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.

	Document
4:17-cv-05783	Docket State of California v. Health and Human Services	Feb. 16, 2021	Feb. 16, 2021 Docket
1 4:17-cv-05783	Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief State of California v. Health and Human Services	Oct. 6, 2017	Oct. 6, 2017 Complaint
105 4:17-cv-05783	Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary injunction State of California v. Health and Human Services	Dec. 21, 2017	Dec. 21, 2017 Order/Opinion 281 F.Supp.3d 806
165 18-15144	Opinion State of California v. Azar U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit	Dec. 13, 2018	Dec. 13, 2018 Order/Opinion 911 F.3d 558
170 4:17-cv-05783	Second Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief State of California v. Azar	Dec. 18, 2018	Dec. 18, 2018 Complaint
234 4:17-cv-05783	Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction State of California v. Health and Human Services	Jan. 13, 2019	Jan. 13, 2019 Order/Opinion 351 F.Supp.3d 1267
387 4:17-cv-05783	Order Granting Motion for Preliminary Injunction State of California v. Health and Human Services	July 2, 2019	July 2, 2019 Order/Opinion 390 F.Supp.3d 1061

ECF Number	Description	Date	Link Date / Link
1	COMPLAINT against All Defendants. Filed byState of California. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, part 1 of 2, # 2 Exhibit A, part 2 od 2, # 3 Civil Cover Sheet, # 4 Summons)(Eisenberg, Karli) (Filed on 10/6/2017) (Entered: 10/06/2017) 1 Exhibit A, part 1 of 2 View on PACER 2 Exhibit A, part 2 od 2 View on PACER 3 Civil Cover Sheet View on PACER 4 Summons View on PACER	Oct. 6, 2017	Oct. 6, 2017 Clearinghouse
2	Case assigned to Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore. Counsel for plaintiff or the removing party is responsible for serving the Complaint or Notice of Removal, Summons and the assigned judge's standing orders and all other new case documents upon the opposing parties. For information, visit E-Filing A New Civil Case at http://cand.uscourts.gov/ecf/caseopening.Standing orders can be downloaded from the court's web page at www.cand.uscourts.gov/judges. Upon receipt, the summons will be issued and returned electronically. Counsel is required to send chambers a copy of the initiating documents pursuant to L.R. 5-1(e)(7). A scheduling order will be sent by Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) within two business days. Consent/Declination due by 10/20/2017. (bwS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/6/2017) (Entered: 10/10/2017)	Oct. 6, 2017	Oct. 6, 2017 PACER
	Electronic filing error. Filing fee due Re: 1 Complaint filed by State of California (bwS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/10/2017)	Oct. 10, 2017	Oct. 10, 2017 PACER
	Electronic Filing Error	Oct. 10, 2017	Oct. 10, 2017 PACER
3	FEE PAID (Filing fee$400,receipt number 0971-11783500). (Eisenberg, Karli) (Filed on 10/10/2017) (Entered: 10/10/2017)	Oct. 10, 2017	Oct. 10, 2017 PACER
	Electronic filing error. Incorrect event used. Correct event is Proposed Summons. [err101] Please re-file in its entirety. Re:[1-4] Summons filed by State of California (jmlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/11/2017)	Oct. 11, 2017	Oct. 11, 2017 PACER
	Electronic Filing Error	Oct. 11, 2017	Oct. 11, 2017 PACER
4	Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines: Case Management Statement due by 1/2/2018. Initial Case Management Conference set for 1/9/2018 01:30 PM in Courtroom 4, 3rd Floor, Oakland. (jmlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/11/2017) (Entered: 10/11/2017)	Oct. 11, 2017	Oct. 11, 2017 PACER
5	Proposed Summons. (Eisenberg, Karli) (Filed on 10/11/2017) (Entered: 10/11/2017)	Oct. 11, 2017	Oct. 11, 2017 PACER
6	Summons Issued as to Department of Labor, Secretary of United States Department of Labor, Department of the Treasury, Department of the Treasury, Secretary, Health and Human Services, Health and Human Services, Secretary, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (jmlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/11/2017) (Entered: 10/11/2017)	Oct. 11, 2017	Oct. 11, 2017 PACER
7	CONSENT/DECLINATION to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge by State of California.. (Eisenberg, Karli) (Filed on 10/17/2017) (Entered: 10/17/2017)	Oct. 17, 2017	Oct. 17, 2017 PACER
8	SUMMONS Returned Executed by State of California. Department of the Treasury, Secretary served on 10/12/2017, answer due 11/2/2017. State of California (Eisenberg, Karli) (Filed on 10/17/2017) (Entered: 10/17/2017)	Oct. 17, 2017	Oct. 17, 2017 PACER
