies
are due).2
Defendants’ response to Plaintiffs’
Complaint.
14 days after the Court’s Order(s) on
Plaintiffs’ Motions.
Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’
dispositive motion, if one is filed.
21 days after Defendants’ responsive
pleading is due.
Opposition to class certification, October 6, 2023
Chianne D class cert op 10 6 23
Opposition to preliminary injunction, October 6, 2023
Plaintiffs’ motion for clarification re witness testimony, October 12, 2023
Chianne D pltf mo clarification witness T 10 12 23
Reply re class certification, October 16, 2023
Chianne D pltf class cert reply 10 16 23
Reply re preliminary injunction, October 16, 2023
Chianne D pltf PI reply 10 16 23
Opposition, October 18, 2023
Chianne D def witness clarif op 10 18 23
Clerk’s minutes, October 20, 2023
Chianne D clerk’s minutes 10 20 23
Settlement referral order, October 23, 2023
Chianne D settlement judge referral 10 23 23
Joint notice re mediator, November 13, 2023
Chianne D joint notice re mediator 11 13 23
Minute entry, December 13, 2023
Chianne D minute entry 12 13 23
Minute entry, December 21, 2023
Chianne D minute entry 12 21 23
Amended case management report, December 22, 2023
Chianne D amended case mgmt report 12 22 23
Plaintiffs’ amended proposed classwide preliminary injunction order, December 29, 2023
Chianne D pltf amended proposed PI order 12 29 23
Defendants’ motion for leave to file response, January 4, 2024
Chianne D def mo leave respond amended proposed order 1 4 24
Order for response 1/12, reply 1/19, January 5, 2024
Chianne D order for response 1 5 24
Defendants’ response, January 12, 2024
Chianne D def response proposed order 1 12 24
++
Atkins v. Parker, 472 U.S. 115 (1985), cited in defendants’ response
Cole v. Railroad Retirement Board, 289 F.2d 65 (8th Cir. 1961), cited in defendants’ response
++
First amended complaint, and notice, January 18, 2024
Chianne D notice of 1st am c 1 18 24
Plaintiffs’ memo supporting proposed order, January 19, 2024
Chianne D memo supporting proposed order 1 19 24
Order denying motions as moot, January 23, 2024
Chianne D mootness order 1 23 24
Amended motion for class certification, February 20, 2024
Chianne D amended class cert ms 2 20 24
Defendants’ motion to bifurcate, February 29, 2024
Chianne D def mo bifurcate 2 29 24
Defendants’ motion to dismiss, March 1, 2024
Plaintiffs’ motion for extension of time, March 5, 2024
Order on extension of time, March 8, 2024
Chianne D partial xt order 3 8 24
Defendants’ opposition to class certification, March 12, 2024
Chianne D def class cert op 3 12 24
Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file class certification reply, March 15, 2024
Chianne D pltf mo leave file class cert reply 3 15 24
Defendants’ response to motion for leave to file reply, March 18, 2024
Chianne D def response mo leave 3 18 24
Order partially granting motion for leave to file reply, March 18, 2024
Chianne D order re leave to file reply 3 18 24
Plaintiffs’ motion to compel, March 22, 2024
Chianne D pltf mo compel 3 22 24
Order on deadlines for response, March 26, 2024
Chianne D order setting deadlines re pltf mo compel, 3 26 24
Plaintiffs’ reply supporting class certification, March 26, 2024
Chianne D pltf reply class cert 3 26 24
Plaintiffs’ response re motion to dismiss, March 29, 2024
Chianne D pltf response def mo dism 3 29 24
Unopposed motion for leave to file dismissal reply, March 29, 2024
Chianne D def unop mo leave file dism reply 3 29 24
Plaintiffs’ opposition to motion to bifurcate, March 29, 2024
Chianne D pltf op bifurcate 3 29 24
Order allowing dismissal reply, April 1, 2024
Chianne D order re dism reply 4 1 24
Defendants’ opposition to motion to compel, April 1, 2024
Defendants’ reply supporting motion to dismiss, April 3, 2024
Minute entry for hearing re motion to compel, April 5, 2024
Chianne D minute entry compel 4 5 24
APHA Motion for Leave to File Amicus in Support of Plaintiffs’ Position at Trial, April 5, 2024
Chianne D APHA amicus mo 4 5 24
Order granting motion to compel, April 8, 2024
Chianne D order granting compel mo 4 8 24
Order setting bench trial, April 12, 2024
Chianne D order setting bench trial 4 12 24
Defendants’ Time-Sensitive Motion to Continue Trial, April 17, 2024
Chianne D def mo continue 4 17 24
Defendants’ Opposition to APHA Amicus Motion, April 17, 2024
Chianne D state op APHA mo 4 17 24
[]
