ACP’s Advocacy in the Courts

Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, et al. v. Food and Drug Administration, et al.; Danco Laboratories, LLC (Filed: 4/11/2023)
This case involves mifepristone, one of two drugs currently used in the typical regiment for chemically inducing an abortion. In late 2022, a group of anti-abortion medical groups filed a lawsuit challenging the FDA’s original approval of mifepristone in 2000, alleging that the FDA gave in to political pressure and did not appropriately assess the safety of the drug in granting its approval. This brief will be filed on behalf of the FDA and the manufacturer of mifepristone in an appeal of a Texas judge’s ruling to suspend FDA approval of the drug.

ACP has extensive policy on access to reproductive health care and family planning services and opposing interference in the patient-physician relationship. In particular, ACP policy opposes restrictions to one’s right to access abortion services, including medication abortion. In this amicus brief, the interested parties argue that providers affirm the safety and effectiveness of mifepristone, that mifepristone is a standard treatment not only for abortion, but also for early pregnancy loss, and that the availability of mifepristone is essential to protect patient autonomy.

See additional relevant ACP advocacy in the Access to Care section.

Danco Laboratories, LLC., v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, et al. and Food and Drug Administration, et al., v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, et al. (Filed: 4/14/2023)
After a Texas judge issued a preliminary injunction to suspend FDA approval of Mifepristone, the drug’s manufacturer and the FDA applied for emergency relief in the Supreme Court to stay the injunction to suspend approval as the case moves through the courts. This brief was filed in the Supreme Court on behalf of the FDA and the manufacturer of mifepristone to stay the injunction to suspend FDA approval of the drug.

Planned Parenthood South Atlantic v. South Carolina (Filed: 9/16/2022)
This case challenges a South Carolina state law that prohibits an abortion after a fetal heartbeat is detected, with limited exceptions. ACP has extensive policy on women’s access to reproductive health care and family planning services and opposing interference in the patient-physician relationship. In this amicus brief, the interested parties argue that abortion is a safe, common, and essential component of health care and that the state’s prohibitions are lacking medical and scientific justification.

Further, this ban will harm pregnant patients’ health and well-being and would particularly negatively impact racial and ethnic minorities, rural, and low-income pregnant people. Additionally, the law would interfere in the patient-physician relationship by making medical professionals choose between violating the law or violating biomedical ethical principles of beneficence, non-maleficence, and autonomy.

See additional relevant ACP advocacy in the Access to Care section.

Planned Parenthood of Montana v. Montana (Filed: 3/28/2022)
This case challenges three different Montana state laws, including: 1) a prohibition on abortions after 20 weeks gestational age, with limited exceptions; 2) a requirement that medical professionals offer individuals obtaining an abortion to view ultrasound images and listen to fetal heartbeats prior to the abortion; and 3) a requirement that abortion inducing drugs be distributed by a qualified medical practitioner, with certain requirements and measures that the qualified medical practitioner must take in distributing the medication. Violations of these laws would be subject to criminal and/or civil penalties.

ACP has extensive policy on women’s access to reproductive health care and family planning services and opposing interference in the patient-physician relationship. In this amicus brief, the interested parties argue that the state’s alleged interests are unsupported by medical evidence, the restrictions undermine the patient-physician relationship, and that the restrictions impede access to reproductive health care services and disproportionately impact marginalized pregnant people.

See additional relevant ACP advocacy in the Access to Care section.

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (Filed: 9/20/2021)
This case challenges a 2018 Mississippi law that bans abortions beyond 15 weeks from gestation with limited exceptions for cases of medical emergency. Physicians violating this law would be subject to professional penalties, including revocation of their medical license. A U.S. District court struck down the law in 2018, and this decision was upheld by the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. In May 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the state of Mississippi’s cert petition and this amicus brief was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs, a Mississippi physician and clinic that provide abortion services.

ACP has extensive policy on women’s access to reproductive health care and family planning services and opposing interference in the patient-physician relationship. In this amicus brief, the interested parties argue that abortion is a safe and essential component of health care and that scientific evidence conclusively demonstrates that a fetus is not viable at fifteen weeks. Furthermore, it is argued that this law could have harmful impacts on pregnant patients’ physical and psychological health and would force physicians to make an impossible choice between upholding their ethical obligations and adhering to state law.

See additional relevant ACP advocacy in the Access to Care section.

