Support the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse?

The Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse is committed to making information about civil rights lawsuits public, accessible, and free. If you use our--recently revamped--website and the posted documents and information, would you consider a donation? Our small but mighty team relies principally on grant funding and donations. Can you help?

Support the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse?

The Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse is committed to making information about civil rights lawsuits public, accessible, and free. If you use our--recently revamped--website and the posted documents and information, would you consider a donation? Our small but mighty team relies principally on grant funding and donations. Can you help?

Thank you!

DONATE

Case: Missouri v. Biden

4:21-cv-01329 | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri

Filed Date: Nov. 10, 2021

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

COVID-19 Summary: In this case, several states sued to block the federal vaccine mandate which required Medicare- and Medicaid-certified providers and suppliers to become vaccinated prior to December 6, 2021. The judge granted the preliminary injunction on November 29, 2021, which enjoined the defendants from implementing the vaccination requirements in the states party to the lawsuit. The defendants appealed to the Eighth Circuit and moved for a stay of the injunction, which was denied by the …

COVID-19 Summary: In this case, several states sued to block the federal vaccine mandate which required Medicare- and Medicaid-certified providers and suppliers to become vaccinated prior to December 6, 2021. The judge granted the preliminary injunction on November 29, 2021, which enjoined the defendants from implementing the vaccination requirements in the states party to the lawsuit. The defendants appealed to the Eighth Circuit and moved for a stay of the injunction, which was denied by the district and circuit courts. The defendants then appealed to the Supreme Court for a stay of the preliminary injunction pending appeal, which was granted on January 13, 2022. The defendants' appeal in the Eighth Circuit remains pending.


This case is about whether the federal government can require Medicare- and Medicaid-certified providers and suppliers to receive a COVID-19 vaccination. President Joe Biden announced in September 2020 that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) would issue a rule requiring vaccination for all employees in Medicare- and Medicaid- participating facilities. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS), which is an HHS component, issued a rule to that effect. On November 10, 2021, the States of Missouri, Nebraska, Arkansas, Kansas, Iowa, Wyoming, Alaska, South Dakota, North Dakota, and New Hampshire sued the United States, President Joseph Biden, HHS, CMS, and several other federal officials in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.

The states presented several statutory and constitutional claims for relief. They argued that the rule was arbitrary and capricious and therefore in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The states contended CMS failed to engage in reasoned decision-making and arbitrarily failed to account for the economic impacts of the mandate on the healthcare industry and the costs to the states and instead simply followed the directions of the President. The states also claimed that CMS violated the APA by acting in excess of its statutory authority, arguing that CMS lacks the power to mandate vaccinations and that its dong so violated Title 18 of the Social Security Act by authorizing federal officials to exercise supervision or control over the selection and tenure of persons providing health services. The states also claimed that CMS failed to abide by the notice and comment requirements for federal rule-making, in violation of the APA and the Social Security Act. In addition, the states argued that the vaccine mandate violated 42 U.S.C. § 1395z due to CMS's failure to consult with the appropriate state agencies and violated 42 U.S.C. § 1302 due to HHS's failure to prepare a regulatory impact analysis on the mandate's effect on rural hospitals.

In addition to the claims of statutory violations, the states also made constitutional and federalism arguments. They stated that the vaccine mandate violated the Spending Clause of the U.S. Constitution by putting an unconstitutional condition on the states' receipt of federal funds and by using the federal government's spending power to conscript state agencies for federal purposes. The states also contended that the mandate violated the anti-commandeering doctrine by compelling states to administer federal regulatory programs. Lastly, the states argued that the federal government violated the Tenth Amendment and the principles of federalism by exercising power beyond what was delegated to it through the Constitution and U.S. Congress and by interfering with the states' police power, which includes the authority to adopt public health regulations.

The states sought a preliminary and permanent injunction against enforcement of the mandate and a declaration that the mandate is unconstitutional and unlawful. The case was assigned to Judge Matthew T. Schelp.

On November 12, 2021, the states moved for a preliminary injunction. On November 29, the court granted the motion and enjoined CMS from implementing and enforcing the vaccine mandate. 2021 WL 5564501. The court ruled that the plaintiffs had demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their case. The court found that, while Congress gave HHS the general authority to enact regulations for the administration of Medicare and Medicaid and the health and safety of recipients, the nature and breadth of the CMS mandate required clear authorization from Congress, which had not occurred. The court noted the vast economic and political significance of the mandate and the significant alteration of the balance between federal and state power that the mandate entailed. The court also found no clear indication of Congress's intent to authorize CMS to enact such a substantial and significant mandate and thus concluded that Congress likely did not grant CMS the authority to mandate the vaccine.

The court also found a likelihood that CMS improperly bypassed the notice and comment requirements of the APA and the Social Security Act. The court noted that while the requirements may be bypassed if the agency has good cause, CMS's own delay in mandating vaccination undermined its emergency justification argument for dispensing with the requirements. The court stated that given the unprecedented, controversial, and health-related nature of the mandate, good cause was even more important than usual. The court also noted that the failure to take and respond to comments would likely exacerbate vaccine hesitancy.

