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 is scheduled to go 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. Both motions remain pending.
The states’ request for a preliminary injunction will be fully briefed on October 9, 2024, and the motion to intervene will be fully briefed two days later. Judge Traynor will hold a hearing on at least the motion for preliminary injunction at 2:30 PM on October 15, 2024, in Bismarck, North Dakota.
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 (Idahol 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
- 08/28/2024
- 08/08/2024
