Pennsylvania v. Trump

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania · Administrative Law

Administrative LawAPApreliminary injunctionstandingspecial solicitudeChevronRFRAACA

Facts

The ACA requires group health plans and health insurance issuers to provide women's preventive care, as specified in HRSA guidelines, and HRSA's guidelines include FDA-approved contraceptive methods and related counseling. In 2017 the agencies issued interim final rules that greatly expanded religious and moral exemptions and made the accommodation optional and notice-free; in 2018 they issued Final Rules that largely finalized those changes with only non-substantial technical revisions. Pennsylvania and New Jersey alleged that the Final Rules would cause more employers to stop providing contraceptive coverage, forcing more women to seek state-funded contraceptive services and increasing state costs. The States sought to enjoin the Final Rules under the APA and other theories.

Issue

Whether the States had standing and proper venue to challenge the 2018 Final Rules, and whether they were entitled to a preliminary injunction because the Final Rules were likely invalid under the APA. More specifically, the court considered whether the Final Rules were procedurally tainted by the unlawful interim final rules and whether the ACA or RFRA authorized the agencies to promulgate the broad religious and moral exemptions.

Rule

States challenging federal agency action under the APA may receive special solicitude in the standing analysis when they assert a procedural right and a quasi-sovereign interest. A final rule is likely procedurally invalid where agencies first adopt a substantive policy through procedurally defective interim final rules and later use post-promulgation notice and comment only on whether to finalize that policy, because post-promulgation procedures cannot substitute for pre-promulgation notice and comment. Under Chevron Step One, the ACA's command that covered plans and issuers shall provide preventive care as specified by HRSA delegates authority to define what preventive care is, not to create broad exemptions from who must provide it; RFRA does not justify agency-created blanket exemptions that exceed what courts have recognized RFRA requires.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

The Department of Community Health issues a final rule allowing a broad class of employers nationwide to stop including a federally required vaccine benefit in employee health plans. Illinois sues under the APA in federal court in Chicago, submitting declarations that more uninsured residents will predictably turn to Illinois-funded immunization clinics, increasing state expenditures.

Under the majority opinion's standing analysis, which is the strongest basis for Illinois's standing at the preliminary-injunction stage?

Explanation. The majority held that states may receive special solicitude when they assert a procedural right and a quasi-sovereign interest, but they still must satisfy injury, causation, and redressability. Direct likely fiscal burdens on state-funded health programs were sufficient injury in fact, and the state need not wait until a resident has already lost coverage. The APA challenge plus the state's quasi-sovereign and proprietary interests support standing here. (Derived from Pennsylvania v. Trump (n.d.).)