The court also determined that the states were likely to succeed in establishing that the vaccine mandate is arbitrary and capricious. The court held that CMS lacked evidence showing that vaccination status has a direct impact on COVID-19 spread in healthcare facilities. Furthermore, the court found that CMS had improperly rejected alternatives to the mandate, such as periodic testing or exemptions for individuals with natural immunity from COVID-19 due to a prior infection. The court also found a likelihood of a finding that the mandate is arbitrary and capricious due to its broad scope. Specifically, the court noted that the mandate applies to all covered facilities equally, regardless of the dangers of COVID-19 infection in each respective facility. The court also concluded that CMS had failed to adequately explain its sudden change in policy, from encouraging to forcing vaccination. The court also determined that when CMS weighed the benefits and risks of the mandate to the healthcare industry, it failed to properly consider all reliance interests, particularly the interests of those opposed to the mandate.

Next, the court held that the plaintiffs had shown a likelihood of irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief. The court found that the states had shown that mandate would irreparably harm their sovereign interests because they would be unable to enforce their own laws surrounding vaccination mandates and proof of vaccination. Next, the court determined that the states' quasi-sovereign interests were likely to suffer irreparable harm absent a preliminary injunction. These quasi-sovereign interests include the health and well-being of the residents of the plaintiff states. The court found that the plaintiffs had filed adequate support to show that their citizens would be physically and economically harmed by the mandate. These harms stem from the likelihood that the mandate would exacerbate already-existing staffing shortages, which would likely cause a reduction in quality of care, a decrease in the variety of services offered, and possible closures of some facilities, entirely. The court also found that the negative effects on the economies of the plaintiff states would also be irreparable due to sovereign immunity against monetary damages for federal agencies. The court further determined that the plaintiffs would likely face irreparable harm to their proprietary interests absent preliminary relief. These proprietary interests include the general financial health of the plaintiffs' facilities.

Next, the court held that the balance of equities tipped in favor of the plaintiff states and that the public had an interest in an injunction. The court found that the public would suffer little, if any, harm from maintaining the status quo throughout the litigation. The court noted that the effectiveness of the vaccine to prevent disease transmission was unknown, while the evidence submitted by the plaintiff states showed a likelihood of crippling effects on significant numbers of healthcare facilities.

On November 30, 2021, the defendants appealed the district court's preliminary injunction to the Eighth Circuit (USCA Case # 21-3725). On the same day, the defendants moved to stay the preliminary injunction pending their appeal in the district court and in the Eighth Circuit. On December 1, the district court denied the defendant's motion for a stay. 2021 WL 5631736. The court determined that the defendants were not likely to prevail on the merits of their appeal for the same reasons that the court found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their case. While the defendants argued that hundreds or thousands of lives would be lost each month without a vaccine mandate in place, the court noted CMS's conclusion that the effectiveness of vaccines to prevent disease transmission by those who are vaccinated is currently unknown. The court therefore concluded that the defendants had not shown a likelihood of irreparable harm absent a stay. The court further concluded that facilities in the plaintiff states would likely face operational crises if a stay were granted. Lastly, the court reiterated its earlier finding that an injunction is in the public's interest. On December 13, the Eighth Circuit also denied the defendants' motion for a stay pending appeal.

On December 16, 2021, the defendants applied to the Supreme Court for a stay of the preliminary injunction pending appeal. On December 22, the defendants filed a consent motion to stay proceedings in the district court pending appeal, which the district court granted on the same day.

On January 13, 2022, the Supreme Court stayed the district court's injunction pending the defendants' appeal in the Eighth Circuit. 142 S. Ct. 647. In a per curiam opinion, the Court analyzed two preliminary injunctions against CMS's mandate: the injunction issued by the Eastern District of Missouri in this case and the injunction issued in Louisiana v. Becerra. See 2021 WL 5609846. First, the Court held that the mandate fell within the authorities that Congress conferred on HHS, including the ability to impose conditions on the receipt of Medicaid and Medicare funds if the department finds the conditions necessary in the interest of the health and safety of individuals receiving services through Medicare and Medicaid. The Court found that requiring providers to take steps to avoid transmitting COVID-19 was consistent with this statutory authorization. The Court noted the longstanding practice of HHS to condition Medicare and Medicaid funds on a host of conditions that address the safe and effective provision of healthcare, including conditions of participation that relate to the qualifications and duties of healthcare workers.

The Supreme Court also held that the mandate was not arbitrary and capricious. The Court stated that the plaintiff states had not shown that CMS had failed to examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its decisions to impose the vaccine mandate instead of a testing mandate; require vaccination of employees with natural immunity; and to depart from the agency's prior approach of encouraging, rather than mandating, vaccination. The Court also concluded that CMS had good cause to delay notice and comment, since it found that the promulgation of the rule in advance of the winter flu season would reduce COVID-19 infections, hospitalizations, and deaths. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion in the case, which was joined by Justices Alito, Gorsuch, and Barrett. Justice Alito also filed a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Barrett.

On February 23, 2022, the plaintiff states filed an amended complaint back in the district court and moved to lift the stay of the district court proceedings that had started on December 22, 2021. On March 23, 2022, the court struck the plaintiffs' amended complaint, since the time had passed to amend their complaint by right and since they had not received leave of court or the defendants' written consent to file the amended complaint. The court also denied the plaintiffs' motion to lift the stay, finding that such a move was not warranted since briefing on appeal in the Eighth Circuit had already concluded.

