In this case, 19 states (led by Kansas but filed in North Dakota) challenge the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) May 2024 rule clarifying that recipients of deferred action under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program–like others with deferred action–are eligible to purchase health insurance through an Affordable Care Act (ACA) exchange. That rule went into effect on November 1, 2024. The States allege first, that the rule conflicts with the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) and the ACA; and second, that HHS failed to consider the states’ alleged interests or to explain its change in policy.
On August 30, 2024, and on the same day that they first served the federal government with notice of the lawsuit, the states filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, asking Judge Traynor to enjoin (block) the DACA ACA rule while this case proceeds to final judgment.
On September 20, 2024, three individual DACA recipients and CASA, a Maryland-based nonprofit membership organization, moved to intervene in the case as defendants so that they could join the federal government in defending the rule. The same day, they also filed a motion to transfer the case to Washington, D.C. The motions were not addressed until January 30, 2025, when Judge Traynor granted the first but denied the second.
Judge Traynor held a hearing on October 15, 2024, in Bismarck, North Dakota. During that hearing, he ordered the federal government to provide to North Dakota the names and addresses of the 130 DACA recipients residing in that state so that North Dakota could then calculate its “direct and indirect” costs to support its standing and the appropriateness of venue. Judge Traynor later denied the federal government’s motion to reconsider that decision. That information was then provided under a protective order limiting North Dakota’s ability to further share it. Based on that information North Dakota estimated a net cost to the State of $584.74 to provide driver’s licenses and identification cards to DACA recipients.
On December 9, 2024, Judge Traynor issued a decision granting the motion for a preliminary injunction, blocking the federal government “from enforcing the Final Rule against the 19 Plaintiff States.” Two days later, the federal government appealed that ruling and asked Judge Traynor to stay his injunction pending appeal, explaining that otherwise it “will require cancellation of approximately 2,700 enrollments.” Judge Traynor denied the motion to stay on December 18, 2024. On December 30, 2024, the states filed a motion for “clarification” of the part of the preliminary injunction order quoted earlier in this paragraph, essentially asking Judge Traynor to expand his injunction nationwide; on January 15, 2025, Judge Traynor issued a decision making clear that his injunction only applies to prohibit applying the rule to the 19 plaintiff states.
Also on January 15, 2025, 14 states (led by New Jersey) moved to intervene in the case as defendants so that they could also defend the challenged rule; that motion remains pending. Later in the day on January 15, Judge Traynor granted a joint motion by the states and the federal government to stay further proceedings in the district court until after the Eight Circuit resolves the pending appeal.
Technical Summary
The States allege that rule specifically conflicts with 8 U.S.C. § 1611 (which was part of PRWORA) and 42 U.S.C. § 18032(f)(3) (from the ACA).
The States allege that the rule injures them by encouraging DACAmented individuals to remain in their states (instead of returning to their countries of nationality), where they receive some state-funded or subsidized services. Two states (Idaho and Virginia) run their own exchanges, and they additionally claim that the rule injures them because making more people eligible for the ACA causes their exchanges to incur additional administrative costs.
The States filed in the Western Division of the District of North Dakota, where Judge Traynor is the only active district judge.
The First Amended Complaint adds Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky, and Texas as plaintiffs but is otherwise the same as the original complaint.
The putative intervenors’ motion to transfer seeks to transfer the case to the District Court for the District of Columbia on the grounds that North Dakota lacks standing, making the District of North Dakota an improper venue, but that transferring it would be more appropriate than dismissal because it would save the parties the time and expense of re-filing.
Latest Updates
- 01/30/2025
- 01/15/2025
Full Timeline and Documents
- 01/15/2025
- 12/18/2024
- 08/28/2024
- 08/08/2024