Isaacson, et al., v. Brnovich, et al. (Filed: 12/27/2021)
This case challenges a 2021 Arizona law revising existing state statutes which would prohibit physicians from performing an abortion if they know that the mother’s reason for seeking is due to a non-lethal genetic abnormality of the fetus and redefine personhood to extend legal protections to a fetus regardless of gestational age, embryos, and fertilized eggs. The law was challenged and a district judge issued a partial preliminary injunction but allowed the personhood aspect of the law to remain intact as the case proceeds through the legal process.

This injunction was challenged by the state of Arizona and this brief was filed in the appeals court. ACP has extensive policy on women’s access to reproductive health care and family planning services and opposing interference in the patient-physician relationship. In this amicus brief, the interested parties argue that the law would criminalize routine medical procedures, limit access to necessary care, and infringe upon the integrity of the medical profession.

See additional relevant ACP advocacy in the Access to Care section.

Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, et al., v. Wilson, McMaster, Cook, et al. (Filed: 9/8/2021)
This case challenges a 2021 South Carolina law banning abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detectible and audible, typically around six weeks, with limited exceptions for medical emergencies. This brief was filed on behalf of plaintiffs in an appeal against a preliminary injunction preventing the implementation of the law.

ACP has extensive policy on women’s access to reproductive health care and family planning services and opposing interference in the patient-physician relationship. In this amicus brief, the interested parties argue that the law has no evidence-based health justification, will endanger women’s physical and psychological health, and will place physicians in an ethically compromised position.

See additional relevant ACP advocacy in the Access to Care section.

Planned Parenthood South Atlantic and Julie Edwards v. Thomas Clark Phillip, JR (Filed: 6/4/2021)
This case challenges a 2018 South Carolina executive order directing the Department of Health and Human Services to “deem abortion clinics…and any affiliated physicians or professional medical practices…enrolled in the Medicaid program as unqualified to provide family planning services. In 2020, a U.S. District judge issued a ruling which permanently enjoined the state’s restrictions, and this brief was filed on behalf of plaintiffs against South Carolina’s appeal of this ruling.

ACP has extensive policy on funding for women’s health clinics and women’s access to reproductive health care and family planning services. In this amicus brief, the interested parties argue that Medicaid and Planned Parenthood are integral to providing health care in South Carolina, the state has provided no medical reason for excluding Planned Parenthood from the state’s Medicaid program, and that this exclusion would be detrimental to public health in South Carolina.

See additional relevant ACP advocacy in the Access to Care section.

Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, et al., v. Kristi Noem, Alpha Center, et al. (Filed: 3/24/2022)
This case involves a 2011 South Dakota law instituting a 72-hour waiting period for individuals seeking an abortion beginning after a required in-person consultation. The law additionally required physicians to determine whether the individual was seeking an abortion out of coercion and to provide information to state-registered pregnancy help centers. While the 72-hour waiting period became law, the consultation requirement was enjoined by a temporary injunction. This brief was filed in a 2021 appeal of a ruling sustaining the temporary injunction.

ACP has extensive policy on women’s access to reproductive health care and family planning services and opposing interference in the patient-physician relationship. In this amicus brief, the interested parties argue that the consultation and waiting period requirements violate principles of informed consent, intrude on the patient-physician relationship, and will cause serious harms to patients.

See additional relevant ACP advocacy in the Access to Care section.

SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Justice Center, et al., v. Brian Kemp, et al. (Filed: 2/23/2021)
This case challenges a 2019 Georgia law which requires physicians to determine the presence of a heartbeat before performing an abortion procedure and prohibits the provision of an abortion if a heartbeat is detected, with exceptions for medically futile pregnancies and cases of incest or rape. The law also changes the state’s definition of a “natural person” to specifically include “any human being including an unborn child.”

This amicus brief was filed on behalf of plaintiffs, Georgia physicians and clinics providing abortion services, in a state appeal of a District Court ruling permanently blocking implementation of the law. ACP has extensive policy on women’s access to reproductive health care and family planning services and opposing interference in the patient-physician relationship. In this amicus brief, the interested parties argue that the state has unlawfully banned pre-viability abortion; and that the law would prohibit nearly all abortions in Georgia, endanger patients’ health, and impinge upon the integrity of the medical profession.

See additional relevant ACP advocacy in the Access to Care section.

The United States of America v. Texas, et al. (Filed: 10/11/21)
This case challenges a 2021 Texas law banning abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected with exceptions only for medical emergencies that endanger the pregnant person’s life. This law creates a private right of action that empowers private citizens, and not government officials, to sue any physician who provides a prohibited abortion, without having any connection to those involved with the abortion procedure.