The case is ongoing.

Summary Authors

Nicholas Gillan (4/22/2022)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

4:21-cv-01329

Docket [PACER]

State of Missouri v. Biden

Dec. 2, 2021

Dec. 2, 2021

Docket
1

4:21-cv-01329

Complaint

State of Missouri v. Biden

Nov. 10, 2021

Nov. 10, 2021

Complaint
9

4:21-cv-01329

Plaintiff States' Memorandum in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction

State of Missouri v. Biden

Nov. 12, 2021

Nov. 12, 2021

Pleading / Motion / Brief
15

4:21-cv-01329

Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Expedite Briefing

State of Missouri v. Biden

Nov. 16, 2021

Nov. 16, 2021

Pleading / Motion / Brief
23

4:21-cv-01329

Defendants' Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction

State of Missouri v. Biden

Nov. 22, 2021

Nov. 22, 2021

Pleading / Motion / Brief
27

4:21-cv-01329

Plaintiff States' Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction

State of Missouri v. Biden

Nov. 23, 2021

Nov. 23, 2021

Pleading / Motion / Brief
28

4:21-cv-01329

Memorandum and Order

State of Missouri v. Biden

Nov. 29, 2021

Nov. 29, 2021

Order/Opinion
31

4:21-cv-01329

Defendants' Memorandum in Support of their Motion for a Stay Pending Appeal

State of Missouri v. Biden

Nov. 30, 2021

Nov. 30, 2021

Pleading / Motion / Brief
35

4:21-cv-01329

Memorandum and Order

State of Missouri v. Biden

Dec. 1, 2021

Dec. 1, 2021

Order/Opinion
40

4:21-cv-01329

Memorandum & Order

Dec. 22, 2021

Dec. 22, 2021

Order/Opinion

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/60864699/missouri-state-of-v-biden/

Last updated Sept. 2, 2022, 3:03 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1

COMPLAINT against defendant All Defendants with receipt number AMOEDC-8970485, in the amount of $402 Non-Jury Demand,, filed by Alaska, State of, Nebraska, State of, Missouri, State of, Wyoming, State of, Arkansas, State of, North Dakota, State of, South Dakota, State of, Kansas, State of, New Hampshire, State of, Iowa, State of. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Original Filing Form, # 3 Summons - Joseph R. Biden, Jr., # 4 Summons - USA, # 5 Summons - U.S. Departemnt of Health and Human Services, # 6 Summons - Xavier Becerra, # 7 Summons - Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, # 8 Summons - Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, # 9 Summons - Meena Seshamani, # 10 Summons - Daniel Tsai)(Osete, Jesus) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/10/2021: # 11 Summons AG, # 12 Summons AUSA) (BAK). (Entered: 11/10/2021)

1 Civil Cover Sheet

View on PACER

2 Original Filing Form

View on PACER

3 Summons - Joseph R. Biden, Jr.

View on PACER

4 Summons - USA

View on PACER

5 Summons - U.S. Departemnt of Health and Human Services

View on PACER

6 Summons - Xavier Becerra

View on PACER

7 Summons - Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services

View on PACER

8 Summons - Chiquita Brooks-LaSure

View on PACER

9 Summons - Meena Seshamani

View on PACER

10 Summons - Daniel Tsai

View on PACER

11 Summons AG

View on PACER

12 Summons AUSA

View on PACER

Nov. 10, 2021

Nov. 10, 2021

Clearinghouse
2

Pursuant to Local Rule 2.08, the assigned/referred magistrate judge is designated and authorized by the court to exercise full authority in this assigned/referred action or matter under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636 and 18 U.S.C Sec. 3401, including any case budgeting matters. (Potter, Jacob) (Entered: 11/10/2021)

Nov. 10, 2021

Nov. 10, 2021

PACER

Case Opening Notification. Judge Assigned: U.S. Magistrate Judge Shirley P. Mensah. 10 Summons(es) issued and emailed to attorney Jesus Armando Osete. All parties must file the Notice Regarding Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction Form consenting to or opting out of the Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. Click here for the instructions. (BAK)

Nov. 10, 2021

Nov. 10, 2021

PACER

Case Opening Notification

Nov. 10, 2021

Nov. 10, 2021

PACER

Case Assignment Local Rule 2.08

Nov. 11, 2021

Nov. 11, 2021

PACER
3

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE OF PROCESS by Plaintiff Missouri, State of. (Osete, Jesus) (Entered: 11/12/2021)

Nov. 12, 2021

Nov. 12, 2021

PACER
4

ENTRY of Appearance by Madison McMillian Green for Plaintiff Missouri, State of. (Green, Madison) (Entered: 11/12/2021)

Nov. 12, 2021

Nov. 12, 2021

PACER
5

CJRA ORDER (GJL). Magistrate Judge Shirley Padmore Mensah termed. Case reassigned to District Judge Matthew T. Schelp for all further proceedings. (JEB) (Entered: 11/12/2021)

Nov. 12, 2021

Nov. 12, 2021

RECAP
6

MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Plaintiffs Alaska, State of, Arkansas, State of, Iowa, State of, Kansas, State of, Missouri, State of, Nebraska, State of, New Hampshire, State of, North Dakota, State of, South Dakota, State of, Wyoming, State of. (Osete, Jesus) (Entered: 11/12/2021)