Order revising class and denying motion to dismiss, April 23, 2024
Order denying bifurcation, April 25, 2024
Chianne D bifurc denial 4 25 24
Joint pretrial statement, April 29, 2024
Chianne D joint pretrial statement 4 29 24
Plaintiffs’ motion for judicial notice, May 3, 2024
Chianne D pltf judicial notice rq OR AZ 5 3 24
Defendants’ trial brief, May 7, 2024
Chianne D def trial brief 5 7 24
Plaintiffs’ trial brief, May 7, 2024
Chianne D pltf trial brief 5 7 24
Defendants’ judicial notice opposition, May 8, 2024
gov.uscourts.flmd.417560.133.0
| 05/11/2024 | 138 | ENDORSED ORDER: I am sorry to report that Judge Howard has had a death in the family. Under the circumstances, the trial set to begin on Monday, May 13, 2024, cannot go forward as scheduled. As soon as possible, the Court will schedule a status conference to discuss when to reset the trial. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 5/11/2024. (JW) (Entered: 05/11/2024) |
Rescheduling minute entry, May 28, 2024
Chianne D minute entry 5 28 24
[]
Hearing minutes, July 11, 2024
Chianne D hearing minutes 7 11 24
[]
Motion to reopen evidence, August 27, 2024
Chianne D FL rq reopen 8 27 24
| 08/27/2024 | 169 | ENDORSED ORDER: Plaintiffs shall file a response to 168 Defendants’ Time-Sensitive Motion to Reopen the Evidence on or before August 29, 2024. Signed by Judge Marcia Morales Howard on 8/27/2024. (JPA) (Entered: 08/27/2024) |
Plaintiffs’ response, August 29, 2024
Chianne D pltf response reopening 8 29 24
| 09/03/2024 | 171 | ENDORSED ORDER granting 168 Defendants’ Time-Sensitive Motion to Reopen the Evidence to the extent that the Court will allow Defendants to supplement the record with a stipulation concerning the additional fact(s) addressed in the Motion. The deadline for filing the stipulation is September 6, 2024. Signed by Judge Marcia Morales Howard on 9/3/2024. (MHM) (Entered: 09/03/2024) |
Plaintiffs’ proposed findings and conclusions, September 18, 2024
Chianne D pltf proposed ffcl 9 18 24
Defendants’ proposed findings and conclusions, September 18, 2024
Chianne D def proposed ffcl 9 18 24
State’s notice of supplemental authority (Medina), June 26, 2025
===
Carr v. Becerra, No. 3:22-cv-988 (D. Conn., filed August 3, 2022)
Complaint
Motion/memo for TRO, August 3, 2022
| 08/08/2022 | 19 | ORDER: As set forth on the record during today’s conference, and consented to by the parties, by close of business today the defendant shall file on the docket a summary of its position as to the enforcement of 42 C.F.R. § 433.400(c)(2)(i)(B) as to Ms. Moore and Ms. Carr and what it has communicated to the State of Connecticut as to the same.The defendant’s opposition to the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction shall be filed by 9/8/22. The plaintiffs’ reply brief shall be filed by 9/19. The Court will hold an evidentiary hearing on the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction on 9/27 at 9:30 am in Courtroom 3. To the extent necessary, the hearing will continue to 9/28.Prior to 9/20, the parties shall confer regarding witnesses and exhibits for the hearing. By 5:00 PM on 9/20, the parties shall jointly file their witness and exhibit lists, and they shall indicate any objections the parties have to witnesses or exhibits. By noon on 9/22, the parties shall deliver to chambers two courtesy copies of all exhibits, each placed in a three-ring binder with a copy of the exhibit list at the front of the binder and each exhibit separately tabbed. The parties shall deliver the original set of exhibits along with an exhibit list to the Courtroom Deputy.Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 8/8/22. (Constantine, A.) (Entered: 08/08/2022) |
US notice re nonenforcement against Connecticut, August 8, 2022
Carr US notice re non enforcement v CT 8 8 22
| 08/08/2022 | Set Deadlines as to 3 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction MOTION for Preliminary Injunction. Responses due by 9/8/2022; Reply brief due by 9/19/2022 (Johnson, D.) (Entered: 08/11/2022) |
|
| 08/08/2022 | 27 | NOTICE of Evidentiary Hearing on Motion re: 3 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction MOTION for Preliminary Injunction. ALL PERSONS ENTERING THE COURTHOUSE MUST PRESENT PHOTO IDENTIFICATION.Motion Hearing set for 9/27/2022 09:30 AM in Courtroom Three, 450 Main St., Hartford, CT before Judge Michael P. Shea Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 8/8/22.(Johnson, D.) (Entered: 08/11/2022) |