It also goes beyond other similar bills in that individuals who assist one in obtaining a prohibited abortion are assigned liability as well. This brief was filed on behalf of plaintiffs in an appeal by Texas against a district judge’s preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the law. ACP has extensive policy on women’s access to reproductive health care and family planning services and opposing interference in the patient-physician relationship. In this amicus brief, the interested parties argue that the bill harms pregnant patients’ health by effectively banning abortion services and violates bedrock principles of medical ethics including respect for patient autonomy and beneficence and non-maleficence.

See additional relevant ACP advocacy in the Access to Care section.

T.D., et al., v. Drew H Wrigley, Attorney General for the State of North Dakota, et al. (Filed: 10/31/2023)
This case involves a North Dakota law prohibiting the provision of gender-affirming care for transgender adolescents in the state. Health professionals who violate the prohibition on gender-affirming surgery are guilty of a class B felony and subject to up to ten years in prison. This amicus brief was filed on behalf of three families who contend the law interferes with their ability to make health care decisions for their children, as well as a physician who cares for transgender adolescents. ACP’s overall policy on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender disparities supports policies that benefit the overall health and well-being of LGBTQ+ populations. In this amicus brief, the interested parties argue that gender dysphoria treatment guidelines were developed through a robust and transparent process and include medical interventions for some adolescents. They further argue that a ban on gender affirming care would irreparably harm many adolescents by denying them necessary medical treatment.

See additional relevant ACP advocacy in the Access to Care and Public Health Increasing Health Care Equity sections.

K.C., et al., v. Individual Members of the Medical Licensing Board of Indiana (Filed 9/27/2023)
This case involves an Indiana law under which physicians are prohibited from providing, aiding, or abetting gender-affirming surgery, hormone replacement therapy, puberty blockers, and gender-affirming mental health care and social services support to transgender patients under the age of 18. The law also creates a private right to action that allows an adolescent or their parent to pursue civil charges against a health provider, with an exception for cases in which the parent consented to the care. As a result of an ACLU lawsuit, a district court judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking the state from implementing most of the provisions of the law. This brief was filed on behalf of the preliminary injunction in an appeal by the Indiana Medical Licensing Board of Indiana.

ACP’s overall policy on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) disparities supports policies that benefit the overall health and well-being of the LGBTQ+ populations. In this amicus brief, the interested parties argue that gender dysphoria treatment guidelines were developed through a robust and transparent process and include medical interventions for some adolescents. They further argue that a ban on gender affirming care would irreparably harm many adolescents by denying them necessary medical treatment.

See additional relevant ACP advocacy in the Access to Care and Public Health Increasing Health Care Equity sections.

Lazaro Loe, et al., v. Texas, et al. (Filed 8/11/2023)
This case involves a Texas law that prohibits physicians from providing gender-affirming surgery, hormone replacement therapy, and puberty blockers to transgender patients under the age of 18. The law also prohibits state Medicaid and CHIP programs from covering these services and prohibits the distribution of public funds to individuals or institutions that provide or facilitate the provision of prohibited gender-affirming care for adolescents. This amicus brief was filed on behalf of five families in Texas who contend the law interferes with their ability to make health care decisions for their children.

ACP’s overall policy on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) disparities supports policies that benefit the overall health and well-being of the LGBTQ+ populations. In this amicus brief, the interested parties argue that gender dysphoria treatment guidelines were developed through a robust and transparent process and include medical interventions for some adolescents. They further argue that Texas’ ban is based on factually inaccurate information and would irreparably harm many adolescents by denying them necessary medical treatment.

See additional relevant ACP advocacy in the Access to Care and Public Health Increasing Health Care Equity sections.

L.W., et al., v. Jonathan Skrmetti, et al. (Filed 8/10/2023)
This case involves a Tennessee law banning gender affirming care for adolescents and implementing financial and licensure penalties for physicians who violate the law. The law was challenged on behalf of three families who contend that the law interferes with their ability to make health care decisions for their children, as well as a physician who cares for transgender adolescents. A preliminary injunction was issued blocking the state from enforcing its prohibition on hormone treatment, but on appeal, the district court’s preliminary injunction was stayed, allowing the law to go into effect as the case proceeds through the legal system. This brief was filed in support of a motion to appeal the stay.

ACP’s overall policy on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) disparities supports policies that benefit the overall health and well-being of the LGBTQ+ populations. In this amicus brief, the interested parties argue that gender dysphoria treatment guidelines were developed through a robust and transparent process and include medical interventions for some adolescents. They further argue that scientific evidence indicates the effectiveness of treating gender dysphoria according to these guidelines and that a ban on gender affirming care would irreparably harm many adolescents by denying them necessary medical treatment.

See additional relevant ACP advocacy in the Access to Care and Public Health Increasing Health Care Equity sections.