Nov. 12, 2021

Nov. 12, 2021

RECAP
7

MOTION to Expedite Briefing and Consideration of Motion for Preliminary Injunction by Plaintiffs Alaska, State of, Arkansas, State of, Iowa, State of, Kansas, State of, Missouri, State of, Nebraska, State of, New Hampshire, State of, North Dakota, State of, South Dakota, State of, Wyoming, State of. (Osete, Jesus) (Entered: 11/12/2021)

Nov. 12, 2021

Nov. 12, 2021

PACER
8

MOTION for Leave to Exceed the Page Limit for their Memorandum in Support of their Motion for Preliminary Injunction by Plaintiffs Alaska, State of, Arkansas, State of, Iowa, State of, Kansas, State of, Missouri, State of, Nebraska, State of, New Hampshire, State of, North Dakota, State of, South Dakota, State of, Wyoming, State of. (Osete, Jesus) (Entered: 11/12/2021)

Nov. 12, 2021

Nov. 12, 2021

PACER
9

MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion re 6 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Plaintiffs Alaska, State of, Arkansas, State of, Iowa, State of, Kansas, State of, Missouri, State of, Nebraska, State of, New Hampshire, State of, North Dakota, State of, South Dakota, State of, Wyoming, State of. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O, # 16 Exhibit P, # 17 Exhibit Q, # 18 Exhibit R, # 19 Exhibit S, # 20 Exhibit T, # 21 Exhibit U, # 22 Exhibit V, # 23 Exhibit W, # 24 Exhibit X, # 25 Exhibit Y, # 26 Exhibit Z, # 27 Exhibit AA, # 28 Exhibit BB, # 29 Exhibit CC, # 30 Exhibit DD)(Osete, Jesus) (Entered: 11/12/2021)

1 Exhibit A

View on PACER

2 Exhibit B

View on PACER

3 Exhibit C

View on PACER

4 Exhibit D

View on PACER

5 Exhibit E

View on PACER

6 Exhibit F

View on PACER

7 Exhibit G

View on PACER

8 Exhibit H

View on PACER

9 Exhibit I

View on PACER

10 Exhibit J

View on PACER

11 Exhibit K

View on PACER

12 Exhibit L

View on PACER

13 Exhibit M

View on PACER

14 Exhibit N

View on PACER

15 Exhibit O

View on PACER

16 Exhibit P

View on PACER

17 Exhibit Q

View on PACER

18 Exhibit R

View on PACER

19 Exhibit S

View on PACER

20 Exhibit T

View on PACER

21 Exhibit U

View on PACER

22 Exhibit V

View on PACER

23 Exhibit W

View on PACER

24 Exhibit X

View on PACER

25 Exhibit Y

View on PACER

26 Exhibit Z

View on PACER

27 Exhibit AA

View on PACER

28 Exhibit BB

View on PACER

29 Exhibit CC

View on PACER

30 Exhibit DD

View on PACER

Nov. 12, 2021

Nov. 12, 2021

Clearinghouse
10

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE OF PROCESS by Plaintiffs Alaska, State of, Arkansas, State of, Iowa, State of, Kansas, State of, Missouri, State of, Nebraska, State of, New Hampshire, State of, North Dakota, State of, South Dakota, State of, Wyoming, State of. (Osete, Jesus) (Entered: 11/15/2021)

Nov. 15, 2021

Nov. 15, 2021

PACER
11

ENTRY of Appearance by Samuel Paul Langholz for Plaintiff Iowa, State of. (Langholz, Samuel) (Entered: 11/15/2021)

Nov. 15, 2021

Nov. 15, 2021

PACER
12

ENTRY of Appearance by Kurtis K. Wiard for Plaintiff Kansas, State of. (Wiard, Kurtis) (Entered: 11/16/2021)

Nov. 16, 2021

Nov. 16, 2021

PACER
13

ENTRY of Appearance by Dean John Sauer for Plaintiffs Alaska, State of, Arkansas, State of, Iowa, State of, Kansas, State of, Missouri, State of, Nebraska, State of, New Hampshire, State of, North Dakota, State of, South Dakota, State of, Wyoming, State of. (Sauer, Dean) (Entered: 11/16/2021)

Nov. 16, 2021

Nov. 16, 2021

PACER
14

ENTRY of Appearance by Joel L. McElvain for Defendants Xavier Becerra, Joseph R. Biden, Jr, Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Meena Seshamani, Daniel Tsai, United States Department of Health and Human Services, United States of America. (McElvain, Joel) (Entered: 11/16/2021)

Nov. 16, 2021

Nov. 16, 2021

PACER
15

MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 7 MOTION to Expedite Briefing and Consideration of Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by Defendants Xavier Becerra, Joseph R. Biden, Jr, Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Meena Seshamani, Daniel Tsai, United States Department of Health and Human Services, United States of America. (McElvain, Joel) (Entered: 11/16/2021)