Amended complaint, August 26, 2022
Motion for class certification, August 26, 2022
US opposition to TRO, September 8, 2022
| 09/09/2022 | 47 | NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re: 3 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction MOTION for Preliminary Injunction, 44 MOTION to Certify Class of Plaintiffs Nationwide. ALL PERSONS ENTERING THE COURTHOUSE MUST PRESENT PHOTO IDENTIFICATION.Motion Hearing set for 12/2/2022, 12/5/22, 12/6/22 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom Three, 450 Main St., Hartford, CT before Judge Michael P. Shea. Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 9/9/22.(Johnson, D.) (Entered: 09/12/2022) |
| 09/10/2022 | 46 | ORDER: Because of the Court’s trial schedule, including a currently ongoing trial that is taking longer than expected, and the Court’s other commitments, it is necessary to postpone the hearing on the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction. In addition, the Court notes that the plaintiffs recently filed a motion for class certification and finds that it would be in the interest of judicial economy to consolidate the hearing on that motion with the hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction. Further, a continuance of both hearings will give the parties an opportunity to conduct at least limited discovery prior to the hearing, which should enable the parties to conduct a more efficient and informative hearing. Accordingly, the Court hereby vacates its order (ECF No. 19 ) scheduling the hearing on the preliminary injunction motion for September 27 and 28, 2022, and schedules a consolidated hearing on the motions for preliminary injunction and class certification for December 2, 5, and 6, 2022. Proceedings will begin at 9am and conclude at 4pm. If the parties, after meeting and conferring, believe that the hearing is likely to be be concluded in two days, they shall filed a notice on the docket so indicating at least 14 days before the hearing. In that case, the Court will hold the hearing on December 5 and 6, 2022. The parties shall exchange exhibit and witness lists no later than 7 days before the hearing. They shall file such lists, with any objections noted by the adverse party and the legal grounds for such objections, on the docket three days before the hearing. They shall also each deliver to chambers two sets of exhibits in a three ring binder for the Court and the law clerk. The Court encourages the parties to work together to conduct any necessary discovery before the hearing.Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 9/10/22. (Constantine, A.) (Entered: 09/10/2022) |
Reply supporting preliminary injunction, September 19, 2022
Second Toubman declaration, September 19, 2022
US opposition to class certification, September 26, 2022
| 09/29/2022 | 59 | ORDER: The emergency motion for referral to a U.S. Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 57) and motion for modification of scheduling order (ECF No. 49) are DENIED, and the Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 3) — but NOT the motion for class certification (ECF No. 44) — is hereby referred for adjudication to United States District Judge Omar A. Williams, who is acting as duty judge in the Hartford seat of Court for the month of October. Shortly after this case was filed, this Court held a telephonic status conference on August 8, 2022, to discuss the motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. (See ECF Nos. 18 and 19.) At that conference, Defendant’s counsel stated, and confirmed in a notice filed after the conference (ECF No. 20), that the Defendant would inform the State of Connecticut that the Defendant would not enforce the challenged Interim Final Rule with respect to the two plaintiffs who were then seeking injunctive relief “until at least 15 days after the Court resolves the motion for preliminary injunction.” (ECF No. 20.) At the time, there were a total of three plaintiffs, all Connecticut residents. On August 26, 2022, however, the plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint adding two more plaintiffs, one a resident of Nebraska and the other a resident of Delaware, and also sought, for the first time, to represent a nationwide class of similarly situated persons. (On the same day, plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the class, which is not yet fully briefed.) At a status conference held on September 20, 2022, the undersigned informed counsel that his trial schedule — including a murder trial and two long-scheduled and large civil trials, as well as a September trial that took longer than expected — would not permit the undersigned to devote the attention needed to these motions until at least December 5, and even then that the undersigned could not realistically finalize a ruling (or rulings) until January, 2023. Because Plaintiffs’ counsel indicated that urgent action was needed on the motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, including for the two new plaintiffs who reside outside Connecticut (see, e.g., ECF No. 49 at 2-3), the Court offered the parties two alternative options: (1) consenting to the jurisdiction of a U.S. Magistrate Judge for purposes of the entire case, which, as the Court informed counsel, would likely result in a more expeditious disposition than the undersigned could manage in light of his trial schedule; and (2) the undersigned’s referring this case to a U.S. Magistrate Judge for a recommended ruling on pending motions. The undersigned informed the parties that, with regard to option #1, they were not required to consent, and that option #2, though it might save some time by sparing the undersigned the need to conduct a hearing and providing the undersigned with recommendations, was not ideal from the standpoint of judicial economy and might not result in a final ruling significantly sooner than the undersigned’s own schedule would permit. Thereafter, the Defendant indicated that he would not consent to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge. Upon further reflection, and after checking with the duty judge for the month of October, Judge Omar A. Williams, the undersigned has determined that the most efficient way to handle this case under these unusual circumstances — and the one with the highest likelihood of securing an expeditious disposition on the pending motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction — is to refer that motion, and that motion alone, to Judge Williams for decision. That motion, if it has merit, is the most urgent matter pending in the case, and the Court’s duty judge system is designed to offer an alternative for handling urgent matters — but only urgent matters — when the presiding district judge is unavailable on an urgent basis, as is the case here. Although the undersigned previously found that it would be in the interest of judicial economy to consolidate the hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction with a hearing on the motion for class certification, the undersigned has reconsidered that determination. While the plaintiffs have suggested that all class members are facing the same irreparable harm, that remains to be seen, and the motion for class certification does not attach any evidence from prospective class members (other than the named plaintiffs themselves) showing that their current situations evince irreparable harm; this point is salient because the Interim Final Rule being challenged was adopted almost two years ago, and the declarations filed by the named plaintiffs suggest that the rule may have had different impacts on them at different times (to the extent it caused the States involved to send the notices described in the declarations). While that does not necessarily mean that all prospective class members cannot show irreparable harm, it likely does mean that there would need to be some showing to that effect for the Court to grant injunctive relief on a class-wide basis. For all these reasons, the Court will not refer the motion for class certification to Judge Williams at this time but will keep the December 5 hearing date in place to entertain argument on that motion. The undersigned thanks Judge Williams for stepping in to the handle the motion for injunctive relief with respect to the named plaintiffs.Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 9/29/2022. (Davis, Christina) (Entered: 09/29/2022) |