Pam Poe, et al., v. Raúl Labrador, et al. (Filed: 7/25/2023)
This case challenges an Idaho law that amends state code regarding genital mutilation of a child to prohibit physicians from providing gender-affirming surgery, puberty blockers, and other hormone therapy to transgender patients under the age of 18. While a general exception has historically been provided to permit medical interventions necessary for the health of a patient, this law amends the exception to exclude gender-affirming treatment for gender dysphoria. Medical professionals who are found to have violated this prohibition would face criminal penalties, including a felony charge carrying up to ten years in prison and a fine of up to $5,000.

ACP’s overall policy on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) disparities supports policies that benefit the overall health and well-being of the LGBTQ+ populations. In this amicus brief, the interested parties argue that gender dysphoria treatment guidelines were developed through a robust and transparent process and include medical interventions for some adolescents. They further argue that the Idaho legislature makes factually inaccurate claims to support the ban, a ban which would irreparably harm many adolescents by denying them necessary medical treatment.

See additional relevant ACP advocacy in the Access to Care and Public Health Increasing Health Care Equity sections.

Emma Koe, et al., v. Caylee Noggle, et al. (Filed: 7/3/2023)
This case challenges a Georgia law that prohibits physicians from providing gender-affirming surgery and hormone replacement therapy to transgender patients under the age of 18. Medical professionals who are found to have violated this prohibition face unspecified licensure penalties. ACP’s overall policy on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) disparities supports policies that benefit the overall health and well-being of the LGBTQ+ populations and calls on public and private payers to cover comprehensive transgender health services. In this amicus brief, the interested parties argue that gender dysphoria treatment guidelines were developed through a robust and transparent process and include medical interventions for some adolescents. They further argue that Georgia’s legislative findings are factually inaccurate, and a ban on this care would irreparably harm many adolescents by denying them necessary medical treatment.

See additional relevant ACP advocacy in the Access to Care and Public Health Increasing Health Care Equity sections.

Peter Poe, et al., v. Gentner Drummond, et al. (Filed: 6/9/2023)
This case challenges an Oklahoma law that prohibits physicians from providing gender-affirming surgery and hormone therapy to transgender patients under the age of 18. Medical professionals who are found to have violated this prohibition face the revocation of their medical license, as well as be subject to civil suits that could be brought by parents, guardians, and next friend of the impacted adolescent up until age 45.

ACP’s overall policy on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) disparities supports policies that benefit the overall health and well-being of the LGBTQ+ populations and calls on public and private payers to cover comprehensive transgender health services. In this amicus brief, the interested parties argue that gender dysphoria treatment guidelines were developed through a robust and transparent process and include medical interventions for some adolescents. They further argue that a ban on this care would irreparably harm many adolescents by denying them necessary medical treatment.

Peter Poe, et al., v. Gentner Drummond, et al. (Filed: 11/16/2023)
In October 2023, a district court judge denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction blocking implementation of the law which allowed the ban on gender-affirming surgery and hormone therapy to go into effect immediately. This brief was filed in support of the plaintiffs’ appeal of the district court’s decision.

See additional relevant ACP advocacy in the Access to Care and Public Health Increasing Health Care Equity sections.

Jane Doe, et al., v. Joseph A. Ladapo, et al. (Filed: 4/24/23)
This case challenges a November 2022 Florida Board of Medicine decision to adopt new standards of care that prohibit the provision of gender-affirming care—including puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and surgery—to transgender adolescents. ACP’s overall policy on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) disparities supports policies that benefit the overall health and well-being of the LGBTQ+ populations and calls on public and private payers to cover comprehensive transgender health services.

In this amicus brief, the interested parties argue that gender dysphoria treatment guidelines were developed through a robust and transparent process and include medical interventions for some adolescents. Further, the parties argue that the material supporting the Board’s healthcare ban is factually inaccurate and ignores the recommendations of the medical community.

Jane Doe, et al., v. Surgeon General, State of Florida, et al. (Filed: 10/13/2023)
On June 6, 2023, District Judge Robert Hinkle issued a preliminary injunction preventing the state from enforcing its ban on gender-affirming care while the case moves through the courts. The state of Florida appealed the preliminary injunction order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, which is where this updated brief was filed in support of affirming the preliminary injunction.

See additional relevant ACP advocacy in the Access to Care and Public Health Increasing Health Care Equity sections.