Nov. 16, 2021

Nov. 16, 2021

Clearinghouse
16

RESPONSE to Motion re 7 MOTION to Expedite Briefing and Consideration of Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by Plaintiffs Alaska, State of, Arkansas, State of, Iowa, State of, Kansas, State of, Missouri, State of, Nebraska, State of, New Hampshire, State of, North Dakota, State of, South Dakota, State of, Wyoming, State of. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Osete, Jesus) (Entered: 11/17/2021)

Nov. 17, 2021

Nov. 17, 2021

PACER
17

ENTRY of Appearance by James A. Campbell for Plaintiffs Alaska, State of, Arkansas, State of, Iowa, State of, Kansas, State of, Missouri, State of, Nebraska, State of, New Hampshire, State of, North Dakota, State of, South Dakota, State of, Wyoming, State of. (Campbell, James) (Entered: 11/17/2021)

Nov. 17, 2021

Nov. 17, 2021

PACER
18

ELECTRONIC MINUTE ENTRY (no pdf attached) for proceedings held before District Judge Matthew T. Schelp: Attorneys Only Scheduling Conference held on 11/17/2021 via Zoom. Scheduling Order to follow. (proceedings started: 12:00 PM) (proceedings ended: 12:15 PM) (Appearance for Plaintiff: Dean John Sauer, Jesus Osete, James Cambell)(Appearance for Defendant: Joel McElvain) (BRP) (Entered: 11/17/2021)

Nov. 17, 2021

Nov. 17, 2021

PACER
19

ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion to Expedite Briefing, Doc. 7, is GRANTED in part. Defendants shall file their response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction by 10:00 a.m. CST on Monday, November 22, 2021. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall file any reply by 5:00 p.m. CST on Tuesday, November 23, 2021. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Exceed Page Limit, Doc. 8, is GRANTED. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Defendants are given leave to file in excess of page limitation up to fifty-five pages for their response, and Plaintiffs are given leave to file in excess of page limitation up to twenty pages for their reply. (Response to Court due by 11/22/2021.) Signed by District Judge Matthew T. Schelp on 11/17/2021. (TMT) (Entered: 11/17/2021)

Nov. 17, 2021

Nov. 17, 2021

RECAP

Status Conference

Nov. 17, 2021

Nov. 17, 2021

PACER
20

Consent MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief by Interested Party Reliant Care Management Company, L.L.C.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A: Proposed Amicus Curiae Brief)(Kinser, Jason) (Entered: 11/21/2021)

1 Exhibit Exhibit A: Proposed Amicus Curiae Brief

View on PACER

Nov. 21, 2021

Nov. 21, 2021

PACER
21

ENTRY of Appearance by Michael Drezner for Defendants Xavier Becerra, Joseph R. Biden, Jr, Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Meena Seshamani, Daniel Tsai, United States Department of Health and Human Services, United States of America. (Drezner, Michael) (Entered: 11/21/2021)

Nov. 21, 2021

Nov. 21, 2021

PACER
22

ENTRY of Appearance by Julie Straus Harris for Defendants Xavier Becerra, Joseph R. Biden, Jr, Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Meena Seshamani, Daniel Tsai, United States Department of Health and Human Services, United States of America. (Straus Harris, Julie) (Entered: 11/22/2021)

Nov. 22, 2021

Nov. 22, 2021

PACER
23

RESPONSE in Opposition re 6 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Defendants Xavier Becerra, Joseph R. Biden, Jr, Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Meena Seshamani, Daniel Tsai, United States Department of Health and Human Services, United States of America. (McElvain, Joel) (Entered: 11/22/2021)

Nov. 22, 2021

Nov. 22, 2021

Clearinghouse
24

ENTRY of Appearance by Jonathan D Kossak for Defendants Xavier Becerra, Joseph R. Biden, Jr, Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Meena Seshamani, Daniel Tsai, United States Department of Health and Human Services, United States of America. (Kossak, Jonathan) (Entered: 11/22/2021)

Nov. 22, 2021

Nov. 22, 2021

PACER
25

Docket Text ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Leave To File Amicus Curiae Brief, filed by Reliant Care Management Company, Doc. 20, is GRANTED. Signed by District Judge Matthew T. Schelp on 11/23/2021. (TMT) (Entered: 11/23/2021)

Nov. 23, 2021

Nov. 23, 2021

PACER
26

BRIEF OF RELIANT CARE MANAGEMENT COMPANY, L.L.C. AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION by Interested Party Reliant Care Management Company, L.L.C. (TMT) (Entered: 11/23/2021)

Nov. 23, 2021

Nov. 23, 2021

PACER
27

REPLY to Response to Motion re 6 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Plaintiffs Alaska, State of, Arkansas, State of, Iowa, State of, Kansas, State of, Missouri, State of, Nebraska, State of, New Hampshire, State of, North Dakota, State of, South Dakota, State of, Wyoming, State of. (Osete, Jesus) (Entered: 11/23/2021)

Nov. 23, 2021

Nov. 23, 2021

Clearinghouse

A Docket Text Order

Nov. 23, 2021

Nov. 23, 2021

PACER
28

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: [SEE ORDER FOR COMPLETE DETAILS] For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Doc. 6, is GRANTED. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants are preliminarily enjoined from the implementation and enforcement of 86 Fed. Reg. 61,555 (Nov. 5, 2021), the Interim Final Rule with Comment Period entitled Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Omnibus COVID-19 Health Care Staff Vaccination, against any and all Medicare- and Medicaid-certified providers and suppliers within the States of Alaska, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming pending a trial on the merits of this action or until further order of this Court. Defendants shall immediately cease all implementation or enforcement of the Interim Final Rule with Comment Period as to any Medicare- and Medicaid-certified providers and suppliers within the States of Alaska, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no security bond shall be required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c). Signed by District Judge Matthew T. Schelp on 11/29/2021. (TMT) (Entered: 11/29/2021)