9	SUMMONS Returned Executed by State of California. Department of the Treasury served on 10/12/2017, answer due 11/2/2017. State of California (Eisenberg, Karli) (Filed on 10/17/2017) (Entered: 10/17/2017)	Oct. 17, 2017	Oct. 17, 2017 PACER
10	SUMMONS Returned Executed by State of California. Correction from #9 (Eisenberg, Karli) (Filed on 10/17/2017) (Entered: 10/17/2017)	Oct. 17, 2017	Oct. 17, 2017 PACER
11	SUMMONS Returned Executed by State of California. Health and Human Services, Secretary served on 10/12/2017, answer due 11/2/2017. State of California (Eisenberg, Karli) (Filed on 10/17/2017) (Entered: 10/17/2017)	Oct. 17, 2017	Oct. 17, 2017 PACER
12	SUMMONS Returned Executed by State of California. Health and Human Services served on 10/12/2017, answer due 11/2/2017. State of California (Eisenberg, Karli) (Filed on 10/17/2017) (Entered: 10/17/2017)	Oct. 17, 2017	Oct. 17, 2017 PACER
13	SUMMONS Returned Executed by State of California. Secretary of United States Department of Labor served on 10/12/2017, answer due 11/2/2017. State of California (Eisenberg, Karli) (Filed on 10/17/2017) (Entered: 10/17/2017)	Oct. 17, 2017	Oct. 17, 2017 PACER
14	SUMMONS Returned Executed by State of California. Department of Labor served on 10/12/2017, answer due 11/2/2017. State of California (Eisenberg, Karli) (Filed on 10/17/2017) (Entered: 10/17/2017)	Oct. 17, 2017	Oct. 17, 2017 PACER
15	CLERK'S NOTICE OF IMPENDING REASSIGNMENT TO A U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE: The Clerk of this Court will now randomly reassign this case to a District Judge because either (1) a party has not consented to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge, or (2) time is of the essence in deciding a pending judicial action for which the necessary consents to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction have not been secured. You will be informed by separate notice of the district judge to whom this case is reassigned. ALL HEARING DATES PRESENTLY SCHEDULED BEFORE THE CURRENT MAGISTRATE JUDGE ARE VACATED AND SHOULD BE RE-NOTICED FOR HEARING BEFORE THE JUDGE TO WHOM THIS CASE IS REASSIGNED. This is a text only docket entry; there is no document associated with this notice. (sisS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/18/2017) (Entered: 10/18/2017)	Oct. 18, 2017	Oct. 18, 2017 PACER
16	ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong for all further proceedings. Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore no longer assigned to the case. Signed by Executive Committee on 10/18/2017. (jmlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/18/2017) (Entered: 10/18/2017)	Oct. 18, 2017	Oct. 18, 2017 PACER
17	NOTICE of Appearance by R Matthew Wise (Wise, R) (Filed on 10/18/2017) (Entered: 10/18/2017)	Oct. 18, 2017	Oct. 18, 2017 RECAP
18	ORDER OF RECUSAL. Signed by Judge Saundra B. Armstrong on 10/18/17. (dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/18/2017) (Entered: 10/19/2017)	Oct. 18, 2017	Oct. 18, 2017 PACER
19	ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Judge Haywood S Gilliam, Jr for all further proceedings. Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong no longer assigned to the case. Signed by Executive Committee on 10/19/2017. (jmlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/19/2017) (Entered: 10/19/2017)	Oct. 19, 2017	Oct. 19, 2017 PACER
20	NOTICE of Appearance by Michele Li Wong (Wong, Michele) (Filed on 10/19/2017) (Entered: 10/19/2017)	Oct. 19, 2017	Oct. 19, 2017 PACER
21	NOTICE of Appearance by Justin Michael Sandberg on Behalf of Defendants (Sandberg, Justin) (Filed on 10/20/2017) (Entered: 10/20/2017)	Oct. 20, 2017	Oct. 20, 2017 PACER
22	CLERK'S NOTICE SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE FOR REASSIGNED CIVIL CASE. Notice is hereby given that a Case Management Conference has been set for January 9, 2018, before Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., at 2:00 p.m., in Courtroom 2, 4th Floor, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA. Case Management Statement due by January 2, 2018. Standing orders can be downloaded from the court's web page at www.cand.uscourts.gov/judges. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.)(ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/20/2017) (Entered: 10/20/2017)	Oct. 20, 2017	Oct. 20, 2017 PACER
23	CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by State of California re 17 Notice of Appearance, 7 Consent/Declination to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge, 20 Notice of Appearance, 19 Order Reassigning Case,, Case Assigned/Reassigned, (Eisenberg, Karli) (Filed on 10/20/2017) (Entered: 10/20/2017)	Oct. 20, 2017	Oct. 20, 2017 PACER
