Filed Date: July 14, 2016
Closed Date: Sept. 7, 2016
Clearinghouse coding complete
On July 14, 2016, two health care clinics, an Arizona obstetrician-gynecologist, and five Arizona Medicaid patients filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. The plaintiffs sued the Arizona Health Care Containment System under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of the federal Medicaid statute and the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The plaintiffs asked the court for declaratory and injunctive relief enjoining the defendant from enforcing H.B. 2599.
H.B. 2599 was signed into law on May 17, 2016. The Act empowered the defendant to exclude any entity that "failed to segregate taxpayer dollars from abortions, including the use of taxpayer dollars for any overhead expenses attributable to abortions" from participation in Arizona's Medicaid program.
The plaintiffs claimed that the Act violated the Medicaid Act by denying Medicaid patients their right to receive care from a willing and qualified Medicaid provider of their choice. The plaintiffs also claimed that the Act further violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it was impermissibly vague and retaliated against abortion providers. Finally, the plaintiffs alleged that the Act violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by singling out health care providers who exercise their constitutionally protected right of offering abortion services.
On August 11, 2016, the defendant advised the plaintiffs that the defendant would put H.B. 2599 into effect only after the proper rulemaking process, which would likely take one to two years. The defendant would not enforce the rule until this process was complete. In response to the defendant's assurances, the plaintiff entered a stipulation of dismissal to the court on September 1, 2016. On September 7, 2016, Judge Roslyn Silver granted the dismissal without prejudice.
On May 18, 2023, the parties filed a joint stipulation of non-enforcement. The defendants stated that there was an urgent need to issue emergency rules pursuant to H.B. 2599 in order to address providers engaging in unlawful activity. The parties agreed that these emergency rules cannot immediately be enforced against plaintiffs until final rules, that have a 60-day effective day period, are established. On January 5, 2024, the court granted the stipulation of non-enforcement, extending the non-enforcement period.
As of January 2025, this case remains open for enforcement of the courts' non-enforcement order, but there has been no activity on the docket since January 2024.
Summary Authors
Gabriela Hybel (3/13/2017)
Renuka Wagh (1/2/2025)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6339926/parties/planned-parenthood-arizona-incorporated-v-betlach/
Amiri, Brigitte A. (New York)
Brody, Kathleen E. (Arizona)
Keenan, Jared G (Arizona)
Lawless, Laura (Arizona)
Kokal, Jessica Jean-Marie (Arizona)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6339926/planned-parenthood-arizona-incorporated-v-betlach/
Last updated March 31, 2026, 5:12 a.m.
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Public Benefits/Government Services
Healthcare Access and Reproductive Issues
Special Collection(s):
Planned Parenthood Medicaid Litigation
Key Dates
Filing Date: July 14, 2016
Closing Date: Sept. 7, 2016
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Two health care clinics, one obstetrician-gynecologist, and five Arizona Medicaid patients
Plaintiff Type(s):
Non-profit NON-religious organization
Attorney Organizations:
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
State
Arizona Health Care Containment System
Defendant Type(s):
Facility Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Medicaid, 42 U.S.C §1396 (Title XIX of the Social Security Act)
Constitutional Clause(s):
Other Dockets:
District of Arizona 2:16-cv-02337
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Defendant
Relief Granted:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Issues
General/Misc.:
Public benefits (includes, e.g., in-state tuition, govt. jobs)
Benefits (Source):
Discrimination Area:
Reproductive rights:
Reproductive health care (including birth control, abortion, and others)
Case Summary of Planned Parenthood Arizona Inc. v. Betlach, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/15668/ (last updated 1/2/2025).