Filed Date: Aug. 2, 2023
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case involved Section 234 of the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2021 (“2021 Appropriations Act”), which gave the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) the authority to provide in-vitro fertilization (“IVF”) services to veterans. The 2022 Appropriations Act was, in pertinent part, identical. Section 234 of the 2021 Appropriations Act authorized “fertility counseling and treatment using assisted reproductive technology to a covered veteran or the spouse of a covered veteran.” Under Section 234, “assisted reproductive technology” meant “benefits relating to reproductive assistance provided to a member of the Armed Forces who incurs a serious injury or illness on active duty . . . as described in the memorandum on the subject of Policy for Assisted Reproductive Services for the Benefit of Seriously or Severely Ill/Injured (Category II or III) Active Duty Service Members issued by the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs on April 3, 2012 [“2012 Memo”], and the guidance to implement such policy, including any limitations on the amount of such benefits available,” except that the time periods regarding embryo cryopreservation did not apply. One of the limitations referred to by Section 234, which was included in the 2012 Memo, was that benefits are “limited to permitting a qualified members to procreate with his or her lawful spouse, as defined in federal statu[t]e and regulation.”
VHA Directive 1334 implemented Section 234, defining VA’s “policy for ensuring access to in vitro fertilization (IVF) services for Veterans who are unable to procreate as a result of their service-connected condition.” The directive required that a veteran meet several criteria to be eligible for IVF services: (1) the veteran must have a service-connected condition that results in the inability to procreate without the use of fertility treatment; (2) the veteran must, if female, have an intact uterus and either be able to make eggs or have had their own eggs cryopreserved or, if male, be able to make sperm or have had his own sperm cryopreserved; and (3) the veteran and their spouse must be a cisgender opposite-sex legally married couple, or other legally married couple with opposite-sex gametes/reproductive organs. Under the 2021 and 2022 Appropriations Acts and VHA Directive 1334, cisgender same-sex spouses were barred from eligibility for IVF even if they met all other criteria to qualify for such services.
On August 2, 2023, the plaintiff, a decorated former veteran, filed this class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The plaintiff brought this suit on behalf of herself and all similarly situated persons against the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”). The plaintiff sought to represent a class of “all veterans who have been denied the opportunity to obtain IVF services by VA or who have been denied reimbursement for services from private providers by VA because the veteran is in a same-sex marriage.” Represented by the National Veterans Legal Services Program and private counsel, the plaintiff claimed the VA’s IVF policies were discriminatory against veterans in same-sex marriages and violated (1) the Equal Protection Clause under the Fifth Amendment, (2) the Due Process Clause under the Fifth Amendment, and (3) the nondiscrimination provision of the Affordable Care Act. The plaintiff sought declaratory and injunctive relief, enjoining the defendant permanently from enforcing eligibility requirements under VHA Directive 1334 and ceasing its policies denying access to IVF to veterans in same-sex marriages, as well as permanently enjoining the provisions of the 2021 and 2022 Appropriate Act and VHA Directive 1334. The plaintiff also sought compensatory damages and attorneys’ costs.
The case was assigned to District Judge Leo T. Sorokin and Magistrate Judge M. Page Kelley. As of April 10, 2024, this case remains ongoing.
Summary Authors
Tallulah Wick (4/3/2024)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67657512/parties/sheffield-v-us-department-of-veterans-affairs/
Sorokin, Leo Theodore (Massachusetts)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67657512/sheffield-v-us-department-of-veterans-affairs/
Last updated April 26, 2024, 6:52 a.m.
State / Territory: Massachusetts
Case Type(s):
Public Benefits/Government Services
Healthcare Access and Reproductive Issues
Key Dates
Filing Date: Aug. 2, 2023
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
A decorated former veteran on behalf of herself and "all veterans who have been denied the opportunity to obtain IVF services by VA or who have been denied reimbursement for services from private providers by VA because the veteran is in a same-sex marriage."
Plaintiff Type(s):
Non-profit NON-religious organization
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Pending
Defendants
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (Washington, D.C., - United States (national) -), Federal
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Ex Parte Young (Federal) or Bivens
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Substantive Due Process
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Issues
General/Misc.:
Parents (visitation, involvement)
Discrimination Area:
Discrimination Basis:
Affected Sex/Gender(s):
LGBTQ+:
Medical/Mental Health Care:
Medicare eligibility determination
Reproductive rights:
Reproductive health care (including birth control, abortion, and others)