Nov. 29, 2021

Nov. 29, 2021

Clearinghouse
29

NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 28 Memorandum & Order,,,, by Defendants Xavier Becerra, Joseph R. Biden, Jr, Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Meena Seshamani, Daniel Tsai, United States Department of Health and Human Services, United States of America. (Entered: 11/30/2021)

Nov. 30, 2021

Nov. 30, 2021

RECAP
30

MOTION to Stay re 28 Memorandum & Order,,,, Motion for a Stay Pending Appeal by Defendants Xavier Becerra, Joseph R. Biden, Jr, Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Meena Seshamani, Daniel Tsai, United States Department of Health and Human Services, United States of America. (McElvain, Joel) (Entered: 11/30/2021)

Nov. 30, 2021

Nov. 30, 2021

RECAP
31

MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion re 30 MOTION to Stay re 28 Memorandum & Order,,,, Motion for a Stay Pending Appeal filed by Defendants Xavier Becerra, Joseph R. Biden, Jr, Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Meena Seshamani, Daniel Tsai, United States Department of Health and Human Services, United States of America. (McElvain, Joel) (Entered: 11/30/2021)

Nov. 30, 2021

Nov. 30, 2021

Clearinghouse
32

Initial Notification from USCA for 29 Notice of Appeal, filed by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, United States of America, Joseph R. Biden, Jr., Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, United States Department of Health and Human Services, Xavier Becerra, Meena Seshamani, Daniel Tsai USCA Appeal Number: 21-3725. (KCD) (Entered: 11/30/2021)

Nov. 30, 2021

Nov. 30, 2021

PACER
33

Briefing Schedule from USCA for 29 Notice of Appeal, filed by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, United States of America, Joseph R. Biden, Jr., Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, United States Department of Health and Human Services, Xavier Becerra, Meena Seshamani, Daniel Tsai USCA Appeal Number: 21-3725 (See attached document for all other deadlines.)(KCD) (Entered: 11/30/2021)

Nov. 30, 2021

Nov. 30, 2021

RECAP
34

NOTIFICATION OF APPEAL AND NOA SUPPLEMENT by clerk to USCA regarding 28 Memorandum & Order,,,,. Notice of Appeal filed on 11/30/2021 by Defendants Xavier Becerra, Joseph R. Biden, Jr, Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Meena Seshamani, Daniel Tsai, United States Department of Health and Human Services, United States of America. NOTIFICATION TO COUNSEL AND PRO SE PARTY: FILE REQUEST FOR TRANSCRIPT WITH DISTRICT COURT CLERKS OFFICE.(JKL) (Entered: 11/30/2021)

Nov. 30, 2021

Nov. 30, 2021

RECAP
35

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER : IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Stay Pending Appeal, doc. 30, is DENIED. Signed by District Judge Matthew T. Schelp on 12/01/2021. (KCD) (Entered: 12/01/2021)

Dec. 1, 2021

Dec. 1, 2021

Clearinghouse
36

ORDER of USCA as to 29 Notice of Appeal, filed by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, United States of America, Joseph R. Biden, Jr., Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, United States Department of Health and Human Services, Xavier Becerra, Meena Seshamani, Daniel Tsai USCA Appeal #: 21-3725 - Appellees are directed to provide an expedited response to Appellants' Emergency Motion for Stay Pending Appeal by Wednesday, December 8, 2021. (TMT) (Entered: 12/02/2021)

Dec. 2, 2021

Dec. 2, 2021

RECAP
37

ORDER of USCA : Appellants' Emergency Motion for Stay Pending Appeal is denied. Judge Kelly would grant the motion. USCA Appeal #: 21-3725 (KCD) (Entered: 12/13/2021)

Dec. 13, 2021

Dec. 13, 2021

RECAP
38

ORDER (REVISED) of USCA : Before LOKEN, BENTON and KELLY, Circuit Judges Appellants' Emergency Motion for Stay Pending Appeal is denied. Judge Kelly would grant the motion. USCA Appeal #: 21-3725 (KCD) (Entered: 12/13/2021)

Dec. 13, 2021

Dec. 13, 2021

RECAP
39

Consent MOTION to Stay Proceedings Pending Appeal by Defendants Xavier Becerra, Joseph R. Biden, Jr, Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Meena Seshamani, Daniel Tsai, United States Department of Health and Human Services, United States of America. (McElvain, Joel) (Entered: 12/22/2021)

Dec. 22, 2021

Dec. 22, 2021

RECAP
40

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Consent Motion to Stay Proceedings, Doc. 39, is GRANTED. Further proceedings in this Court shall be stayed in this case during the pendency of Defendants' appeal of the preliminary injunction order or until otherwise ordered by the Court. Signed by District Judge Matthew T. Schelp on 12/22/2021. (TMT) (Entered: 12/22/2021)

