Case: California v. Health and Human Services
4:17-cv-05783 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Filed Date: May 4, 2017
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
On May 4, 2017, President Trump issued an executive order seeking to “restore religious freedom.” The order suggested that federal agencies amend regulations about the preventative care mandate of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to increase the pool of employers allowed to claim an exemption from providing contraceptive coverage. The agencies then issued two Interim Final Rules (IFRs) expanding the scope of the religious and moral exemptions. Any employer or health insurer with religious or moral objections could opt out of the ACA's contraceptive-coverage requirement with no automatic way for women to continue to receive contraception if their employers opted out and with no required federal government oversight.
On October 6, 2017, California filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The state challenged the IFRs by suing the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the U.S. Department of Labor, and the U.S. Department of the Treasury under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.). Seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, the state claimed that the IFRs drastically reduced women’s access to contraceptive coverage and violated the APA, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Specifically, they alleged that the defendants had failed to provide notice and comment as required by the APA and that the IFRs exceeded their statutory authority under the ACA. On November 1, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which added Delaware, Maryland, New York, and Virginia as plaintiffs.
On November 9, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin implementation of the IFRs and preserve the status quo pending litigation.
On December 21, 2017, District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam granted the plaintiffs' motion and issued a nationwide injunction enjoining implementation of the IFRs. 281 F. Supp. 3d 806 (N.D. Cal. 2017). The Court found that the plaintiffs were likely to able to show that the process that passed the IFRs bypassed the typical rule-making procedure, violating the APA and causing them imminent harm. The Court noted that the defendants had completely changed their position on contraceptive coverage taken during the litigation of Zubik v. Burwell, There, the defendants recognized the need to balance the compelling interest in ensuring that women covered by all health plans received full and equal health coverage (including contraceptive coverage) with the goal of minimizing the burden on religious exercise. Here, however, the defendants refused to recognize any such compelling interest.
On December 29, 2017, Judge Gilliam granted a motion to intervene as a defendant filed by the Little Sisters of the Poor Jeanne Jugan Residence—a Roman Catholic order of nuns that serves the elderly poor. 2017 WL 6731640. On January 26, 2018, Judge Gilliam also granted the March for Life Education and Defense Fund's motion to intervene as a defendant.
The defendants each appealed the District Court's decision granting the plaintiffs' preliminary injunction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The District Court stayed the proceedings pending resolution of the defendants' appeals.
Once the federal defendants issued Final Rules, set to take effect on January 14, 2019 and largely identical to the IFRs, the plaintiffs argued that these new rules meant that the defendants' appeals were moot. The plaintiffs asked the Court to lift the stay so that they could amend their complaint in order to challenge the final rules. On December 13, 2018, however, Judge Gilliam denied the plaintiffs' motion to lift the stay, holding that it did not have jurisdiction to do so given the broad scope of issues before the Ninth Circuit at that time.
On December 13, 2018, the Ninth Circuit issued its opinion to resolve each of the defendants' appeals (Circuit Judges J. Clifford Wallace, Andrew J. Kleinfeld, and Susan P. Graber). The Court affirmed the preliminary injunction insofar as it barred enforcement of the IFRs in the plaintiff states, but found that the scope of the injunction was over-broad. The Court vacated the portion of the injunction barring enforcement in other states and remanded to the District Court. 911 F.3d 558.
The plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on December 18, 2018, which added Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Minnesota, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington as plaintiffs. The amended complaint alleged that both the IFRs and the Final Rules violated the APA, the Establishment Clause, and the Equal Protection Clause. At that same time, the plaintiffs filed another motion for a preliminary injunction, seeking to enjoin the implementation of the Final Rules.
On December 26, 2018, the federal defendants filed a motion to stay all proceedings given the lapse in appropriations funding for the Department of Justice. In the alternative, they asked for an extension of the deadline to respond to the second amended complaint. Judge Gilliam denied the defendants' motion to stay proceedings given the impending effective date of the Final Rules (January 14), but granted the defendants an extension of time to submit their answer. Judge Gilliam also granted extensions to the Little Sisters and the March for Life.
On January 13, 2019, Judge Gilliam granted the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. 2019 WL 178555. The Court found that, as to both Final Rules, the plaintiffs had shown that they were likely to succeed, or at a minimum raised serious questions going to the merits, on their claim that the religious and moral exemptions violated the APA. The Court also found that the plaintiffs were likely to suffer irreparable harm as a result of this violation, that the balance of hardships tipped sharply in their favor, and that the public interest favored granting the injunction.
Each of the defendants eventually appealed the District Court's decision to grant the preliminary injunction to the Ninth Circuit.
Judge Gilliam granted Oregon’s motion to intervene on February 1, 2019, but rejected Oregon’s request for joinder in the original thirteen states’ preliminary injunction motion because Oregon filed its motion for joinder after the court had already entered its order granting the preliminary injunction motion.
On April 30, 2019 the original thirteen states filed a motion for summary judgment, and Oregon filed a motion for a preliminary injunction of its own. Over the course of the next month, a flurry of amicus curiae briefs were submitted in support of the motion for summary judgment. And on May 31, 2019 the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, for summary judgment.
Judge Gilliam granted Oregon's motion for a preliminary injunction on July 2, 2019.
On October 22, 2019, in an opinion that again addressed each of the defendants' appeals, the 9th Circuit affirmed the preliminary injunction, this time in its entirety. 941 F.3d 410. The defendants appealed to the Supreme Court.