August Dekker, et al., v. Jason Weida, et al. (Filed: 4/28/23)
This case challenges a rule finalized by the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA), the state agency that administers Florida’s Medicaid program, that prohibits the coverage of certain types of gender-affirming care for transgender Medicaid beneficiaries. ACP’s overall policy on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) disparities supports policies that benefit the overall health and well-being of the LGBTQ+ populations and calls on public and private payers to cover comprehensive transgender health services.

In this amicus brief, the interested parties argue that widely accepted guidelines support the provision of gender-affirming care for treating individuals experiencing gender dysphoria, that these guidelines were developed under a rigorous and transparent process based on scientific evidence, and that prohibiting the coverage of gender-affirming care would cause irreparable harm to Medicaid recipients experiencing gender dysphoria in Florida. Further, the parties argue that the underlying “Generally Accepted Professional Medical Standards Determination on the Treatment of Gender Dysphoria” report issued by AHCA that the finalized rule is based upon is factually inaccurate and ignores the recommendations of the medical community.

See additional relevant ACP advocacy in the Access to Care and Public Health Increasing Health Care Equity sections.

Vasquez & Covington v. Iowa Department of Human Services (Filed: 6/23/22)
This case challenges a 2019 amendment to Iowa’s Civil Rights Act which would allow state and local governments to decline to cover “sex reassignment surgery” or “any other cosmetic reconstructive or plastic surgery procedure related to transsexualism, hermaphroditism, gender identity disorder, or body dysmorphic disorder." In November 2021, a district court ruled that the denial of gender affirming surgery violated the Iowa state constitution and ordered the Iowa Department of Human Services to cover such surgeries. The state appealed the district court’s ruling to the Iowa Supreme Court, which is where this brief was filed. ACP’s overall policy on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) disparities supports LGBT-inclusive policies that benefit the overall health and well-being of these populations and opposes legislation with discriminatory intent upon individuals based on gender identity.

ACP’s policy calls on public and private payers to cover/ comprehensive transgender health services, as well as opposes discrimination on the basis of gender identity. In this amicus brief, the interested parties argue that individuals with gender dysphoria living without gender affirming care may experience debilitating distress, depression, impairment of function, self-injurious behaviors, and suicide; and that treatments for gender dysphoria are medically necessary and may be urgent.

See additional relevant ACP advocacy in the Access to Care and Public Health Increasing Health Care Equity sections.

A.C. v. Metropolitan School District of Martinsville and Principal, John R. Martin Middle School (Filed: 8/2/2022)
This case involves a 13-year-old transgender student (A.C.) of John R. Martin Middle school who was not permitted to use the restroom aligned with his gender identity. This policy made the student feel singled out, resulting in anxiety, depression, and stigmatization. A.C. and his mother filed a lawsuit against the district and a district judge issued a preliminary injunction ordering the school district to allow A.C. to use facilities aligned with his gender identity. This brief was filed in support of A.C. in an appeal by the Metropolitan School District against the preliminary injunction.

ACP’s overall policy on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) disparities supports LGBT-inclusive policies that benefit the overall health and well-being of these populations. We believe the spirit of this policy extends to the issue of “bathroom bills” and the ability of transgender individuals, including youth, to have access to facilities that are in line with their gender identity. In this amicus brief, the interested parties argue that exclusionary policies such as this expose transgender individuals to harassment and abuse, exacerbate stigma and discrimination, harm social and emotional development, and are contrary to widely accepted, evidence-based treatment protocols.

See additional relevant ACP advocacy in the Public Health Increasing Health Care Equity section.

Jane Doe 1, et al., v. William C. Thornbury, Jr. et al. (Filed: 5/22/2022)
This case challenges Kentucky Senate Bill 150, which seeks to ban gender affirming care for minors. The bill was vetoed by the governor, but the legislature voted to override this veto. This brief was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs, several minors who are transgender, who argue that this ban violates their constitutional rights and, if it goes into effect, will cause serious harm.

ACP’s overall policy on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) disparities supports policies that benefit the overall health and well-being of the LGBTQ+ populations and calls on public and private payers to cover comprehensive transgender health services. In this amicus brief, the interested parties argue that gender dysphoria treatment guidelines were developed through a robust and transparent process and include medical interventions for some adolescents. They further argue that a ban on this care would irreparably harm many adolescents by denying them the treatment they need.

See additional relevant ACP advocacy in the Access to Care and Public Health Increasing Health Care Equity sections.

Students for Fair Admissions, Inc., v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc., v. University of North Carolina (UNC), et al. (Filed: 7/2022)
This case is a combination of two cases addressing affirmative action policies. This brief was filed in the Supreme Court in support of Harvard and UNC policies intended to foster educational diversity.