Dec. 22, 2021

Dec. 22, 2021

Clearinghouse
41

OPINION from Supreme Court re 29 Notice of Appeal, : USCA Appeal #: 21-3725. (KCD) (Entered: 01/13/2022)

Jan. 13, 2022

Jan. 13, 2022

Clearinghouse
42

[STRICKEN per Memorandum and Order # 51 ] AMENDED COMPLAINT against defendant Joseph R. Biden, Jr, Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Meena Seshamani, Daniel Tsai, United States Department of Health and Human Services, United States of America, filed by Alaska, State of, Nebraska, State of, Missouri, State of, Wyoming, State of, Arkansas, State of, North Dakota, State of, South Dakota, State of, Kansas, State of, New Hampshire, State of, Iowa, State of.(Osete, Jesus) Modified on 3/23/2022 (BRP). (Entered: 02/23/2022)

Feb. 23, 2022

Feb. 23, 2022

RECAP
43

MOTION to Lift Stay by Plaintiffs Alaska, State of, Arkansas, State of, Iowa, State of, Kansas, State of, Missouri, State of, Nebraska, State of, New Hampshire, State of, North Dakota, State of, South Dakota, State of, Wyoming, State of. (Osete, Jesus) (Entered: 02/23/2022)

Feb. 23, 2022

Feb. 23, 2022

RECAP
44

MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion re 43 MOTION to Lift Stay filed by Plaintiffs Alaska, State of, Arkansas, State of, Iowa, State of, Kansas, State of, Missouri, State of, Nebraska, State of, New Hampshire, State of, North Dakota, State of, South Dakota, State of, Wyoming, State of. (Osete, Jesus) (Entered: 02/23/2022)

Feb. 23, 2022

Feb. 23, 2022

RECAP
45

MOTION to Expedite Motion to Lift Stay by Plaintiffs Alaska, State of, Arkansas, State of, Iowa, State of, Kansas, State of, Missouri, State of, Nebraska, State of, New Hampshire, State of, North Dakota, State of, South Dakota, State of, Wyoming, State of. (Osete, Jesus) (Entered: 02/23/2022)

Feb. 23, 2022

Feb. 23, 2022

RECAP
46

ENTRY of Appearance by Dylan L. Jacobs for Plaintiff Arkansas, State of. (Jacobs, Dylan) (Entered: 02/24/2022)

Feb. 24, 2022

Feb. 24, 2022

PACER
47

MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 43 MOTION to Lift Stay filed by Defendants Xavier Becerra, Joseph R. Biden, Jr, Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Meena Seshamani, Daniel Tsai, United States Department of Health and Human Services, United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Karen Tritz)(McElvain, Joel) (Entered: 03/09/2022)

1 Affidavit Declaration of Karen Tritz

View on PACER

March 9, 2022

March 9, 2022

RECAP
48

Unopposed MOTION for Leave to Exceed the Page Limit by Defendants Xavier Becerra, Joseph R. Biden, Jr, Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Meena Seshamani, Daniel Tsai, United States Department of Health and Human Services, United States of America. (McElvain, Joel) (Entered: 03/09/2022)

March 9, 2022

March 9, 2022

RECAP
49

Docket Text ORDER: Re: 48 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to Exceed the Page Limit by Defendants Xavier Becerra, Joseph R. Biden, Jr, Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Meena Seshamani, Daniel Tsai, United States Department of Health and Human Services, United States of America. (McElvain, Joel) filed by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, United States of America, Joseph R. Biden, Jr., Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, United States Department of Health and Human Services, Xavier Becerra, Meena Seshamani, Daniel Tsai ; ORDERED: GRANTED. Signed by District Judge Matthew T. Schelp on March 10, 2022. (MCB) (Entered: 03/10/2022)

March 10, 2022

March 10, 2022

PACER

A Docket Text Order

March 10, 2022

March 10, 2022

PACER
50

REPLY to Response to Motion re 43 MOTION to Lift Stay Plaintiff States Reply Memorandum in Support of their Motion to Lift the Stay of the District Court Proceedings filed by Plaintiffs Alaska, State of, Arkansas, State of, Iowa, State of, Kansas, State of, Missouri, State of, Nebraska, State of, New Hampshire, State of, North Dakota, State of, South Dakota, State of, Wyoming, State of. (Osete, Jesus) (Entered: 03/21/2022)

March 21, 2022

March 21, 2022

RECAP
51

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion to Lift Stay, Doc. 43, is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion to Expedite, Doc. 45, is DENIED as moot. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to strike Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint, Doc. 42 . Signed by District Judge Matthew T. Schelp on March 23, 2022. (BRP) (Entered: 03/23/2022)

March 23, 2022

March 23, 2022

Clearinghouse
51

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion to Lift Stay, Doc. 43, is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion to Expedite, Doc. 45, is DENIED as moot. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to strike Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint, Doc. 42 . Signed by District Judge Matthew T. Schelp on March 23, 2022. (BRP) (Entered: 03/23/2022)