| 10/04/2022 | 60 | ORDER. A hearing on the Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 3 ) will be held on October 26, 2022 at 10:00 A.M.. The parties shall exchange exhibit and witness lists no later than 7 days before the hearing. Three days before the hearing, they shall file on the docket such exhibit and witness lists, along with any objections noted by the adverse party (and the legal grounds therefor). Also, each party shall deliver to chambers two sets of exhibits in a three ring binder, for the court and for the law clerk. Signed by Judge Omar A. Williams on 10/4/2022. (Mamillapalli, S.). (Entered: 10/04/2022) |
US motion to extend time to respond to complaint, October 6, 2022
Carr US xt mo respond complaint 10 6
Plaintiffs’ opposition to extension, October 7, 2022
Plaintiffs’ reply supporting class certification, October 11, 2022
Carr reply supporting class cert 10 11
[]
Hearing minutes, October 26, 2022
| 10/28/2022 | 76 | Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Omar Williams: Motion Hearing and Evidentiary Hearing held on 10/26/2022 in person and via Zoom. Total Time: 5 hours, 5 minutes (Motion Hearing: 1 hour, 35 minutes; Evidentiary Hearing: 3 hours, 30 minutes). Court reporter: Catherine Cullen. Attorneys Sheldon Toubman and Deborah Dorfman appeared for Plaintiffs. Attorneys Madeline McMahon and Michelle McConaghy appeared for Defendant. The court heard testimony from Plaintiffs Brenda Moore, Deborah Carr, Mary Shaw, and Carol Katz. The court also heard oral argument on the pending motion for a preliminary injunction, see ECF No. 3 , and took the matter under advisement. An order on the motion will issue separately. (Wagner, Rebecca) (Entered: 10/28/2022) |
Carr ruling, November 7, 2022
Carr motion for expedited resolution, November 10, 2022
Carr plaintiff notice re public health emergency, November 15, 2022
| 11/17/2022 | 81 | ORDER: On December 5, 2022, as previously indicated (ECF Nos. 56 & 59), the Court will hear argument on the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. The Court will also hear argument on that day on the question whether, should the Court certify a class, the injunction granted in Judge Williams’s order, or some other injunctive relief requested by the Plaintiffs, should be extended to the entire class. Should the Government wish to file a supplemental brief on that question, it shall do so on or before the end of the day on November 25, 2022; any such brief shall not exceed 15 pages. Should the plaintiffs wish to file a response, any such response shall be filed by the end of the day on December 2, 2022; any such response shall be confined to 15 pages. Because this order addresses the topics raised in the motion for expedited resolution (ECF No. 79 ), that motion is DENIED as moot.Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 11/17/22. (Constantine, A.) (Entered: 11/17/2022) |
| 11/21/2022 | 83 | ORDER: The defendant’s consented-to motion (ECF No. 82 ) for an extension of time until December 12, 2022 in which to respond to the amended complaint is granted. The Court notes further that, at the oral argument on December 5, 2022, the parties should also be prepared to discuss the other ground for the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, i.e., whether the interim rule was based on a correct or a permissible interpretation of the statute. If the parties wish to address that issue further in their supplemental briefs, they may do so, in which case they may have an additional 5 pages each, with no more than 5 pages devoted to the statutory issue.Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 11/21/22. (Constantine, A.) (Entered: 11/21/2022) |
US response re notice, November 23, 2022
Carr US response re notice of PHE 11 23
US supplemental brief, November 25, 2022
| 12/01/2022 | 88 | NOTICE: At the argument on Monday, counsel shall be prepared to address all issues raised by their briefs. In addition, counsel shall be prepared to address the following questions, which arise from the briefs filed in connection with the motion for preliminary injunction, since those briefs are incorporated by reference in the briefs on the class certification issue: The plaintiffs’ brief in support of the motion for preliminary injunction states that “CMS officials made clear the terminations under the IFR were in fact mandatory in response to a question from a Connecticut Medicaid official.” (ECF No. 3-1 at 19.) And attached to this brief is an email from CMS that appears to substantiate this statement. ECF No. 3-5 at 190. Further, the Government states in its brief opposing class certification that “[t]he [Interim Final] Rule also interprets [Section 6008(b)(3) of the FFCRA] to mean that, subject to certain limitations, when a beneficiary loses eligibility for one Medicaid Group and becomes eligible for another, states are required to move that beneficiary to the coverage group for which she is eligible.” ECF No. 58 at 6 (emphasis added). This raises the following questions: What language in Section 6008(3) of the FFCRA (or any other statute) is the Secretary relying on to support his interpretation that a State is required to terminate full Medicaid benefits (or whatever level of benefits applied when the beneficiary enrolled) for a beneficiary once the State determines that the beneficiary is eligible for coverage under a Medicare Savings Program? By the same token, what language in the IFR itself, i.e., 42 C.F.R. Sec. 433.400(c)(2), supports the view that a State is required to terminate full Medicaid benefits (or whatever level of benefits applied when the beneficiary enrolled) for a beneficiary once the State determines that the beneficiary is eligible for coverage under a Medicare Savings Program? And is the view expressed by the Government about such a requirement the “authoritative” or “official position” of HHS, for purposes of determining whether to apply so-called Auer deference to HHS’s reading of its own regulation? See Kisor v. Wilkie, 139 S. Ct. 2400, 2416 (2019).Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 12/1/22. (Constantine, A.) (Entered: 12/01/2022) |
Response to supplemental opposition, December 2, 2022
Carr pltf response supp op 12 2 22
Minute entry, December 5, 2022
Answer, December 12, 2022
Plaintiffs’ notice re new legislation, December 30, 2022
Carr pltf notice re legisl 12 30 22
US response re new legislation, January 4, 2023
Carr US response re legisl 1 4 23
| 01/06/2023 | 99 | Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Michael P. Shea: Telephonic Status Conference held on 1/6/2023. 53 minutes(Court Reporter Julie Monette.) (Johnson, D.) (Entered: 01/09/2023) |
Opinion re class certification and preliminary injunction, January 31, 2023
Emergency enforcement motion, February 28, 2023
| 03/01/2023 | 103 | ORDER: The Defendant shall file any response to the Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for Enforcement of Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 102 ) by noon March 2, 2023. A telephonic status conference is scheduled for March 2, 2023 at 5pm. Chambers will circulate the dial in information to counsel.Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 3/1/23. (Constantine, A.) (Entered: 03/01/2023) |
US response, March 2, 2023
Clarification order, March 2, 2023
Carr clarification order 3 2 23
| 03/02/2023 | 106 | ORDER: In light of the Court’s order clarifying January 31 Injunction (ECF No. 105 ), the Plaintiffs’ emergency motion for enforcement of preliminary injunction (ECF No. 102 ) is DENIED.Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 3/2/23. (Constantine, A.) (Entered: 03/02/2023) |
| 03/02/2023 | 107 | Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Michael P. Shea: Telephonic Status Conference held on 3/2/2023. 36 minutes(Court Reporter J. Monette.) (Johnson, D.) (Entered: 03/03/2023) |
| 09/29/2023 | 108 | ORDER: No activity has occurred in this case since the Court’s orders on class certification and injunctive relief. Counsel shall file a status report by October 15, 2023 and shall indicate whether the case may be closed.Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 9/29/23. (Constantine, A.) (Entered: 09/29/2023) |
Joint status report, October 13, 2023
| 10/18/2023 | 110 | ORDER: The Court has reviewed the Joint Status Report 109 . The parties shall file another status report by December 14, 2023. Should the parties wish at any time to be referred to a Magistrate Judge for mediation, they need only so indicate to the Court by filing a joint statement making such a request (which may be as short as a single sentence), by filing a statement by one party representing in good faith that counsel for all parties have conferred and agree that such a referral would be appropriate, or by telephoning chambers to make the same representations.Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 10/18/23. (Constantine, A.) (Entered: 10/18/2023) |
Joint status report, December 13, 2023