However, Judge Gilliam stayed the case on January 22, 2020 after the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania. In that case, the district judge had granted a nationwide injunction nearly identical to the nationwide injunction originally issued in this case. However, the Third Circuit had affirmed the nationwide character of the injunction. The Supreme Court ultimately held that the ACA gave the Health Resources and Service Administration the authority to grant exemptions based on employers’ religious objections to providing no-cost contraceptive coverage for their employees on July 8, 2020. Little Sisters of the Poor, 140 S. Ct. 2367.
Following that decision, the Supreme Court vacated the Ninth Circuit's judgment in this case and remanded. 141 S. Ct. 192. The Ninth Circuit subsequently vacated the preliminary injunction, and remanded back to the district court on October 8, 2020. 977 F.3d 801.
Nevertheless, while the plaintiffs withdrew their statutory authority and procedural claims, the plaintiffs alleged that the Supreme Court’s decision had not resolved all of their claims. So, on December 4, 2020, D.C. and the original thirteen states plus Oregon and three additional states (Michigan, Nevada, and Colorado, which had filed a motion to intervene in March 2019 that was still under consideration) filed a brief which asserted that because “the Exemptions Rules violate the APA in that they are arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law, this Court should grant the States’ motion for summary judgment and vacate the Rules.” Judge Gilliam thus lifted the stay and reopened the case on December 14, 2020.
Following the election of President Joe Biden, the federal defendants sought a stay on March 1, 2021 to allow the new leadership to evaluate the issues of the case. Judge Gillam granted that stay, and continued to extend it while the agencies began a new rulemaking process to amend the 2018 final rules at issue in this case. As of April 26, 2023, the stay is still in effect and the rulemaking process is ongoing, with the parties keeping the court updated via status reports due every three months. The case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Eva Richardson (1/15/2019)
Raul Noguera-McElroy (3/3/2019)
Madeline Buday (2/17/2021)
Michelle Wolk (4/26/2023)
Related Cases
American Civil Liberties Union v. Wright, Northern District of California (2017)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6166538/parties/state-of-california-v-health-and-human-services/
Aceves, Sarah L. (California)
Arndt, Christina Bull (California)
Attorney, Michele Li
Arffa, Allan J (California)
Attorney, Miles Coleman,
Arndt, Christina Bull (California)
Boergers, Kathleen M (California)
Brunton, Marc David (California)
Cammarata, Kimberly S. (Maryland)
Chesler, Elizabeth R. (New York)
Cisneros, Lisa Janine (California)
Eisenberg, Karli Ann (California)
Ferguson, Andrew N. (California)
Field, Michael W. (Rhode Island)
General, Max Carter-Oberstone,
Hammoud, Fadwa Alawieh (California)
Kane, Ketakee Rajiv (California)
Morris, Elizabeth (California)
Nannery, Valerie M (District of Columbia)
Nevitt, Alacoque Hinga (California)
Nunley, Alma Rose (California)
Osborne, Maura Murphy (Connecticut)
Pizana, Marissa D (California)
Sprung, Jeffrey Todd (Washington)
Sullivan, Steven M. (Maryland)
Teitelbaum, Adam R. (California)
Baylor, Gregory S. (District of Columbia)
Chavez-Ochoa, Brian R. (California)
Chen, Daniel Lawrence (California)
Davis, Ethan P. (District of Columbia)
DeFever, Jeanne Nicole (Oregon)
Dickey, Jennifer Bandy (California)
Gerardi, Michael Joseph (California)
Kopplin, Rebecca M. (District of Columbia)
Labor, U.S. Department (California)
Labor, Secretary of (California)
Price, Christen M. (District of Columbia)
Sandberg, Justin Michael (District of Columbia)
Secretary, Department of (California)
Services, Health and (California)
Services, U.S. Department (California)
Smith, Priscilla Joyce (California)
Batchelder, Rhiannon Nicole (New York)
Blumenfeld, Jeffrey (District of Columbia)
Diana, Verm (District of Columbia)
Fuhrman, Jessica B (California)
Gartland, Stacey L. (California)
Glynn, Katie Rose (California)
Johnson, Crystal Marissa (California)
Katskee, Richard Brian (California)
Loftus, John Robert (California)
McMaster, Michael (California)
Meneguin-Layerenza, Melina M (California)
Minor, Kajsa McLean (California)
Nadeau, Genevieve (Massachusetts)
Patchen, Jonathan Alan (California)
Peiffer, John Charles II (California)
Rassbach, Eric C (District of Columbia)
Rienzi, Mark (District of Columbia)
Robart, Sierra A. (California)
Schulman, Janie Fay (California)
Shartsis, Arthur Joel (California)
Siegel, Joel David (California)
Stern, Heidi Parry (California)
Stevenson, Shannon Wells (California)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Resources
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6166538/state-of-california-v-health-and-human-services/
Last updated Oct. 21, 2026, 5:40 a.m.
Docket for: State of California v. Health and Human Services
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Healthcare Access and Reproductive Issues
Special Collection(s):
Contraception Insurance Mandate
Trump Administration 1.0: Challenges to the Government
Key Dates
Filing Date: May 4, 2017
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
California and several other states
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Federal
Department of Health and Human Services
Department of Labor
Department of the Treasury
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Constitutional Clause(s):
Other Dockets:
Northern District of California 4:17-cv-05783
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 18-15144
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 18-15166
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 18-15255
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 19-15118
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 19-15150
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 19-15072
Supreme Court of the United States 18-1192
Supreme Court of the United States 19-1038
Supreme Court of the United States 19-1040
Supreme Court of the United States 19-1053
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Relief Granted:
Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief:
Content of Injunction:
National / Universal injunction
Issues
General/Misc.:
Public benefits (includes, e.g., in-state tuition, govt. jobs)
Discrimination Basis:
Reproductive rights:
Case Summary of California v. Health and Human Services, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/17089/ (last updated 4/26/2023).