24	AMENDED COMPLAINT for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief against All Defendants. Filed byState of California, State of Delaware, Commonwealth of Virginia, State of Maryland, State of New York. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A1, # 2 Exhibit A2, # 3 Civil Cover Sheet)(Eisenberg, Karli) (Filed on 11/1/2017) (Entered: 11/01/2017) 1 Exhibit A1 View on PACER 2 Exhibit A2 View on PACER 3 Civil Cover Sheet View on PACER	Nov. 1, 2017	Nov. 1, 2017 RECAP
26	NOTICE of Appearance of United States Citizen by Gary L. Coson (vlkS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/2/2017) (Entered: 11/07/2017)	Nov. 2, 2017	Nov. 2, 2017 RECAP
27	Response to Complaint by Gary L. Coson (vlkS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/2/2017) (Entered: 11/07/2017)	Nov. 2, 2017	Nov. 2, 2017 RECAP
25	ORDER by Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. RELATING Case No. 17-cv-5772-HSG and Case No. 17-cv-5783-HSG. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.)(hsglc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/6/2017) (Entered: 11/06/2017)	Nov. 6, 2017	Nov. 6, 2017 PACER
28	MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Commonwealth of Virginia, State of California, State of Delaware, State of Maryland, State of New York. Motion Hearing set for 2/7/2018 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 4th Floor, Oakland before Judge Haywood S Gilliam Jr.. Responses due by 11/24/2017. Replies due by 12/1/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Declaration, # 3 Declaration, # 4 Declaration, # 5 Declaration, # 6 Declaration, # 7 Declaration, # 8 Declaration, # 9 Declaration, # 10 Declaration, # 11 Declaration, # 12 Declaration, # 13 Declaration, # 14 Declaration, # 15 Declaration, # 16 Declaration)(Eisenberg, Karli) (Filed on 11/9/2017) (Entered: 11/09/2017) 1 Declaration View on RECAP 2 Declaration View on RECAP 3 Declaration View on RECAP 4 Declaration View on PACER 5 Declaration View on PACER 6 Declaration View on PACER 7 Declaration View on PACER 8 Declaration View on RECAP 9 Declaration View on PACER 10 Declaration View on PACER 11 Declaration View on PACER 12 Declaration View on PACER 13 Declaration View on PACER 14 Declaration View on PACER 15 Declaration View on PACER 16 Declaration View on PACER	Nov. 9, 2017	Nov. 9, 2017 RECAP
29	MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages filed by Commonwealth of Virginia, State of California, State of Delaware, State of Maryland, State of New York. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Eisenberg, Karli) (Filed on 11/9/2017) (Entered: 11/09/2017) 1 Declaration View on PACER	Nov. 9, 2017	Nov. 9, 2017 PACER
30	MOTION to Shorten Time filed by Commonwealth of Virginia, State of California, State of Delaware, State of Maryland, State of New York. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Eisenberg, Karli) (Filed on 11/9/2017) (Entered: 11/09/2017) 1 Declaration View on PACER	Nov. 9, 2017	Nov. 9, 2017 RECAP
31	ORDER by Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. GRANTING 29 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.)(hsglc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/10/2017) (Entered: 11/10/2017)	Nov. 10, 2017	Nov. 10, 2017 PACER
32	ORDER by Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. GRANTING 30 Motion to Shorten Time. (hsglc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/10/2017) (Entered: 11/10/2017)	Nov. 10, 2017	Nov. 10, 2017 RECAP
	Reset Hearing as to 28 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction : Motion Hearing set for 12/14/2017 10:30 AM before Judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/13/2017)	Nov. 13, 2017	Nov. 13, 2017 PACER
	Set Motion and Deadlines/Hearings	Nov. 13, 2017	Nov. 13, 2017 PACER
33	Document Refiled at 34 . STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re Set Motion and Deadlines/Hearings filed by Commonwealth of Virginia, State of California, State of Delaware, State of Maryland, State of New York. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Eisenberg, Karli) (Filed on 11/15/2017) Modified on 11/15/2017 (vlkS, COURT STAFF). Modified on 11/15/2017 (vlkS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/15/2017)	Nov. 15, 2017	Nov. 15, 2017 PACER
	Set Motion and Deadlines/Hearings	Nov. 15, 2017	Nov. 15, 2017 PACER

Case: California v. Health and Human Services

4:17-cv-05783 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

Case Summary

Related Cases

People

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Resources

Docket

Case Details