| 12/14/2023 | 113 | ORDER: The Court has reviewed the parties’ status report (ECF No. 112 ). The parties shall filing another joint status report on or before February 6, 2024.Signed by Judge Michael P Shea on 12/14/23. (Constantine, A.) (Entered: 12/14/2023) |
Joint status report, February 6, 2024
| 02/06/2024 | 115 | ORDER: The Court has reviewed the Joint Status Report. ECF No. 114. The parties shall filing another joint status report on or before April 9, 2024.Signed by Judge Michael P Shea on 2/6/24. (Constantine, A.) (Entered: 02/06/2024) |
Joint motion for preliminary approval of settlement, April 5, 2024
Joint status report, April 9, 2024
| 05/02/2024 | 118 | ORDER: The operative complaint alleged that an Interim Final Rule (“IFR”) issued by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services changing its interpretation of Section 6008(b)(3) of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act, a provision governing Medicaid benefits, violated the APA. The complaint sought declaratory and injunctive relief. ECF No. 43, Request for Relief. After the case was filed, Congress enacted the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023 (“CAA”), Public Law 117-328 (effective December 29, 2022), which caused the IFR to end as of March 31, 2023. Meanwhile, the Court certified a class under Rule 23(b)(2) and granted a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of the IFR, which was the injunctive relief sought by the Plaintiffs. ECF No. 100. The Court, in recognition of the fact that subsequent legislation terminated the IFR at issue, stated that its injunction also would expire March 31, 2023. The enactment of the CAA has mooted the plaintiffs’ claims. See Martin-Trigona v. Shiff, 702 F.2d 380, 386 (2d Cir. 1983) (“The hallmark of a moot case or controversy is that the relief sought can no longer be given or is no longer needed.”) Accordingly, the motion for preliminary approval of the parties’ settlement agreement as to the plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees and costs, proposed notice to class members on this issue, scheduling of a fairness hearing, and final approval of fee settlement agreement (ECF No. 116 ) is denied because the case, which sought only injunctive relief, is moot as to all issues pertaining to members of the class. Under the circumstances, there is no reason to invoke the procedures of Rule 23 to approve the parties’ subsequent agreement as to attorney’s fees. See Diaz v. Brewer, No. 2:09-CV-02402, 2015 WL 3555282, at *1 (D. Ariz. June 5, 2015) (awarding attorney fees in a certified class action without Rule 23(h) notice and procedures where the case, in which only injunctive relief was sought, was dismissed as moot). The parties may, if they wish, file a stipulation as to fees under the EAJA, or may settle the fees issue privately. Any such stipulation shall be filed within 14 days of this order. If no stipulation is filed, the Court will close this case.
Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 5/2/24. (Constantine, A.) (Entered: 05/02/2024) |
===
A.M.C. v. Smith, No. 3:20-cv-240 (M.D. Tenn., filed March 19, 2020)
Complaint
[]
Defendant’s motion for leave to file supplemental brief, with exhibits including CMS certification, January 19, 2021
AMC def mo leave file supplemental 1 19 21
Defendant’s notice of change in 6008 policy, January 19, 2021
AMC CMS notice re policy change 1 19 2021
Order denying pending motions w/o prejudice and setting further discovery, February 19, 2021
amc order denying motions w o prejudice
[]
Order denying motion to dismiss, March 4, 2022
[]
Order partly granting class certification but denying preliminary injunction, August 9, 2022
AMC class cert and pi opinion 8 9 22
Trial date order, June 20, 2023
Click to access amc-trial-order-6-20-23.pdf
Tenn excess pages motion, June 21, 2023
Click to access amc-trial-order-6-20-23.pdf
Tenn rescheduling request, June 21, 2023
Click to access amc-tn-schedule-change-mo-6-21-23.pdf
Tennessee motion for summary judgment, with memo, statement of facts, and declarations, July 10, 2023
Click to access amc-tn-sj-mo-7-10-23.pdf
Click to access amc-tn-sj-ms-7-10-23.pdf
Click to access amc-tn-sj-statement-facts-7-10-23.pdf
[]
Plaintiffs’ opposition, with statements re undisputed facts, July 31, 2023
Click to access amc-pltf-sj-op-7-31-23.pdf
Click to access amc-pltf-resp-undisputed-7-31-23.pdf
Click to access amc-pltf-addl-undisputed-7-31-23.pdf