ACP policy supports measures that would improve diversity within the physician workforce and states that “institutions of higher education should appropriately consider a person’s race and ethnicity as one factor in determining admission in order to counter the impact of current discriminatory practices and the legacy of past discrimination practices and better reflect the current composition of the population.” In this amicus brief, interested parties argue that diversity is vital to health outcomes and in turn to the educational missions of the nation’s medical schools, and that limiting or precluding holistic review would result in a compounding loss of diversity and threaten patients' health.

See additional relevant ACP advocacy in the Racial Health Disparities section.

State of Ohio, et al., v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, et al. (Filed:1/20/2023)
This case involves a waiver granted to California by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that allows the state to adopt more stringent emissions standards than required by the Clean Air Act. Other states are also permitted to adopt California’s more stringent standards. This brief was filed on behalf of California against challenges from other states over the legality of the waiver.

ACP policy calls for a global effort to reduce human-caused greenhouse gas emissions and address the health impacts of climate change. ACP has supported California’s emissions waiver and the EPA’s nationwide emissions standards for new vehicles. In this amicus brief, the interested parties argue that the Advanced Clean Car program reduces criteria pollutants and greenhouse gases to facilitate California’s compliance with the Clean Air Act, as well as responds to the compelling and extraordinary conditions in California caused by air pollution and climate change which both have harmful impacts on public health.

See additional relevant ACP policy in the Public Health Climate Change section.

State of Texas, et al., v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, et al. (Filed: 3/3/2023)
This case involves greenhouse gas emission standards for passenger cars and light trucks finalized by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2021. This brief was filed on behalf of the EPA in a challenge of the new, more stringent, standards by several states and trade organizations who argue that the new standards exceed the EPA’s authority.

ACP policy calls for a global effort to reduce human-caused greenhouse gas emissions and address the health impacts of climate change. ACP has also stated support for the EPA’s nationwide emissions standards for new vehicles. In this amicus brief, the interested parties argue that the EPA’s Standards reduce vehicle emissions that harm public health, consistent with the Clean Air Act’s purpose of promoting public health.

See additional relevant ACP policy in the Public Health Climate Change section.

AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP & AstraZeneca AB, v. Xavier Becerra, U.S. Secretary of Health & Human Services, et al. (Filed: 11/8/2023)
The 2022 Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) includes a provision that allows HHS to negotiate the prices for a subset of prescription drugs for the first time in history. In August 2023, HHS announced the 10 drugs that would be included in the first round of negotiations, with prices effective in 2026. In this case, AstraZeneca, the manufacturer of the diabetes, heart failure, and chronic kidney disease treatment drug Farxiga, which was selected for negotiation, filed a lawsuit challenging CMS’ authority to negotiate prescription drug prices. AstraZeneca argues that the provisions of the IRA are a violation of the authorities granted to HHS by statute and that the process violates its 5th Amendment procedural due process rights, and is seeking to nullify any agreements around drug prices it enters with CMS under the IRA, and ultimately end the federal government’s ability to negotiate prescription drug prices for the Medicare program.

ACP policy calls for greater flexibility by Medicare and other publicly funded health programs to negotiate prescription drug prices and supports the adoption of Medicare Part D negotiation models that would drive down the price of prescription drugs for beneficiaries. In this amicus brief, the interested parties argue that America’s unsustainably high prescription drug pricing regime has substantial and escalating negative impacts on public health and patient outcomes. They further argue that this negotiation program is a vital first step in ensuring the health of Americans and sustaining the Medicare program.

See additional relevant ACP advocacy in the Access to Care section.

Bristol Myers Squibb Company, v. Xavier Becerra, U.S. Secretary of Health & Human Services, et al. (Filed: 10/23/2023)
The 2022 Inflation Reduction Act includes a provision that allows HHS to negotiate the prices for a subset of prescription drugs for the first time in history. In August 2023, HHS announced the 10 drugs that would be included in the first round of negotiations, with prices effective in 2026. In this case, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), the manufacturer of the blood clot prevention and treatment drug Eliquis, which was selected for negotiation, filed a lawsuit challenging CMS’ authority to negotiate prescription drug prices on the grounds that it violates the First and Fifth amendments. In its challenge, BMS is seeking to nullify any agreements around drug prices it enters with CMS under the IRA and ultimately end the federal government’s ability to negotiate prescription drug prices for the Medicare program.

ACP policy calls for greater flexibility by Medicare and other publicly funded health programs to negotiate prescription drug prices and supports the adoption of Medicare Part D negotiation models that would drive down the price of prescription drugs for beneficiaries. In this amicus brief, the interested parties argue that America’s unsustainably high prescription drug pricing regime has substantial and escalating negative impacts on public health and patient outcomes. They further argue that this negotiation program is a vital first step in ensuring the health of Americans and sustaining the Medicare program.