March 23, 2022

March 23, 2022

Clearinghouse
52

ORDER of USCA as to 29 Notice of Appeal, filed by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, United States of America, Joseph R. Biden, Jr., Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, United States Department of Health and Human Services, Xavier Becerra, Meena Seshamani, Daniel Tsai USCA Appeal #: 21-3725 - Before LOKEN, BENTON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges In November 2021, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the "Secretary") issued an interim final rule requiring that participating facilities ensure that their staff are vaccinated against COVID-19 to receive Medicare and Medicaid funding (unless exempt for medical or religious reasons). See 86 Fed. Reg. 61555 (2021). Many states challenged the rule. Two district courts, including the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, enjoined its enforcement. See Missouri v. Biden, No. 4:21-CV-01329-MTS, 2021 WL 5564501 (E.D. Mo. Nov. 29, 2021). The district court ruled that the states were likely to succeed on the merits of their claims that the Secretary lacked statutory authority to issue the rule. Id. The federal government filed an emergency motion in this court to stay the preliminary injunction pending appeal. This court denied the motion. The federal government petitioned the United States Supreme Court for a stay of the preliminary injunction pending further review by this court. The Supreme Court stayed the preliminary injunction pending the outcome of this appeal. Biden v. Missouri, 142 S. Ct. 647 (2022). Based on the Supreme Court's opinion, this court vacates the preliminary injunction and remands to the district court for a determination of the merits of the State of Missouris claim for permanent injunctive relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(2). (TMT) (Entered: 04/12/2022)

April 11, 2022

April 11, 2022

RECAP
53

USCA JUDGMENT as to 29 Notice of Appeal, filed by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, United States of America, Joseph R. Biden, Jr., Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, United States Department of Health and Human Services, Xavier Becerra, Meena Seshamani, Daniel Tsai. Before LOKEN, BENTON and KELLY, Circuit Judges. The preliminary injunction is vacated and the case is remanded to the district court in accordance with this courts order dated April 11, 2022. Mandate shall issue forthwith. This is a preliminary judgment and/or opinion of U.S. Court of Appeals; jurisdiction is not recovered until the Mandate is issued by the U.S Court of Appeals. (TMT) (Entered: 04/12/2022)

April 11, 2022

April 11, 2022

RECAP
54

MANDATE of USCA as to 29 Notice of Appeal, filed by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, United States of America, Joseph R. Biden, Jr., Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, United States Department of Health and Human Services, Xavier Becerra, Meena Seshamani, Daniel Tsai USCA #:21-3725 In accordance with the judgment and pursuant to the provisions of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 41(a), the formal mandate is hereby issued in the above-styled matter. (TMT) (Entered: 04/12/2022)

April 11, 2022

April 11, 2022

PACER
55

NOTICE Substitution of Counsel: by Interested Party Reliant Care Management Company, L.L.C. (Lillis, Stephen) (Entered: 04/19/2022)

April 19, 2022

April 19, 2022

PACER
56

Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer by Defendants Xavier Becerra, Joseph R. Biden, Jr, Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Meena Seshamani, Daniel Tsai, United States Department of Health and Human Services, United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McElvain, Joel) (Entered: 04/28/2022)

1 Text of Proposed Order

View on PACER

April 28, 2022

April 28, 2022

PACER
57

ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED, and Defendants shall answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint on or before June 1, 2022. Signed by District Judge Matthew T. Schelp on 4/29/2022. (TMT) (Entered: 04/29/2022)

April 29, 2022

April 29, 2022

RECAP
58

MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney ;attorney/firm Jesus A. Osete by Plaintiffs Alaska, State of, Arkansas, State of, Iowa, State of, Kansas, State of, Missouri, State of, Nebraska, State of, New Hampshire, State of, North Dakota, State of, South Dakota, State of, Wyoming, State of. (Osete, Jesus) (Entered: 05/05/2022)

May 5, 2022

May 5, 2022

RECAP
59

Docket Text ORDER Re: 58 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney ; attorney/firm Jesus A. Osete by Plaintiffs Alaska, State of, Arkansas, State of, Iowa, State of, Kansas, State of, Missouri, State of, Nebraska, State of, New Hampshire, State of, North Dakota, State of, South Dakota, State of, Wyoming, State of; ORDERED GRANTED Signed by District Judge Matthew T. Schelp on 05/06/2022. (KCD) (Entered: 05/06/2022)

May 6, 2022

May 6, 2022

PACER

~Util - Add and Terminate Attorneys AND A Docket Text Order

May 6, 2022

May 6, 2022

PACER
60

LETTER from USCA with letter/order from U.S. Supreme Court attached. USCA Appeal #: 21-3725 Supreme Court #: 21-1463. The petition for writ of certiorari has been filed.(TMT) (Entered: 05/20/2022)

May 20, 2022

May 20, 2022

PACER
61

Unopposed MOTION to Maintain the Stay of Proceedings by Defendants Xavier Becerra, Joseph R. Biden, Jr, Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Meena Seshamani, Daniel Tsai, United States Department of Health and Human Services, United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McElvain, Joel) Modified on 5/27/2022 (TMT). (Entered: 05/26/2022)

1 Text of Proposed Order

View on PACER

May 26, 2022

May 26, 2022

PACER
62

ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED, and this case is STAYED pending the disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari that the Plaintiffs have filed in this matter. Signed by District Judge Matthew T. Schelp on 5/27/2022. (TMT) (Entered: 05/27/2022)

May 27, 2022

May 27, 2022

PACER