[]
Order denying defendants’ summary judgment motion, October 18, 2023
[]
State’s post-trial brief, 3/8/24
AMC state’s post trial brief 3 8 24
Plaintiffs’ proposed findings and conclusions, 3/8/24
State’s response, 4/8/24
AMC def post trial reply 4 8 24
Plaintiffs’ response, 4/8/24
AMC pltf post trial reply 4 8 24
Opinion, August 26, 2024
Order for mediation re injunctive relief, August 26, 2024
Order re nonappealability, September 19, 2024
AMC order re nonappealability 9 19 24
Joint notice re mediator, September 23, 2024
AMC notice re mediator 9 23 24
===
Kamkoff v. Hedberg, No. 3AN-23-04259CI (Alaska Superior Court, Third Judicial District, filed 1/20/23), No. 3:23-cv-44 (D. Alaska)
[]
Notice of removal, with summons and complaint, March 1, 2023
Post-removal order, March 2, 2023
Kamkoff post removal order 3 2 23
Stipulation for stay, March 10, 2023
Kamkoff stipulation for stay 3 10 23
Second stipulation for stay, May 2, 2023
Kamkoff second stay stip 5 2 23
State’s motion for stay, November 9, 2023
Kamkoff AK motion for stay 11 9 23
Plaintiffs’ unopposed motion for extension, November 17, 2023
Kamkoff pltf stay response unop xt mo 11 17 23
State’s errata, November 21, 2023
State’s amended motion for stay, November 21, 2023
Kamkoff AK amended motion for stay 11 21 23
Plaintiffs’ response due 12/4/23
Plaintiffs’ opposition to stay, December 4, 2023
22 – Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Motion to Stay
State’s reply, December 11, 2023
Kamkoff AK stay reply 12 11 23
Order denying stay, February 5, 2024
Kamkoff order denying stay 2 5 24
State’s opposition to language class certification, February 20, 2024
Kamkoff AK language access class cert op 2 20 24
[]
[]
Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction, May 8, 2024
Order denying language class certification, May 15, 2024
Kamkoff order denying language class cert 5 15 24
State’s preliminary injunction opposition, June 12, 2024
State’s errata, June , 2024
Kamkoff AK PI op errata 6 17 24
Plaintiffs’ reply, June 20, 2024
Joint motion for public line, July 17, 2024
Kamkoff joint mo for listen line 7 17 24
| 07/17/2024 | 58 | SLG TEXT ORDER: The Parties’ Joint Request for Public Listen Line for Oral Argument at Docket 57 is GRANTED. The public may listen to oral argument on July 18, 2024, at 2:00 p.m. by dialing 571-353-2301 and using Call ID 275666327. (SCD, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/17/2024) |
[]
Third request to supplement, December 2, 2024
Opposition to third request to supplement, December 4, 2024
Reply supporting third request to supplement, December 5, 2024
Preliminary injunction order, December 31, 2024
===
Ott v.
Removal papers, including state court complaint, July 16, 2024
State motion to dismiss, August 5, 2024
Plaintiffs’ motion to remand, August 7, 2024
Ott pltf mo stay briefing 8 8 24
Ott def mo stay discovery 8 13 24
Ott pltf mo stay briefing on stay discovery 8 14 24
Ott def response stays 8 28 24
Ott pltf stay briefing reply 9 3 24
Order, October 18, 2024
SIERRA OTT on behalf of LO and others similarly situated Plaintiffs v STATE OF ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF
===
Bull v. Carter, No. 3:25-cv-41 (M.D. Tenn., filed Jan. 9, 2025)
Complaint
Bull v Carter SNAP complaint 1 9 25
[
Motion for preliminary injunction, January 24, 2025
Motion for class certification, January 24, 2025
Bull v Carter class cert mo 1 24 25
+++
Schweiker v. Chilicky, 487 U.S. 412 (1988)
====
Smith v. Miller, 665 F.2d 172 (7th Cir. 1981)
Fortin v Mass. Dep’t of Public Welfare, 692 F.2d 790 (1st Cir. 1982)
Fortin v Commissioner of Massachusetts Dept of Public Welfare
Alexander v. Hill, 707 F.2d 780 (4th Cir. 1983)
Salazar v. District of Columbia, 954 F.Supp. 278 (D. D.C. 1996)
Salazar v District of Columbia
+++
Interim final rule, released December 4, 2023, effective December 6
+++
Becerra letters to 9 states, December 18, 2023
sec-becerras-letter-to-ar-governor
sec-becerras-letter-to-fl-governor
sec-becerras-letter-to-ga-governor
sec-becerras-letter-to-id-governor
sec-becerras-letter-to-mt-governor
sec-becerras-letter-to-nh-governor
sec-becerras-letter-to-oh-governor
sec-becerras-letter-to-sd-governor
sec-becerras-letter-to-tx-governor
Enforcement pleadings in Franklin v. Kinsley, No. 5:17-cv-581 (E.D. N.C.)
Settlement agreement and attachments, October 18, 2022
Affordable Care Act Litigation 