See additional relevant ACP advocacy in the Access to Care section.

Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., v. Xavier Becerra, U.S. Secretary of Health & Human Services, et al. (Filed: 10/23/2023)
The 2022 Inflation Reduction Act includes a provision that allows HHS to negotiate the prices for a subset of prescription drugs for the first time in history. In August 2023, HHS announced the 10 drugs that would be included in the first round of negotiations, with prices effective in 2026. In this case, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, the manufacturer of blood clot prevention and treatment drug Xarelto, which was selected for negotiation, filed a lawsuit challenging CMS’ authority to negotiate prescription drug prices on the grounds that it violates the First and Fifth amendments. In its challenge, Janssen is seeking to nullify any agreements around drug prices it enters with CMS under the IRA and ultimately end the federal government’s ability to negotiate prescription drug prices for the Medicare program.

ACP policy calls for greater flexibility by Medicare and other publicly funded health programs to negotiate prescription drug prices and supports the adoption of Medicare Part D negotiation models that would drive down the price of prescription drugs for beneficiaries. In this amicus brief, the interested parties argue that America’s unsustainably high prescription drug pricing regime has substantial and escalating negative impacts on public health and patient outcomes. They further argue that this negotiation program is a vital first step in ensuring the health of Americans and sustaining the Medicare program.

See additional relevant ACP advocacy in the Access to Care section.

Merck & Co., Inc., v. Xavier Becerra, U.S. Secretary of Health & Human Services, et al. (Filed: 9/18/2023)
The 2022 Inflation Reduction Act includes a provision that allows HHS to negotiate the prices for a subset of prescription drugs for the first time in history. In August 2023, HHS announced the 10 drugs that would be included in the first round of negotiations, with prices effective in 2026. In this case, Merck, the manufacturer of the diabetes drug Januvia, which was selected for negotiation, filed a lawsuit challenging HHS’ authority to negotiate prescription drug prices on the grounds that it violates the First and Fifth amendments.

ACP policy calls for greater flexibility by Medicare and other publicly funded health programs to negotiate prescription drug prices and supports the adoption of Medicare Part D negotiation models that would drive down the price of prescription drugs for beneficiaries. In this amicus brief, the interested parties argue that America’s unsustainably high prescription drug pricing regime has substantial and escalating negative impacts on public health and patient outcomes. They further argue that this negotiation program is a vital first step in ensuring the health of Americans and sustaining the Medicare program.

See additional relevant ACP advocacy in the Access to Care section.

State of Georgia, et al., v. The President of the United States, et al. (Filed: 12/14/2021)
This case involves a 2021 executive order directing all federal agencies, as well as covered federal contractors and subcontractors, to ensure that all federal contracts moving forward require compliance with and implementation of guidance published by the Safer Federal Workforce Task Force.

This task force issued guidance requiring employees of covered contractors to be vaccinated against COVID-19, which was challenged by several states. This brief was filed on behalf of the Biden Administration in an appeal of a preliminary injunction preventing the enforcement of the vaccine mandate nationwide. ACP has issued several policy positions and other statements supporting laws to promote the uptake of recommended vaccinations. In this amicus brief, the interested parties argue that COVID-19 poses a grave danger to the health of federal contractor employees and that vaccines provide a safe and effective way to reduce transmission and increase workplace safety.

See additional relevant ACP advocacy in the COVID-19 Advocacy section.

Commonwealth of Kentucky, et al., v. Joseph R. Biden, et al. (Filed: 12/14/2021)
This case involves a 2021 executive order directing all federal agencies, as well as covered federal contractors and subcontractors, to ensure that all federal contracts moving forward require compliance with and implementation of guidance published by the Safer Federal Workforce Task Force. This task force issued guidance requiring employees of covered contractors to be vaccinated against COVID-19, which was challenged by several states.

This brief was filed on behalf of the Biden Administration in an appeal of a preliminary injunction preventing the enforcement of the vaccine mandate in Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee. ACP has issued several policy positions and other statements supporting laws to promote the uptake of recommended vaccinations. In this amicus brief, the interested parties argue that COVID-19 poses a grave danger to the health of federal contractor employees and that vaccines provide a safe and effective way to reduce transmission and increase workplace safety.

See additional relevant ACP advocacy in the COVID-19 Advocacy section.

