Health Care

Walker v. Azar

In Walker v. Azar, the District Court for the Eastern District of New York is considering whether a Trump Administration rule withdrawing certain nondiscrimination protections in health care from LGBTQ people is unlawful.

Case Summary

Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act prohibits discrimination in health care based on certain characteristics, including an individual’s sex.  In 2016, the Obama Administration finalized a rule interpreting that provision to prohibit most instances of discrimination in health care and insurance against individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity.  In June 2020, the Trump Administration published a new rule withdrawing those protections for LGBTQ individuals.  The Trump Administration’s rule is set to go into effect in August 2020.  Plaintiffs, two transgender women of color who have frequently avoided seeking urgently needed health care for fear of various forms of mistreatment and discrimination on account of their gender identity, filed a complaint in the District Court for the Eastern District of New York, and are seeking a preliminary injunction or stay of the rule pending review.

CAC and the House General Counsel’s Office filed an amicus curiae brief on behalf of the U.S. House of Representatives in support of Plaintiffs.  The brief argues that the Trump Administration’s rule violates the text of the Affordable Care Act and undermines Congress’s plan in passing it.  First, the brief explains that the Affordable Care Act was a response to critical failures in the American healthcare system that consistently left vulnerable Americans without access to quality, affordable insurance and care.  The Act’s many benefits and protections have been remarkably successful in expanding access to health care and eliminating such discrimination.

Second, the brief explains that the Trump Administration’s decision to remove certain nondiscrimination protections for LGBTQ individuals violates the text of the Affordable Care Act.  Specifically, Section 1557 of the Act prohibits discrimination in health care on the basis of sex, and the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Bostock v. Clayton County makes clear that a prohibition on discrimination on the basis of sex encompasses discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

Finally, the brief argues that the Administration’s rule undermines Congress’s plan in passing the Act.  Protecting LGBTQ people from health care discrimination is a critical part of expanding affordable, quality health care in the United States, and the Trump Administration’s attempt to undo those protections flies in the face of Congress’s plan to eliminate discrimination in health care.

Case Timeline

  • July 22, 2020

    CAC and House General Counsel’s Office file amicus curiae brief on behalf of US House of Representatives in the District Court for the Eastern District of New York

    E.D.N.Y. Amicus Br.
  • August 17, 2020

    The District Court for the Eastern District of New York grants plaintiffs’ application for a stay and preliminary injunction

More from Health Care

Health Care
May 30, 2024

Oklahoma to Ask Court to Unblock HHS Family Planning Money

Bloomberg Law
Oklahoma says HHS can’t require referral for illegal abortion Family planning grant loss expected to...
By: Miriam Becker-Cohen, Mary Anne Pazanowski
Health Care
 

Oklahoma v. United States Department of Health and Human Services

In Oklahoma v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit is considering whether Title X reproductive healthcare clinics in Oklahoma can defy the federal...
Health Care
April 24, 2024

RELEASE: Justices Grapple with Scope and Effect of Conflict Between EMTALA and Idaho’s Near-Total Abortion Ban

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Idaho v....
By: Miriam Becker-Cohen
Health Care
March 29, 2024

Amicus Briefs Filed in Support of EMTALA, The Federal Right to Emergency Care, Including Abortion, in Idaho v. United States and Moyle v. United States

National Women's Law Center
A broad coalition of amici filed 27 briefs to the U.S. Supreme Court in support...
Health Care
U.S. Supreme Court

Idaho v. United States

In Idaho v. United States, the Supreme Court is considering whether EMTALA, a federal law requiring hospitals to provide stabilizing treatment to patients experiencing medical emergencies, preempts Idaho’s near-total abortion ban in situations where abortion...
Health Care
March 22, 2024

Supreme Court to rule on FDA approval of abortion drug mifepristone

Fox News
Call it wishful thinking or strategic amnesia, but just two years removed from its controversial...
By: Brianne J. Gorod, Shannon Bream, Bill Mears