National Federation of Independent Businesses, et al., v. Department of Labor, Occupational safety and Health Administration, et al.; Ohio, et al., v. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, et al. (Filed: 2021)
This case involves a 2021 Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) rule that requires employers with 100 or more employees to ensure that each of their employees is vaccinated against COVID-19, as well as to provide paid-time off for employees to obtain a vaccination. An emergency stay was issued halting enforcement of the rule, which was challenged in over 34 lawsuits that were combined in this case. ACP has issued several policy positions and other statements supporting laws to promote the uptake of recommended vaccinations. In this amicus brief, the interested parties argue that COVID-19 poses a grave danger to the health of workers and that vaccines provide a safe and effective way to reduce transmission and increase workplace safety.

See additional relevant ACP advocacy in the COVID-19 Advocacy section.

State of Missouri, et al., v. Joseph R. Biden, Jr., et al. (Filed: 12/07/2021)
This case involves a Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) interim final rule requiring eligible workers in health care settings to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 with limited exceptions. A preliminary injunction was issued blocking enforcement of the rule in the 10 states that challenged it, and later, nationwide. This brief was filed on behalf of CMS in an appeal of the injunction. ACP has issued several policy positions and other statements supporting laws to promote the uptake of recommended vaccinations. In this amicus brief, the interested parties argue that COVID-19 poses a grave danger to the health of health care facility staff and patients and that vaccines provide a safe and effective way to reduce transmission and protect health care facility staff and patients from COVID-19.

See additional relevant ACP advocacy in the COVID-19 Advocacy section.

Jonathan Roberts, et al., v. Mary T. Bassett, et al. (Filed: 2/28/2022)
This case involves a notification issued by the New York Department of Health including a description of eligibility for oral antiviral COVID-19 treatment in which “Non-white race or Hispanic/Latino ethnicity should be considered a risk factor, as longstanding systemic health and social inequities have contributed to an increased risk of severe illness and death from COVID-19.” The notification was challenged but the case was dismissed, and this brief was filed on behalf of the New York Department of Health in an appeal against the decision.

ACP believes that policymakers should recognize and address how increases in the frequency and severity of public health crises, including large-scale infectious disease outbreaks, poor environmental health, and climate change, disproportionately contribute to health disparities for Black, Indigenous, Latinx, Asian American, Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander, and other vulnerable persons. In this amicus brief, the interested parties argue that minoritized populations are at heightened vulnerability to severe illness and death from COVID-19, which is tied to systemic racism and bias, and thus considering a person’s race or ethnicity in evaluating their risk of severe progression of COVID-19 is justified.

See additional relevant ACP advocacy in the COVID-19 Advocacy and Racial Health Disparities sections.

William A. Jacobson v. Mary T. Bassett (Filed: 2/23/2022)
This case involves a notification issued by the New York Department of Health (NYDOH) including a description of eligibility for oral antiviral COVID-19 treatment in which “Non-white race or Hispanic/Latino ethnicity should be considered a risk factor, as longstanding systemic health and social inequities have contributed to an increased risk of severe illness and death from COVID-19.” The notification was challenged by America First Legal, and this brief was filed on behalf of the NYDOH.

ACP believes that policymakers should recognize and address how increases in the frequency and severity of public health crises, including large-scale infectious disease outbreaks, poor environmental health, and climate change, disproportionately contribute to health disparities for Black, Indigenous, Latinx, Asian American, Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander, and other vulnerable persons. In this amicus brief, the interested parties argue that minoritized populations are at heightened vulnerability to severe illness and death from COVID-19, which is tied to systemic racism and bias, and thus considering a person’s race or ethnicity in evaluating their risk of severe progression of COVID-19 is justified.

See additional relevant ACP advocacy in the COVID-19 Advocacy and Racial Health Disparities sections.

Braidwood Management, Inc., et al., v. Xavier Becerra as Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al. (Filed: 6/27/2023)
This case involves a challenge to the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) preventative service coverage requirement on the grounds that it violates religious beliefs and the Appointments Clause because the advisory boards were not appointed by the President and approved by Congress. A district court judge struck down some of the preventative coverage requirements, but this decision was stayed in appeals court. This brief was filed on behalf of Secretary Becerra in defense of the preventative service coverage requirement.

ACP has several policy statements supporting coverage of preventive services without cost sharing, including support for all insurance plans to cover an evidence-based essential health benefit package. In this amicus brief, the interested parties argue that encouraging patients to obtain preventative care improves health outcomes and the overall functioning of the health system. Additionally, they argue that the ACA significantly expanded access to no-cost preventative care and affirming the judgement to strike down some of the preventative coverage requirements would imperil access to preventative care for millions of Americans.

See additional relevant ACP advocacy in the Access to Care section.