Health Care

Whitman-Walker Clinic v. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services

In Whitman-Walker v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the District Court for the District of Columbia 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, a coalition of healthcare providers and LGBTQ rights organizations, filed a complaint in the District Court for the District of Columbia, 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 15, 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 District of Columbia

    D.D.C. Amicus Br.
  • September 2, 2020

    The District Court for the District of Columbia grants a partial preliminary injunction

More from Health Care

Health Care
July 15, 2024

RELEASE: Rejecting Oklahoma’s Attempt to Distort and Weaponize the Spending Clause Against Reproductive Rights, Tenth Circuit Affirms Federal Government’s Authority to Require Non-Directive Counseling and Referral for Abortion Under Title X.

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision from the Tenth Circuit in Oklahoma v. United States...
By: Miriam Becker-Cohen
Health Care
June 27, 2024

RELEASE: Supreme Court’s Decision in EMTALA Cases Is “Too Little, Too Late”

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in Moyle v. United States...
By: Miriam Becker-Cohen
Health Care
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

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 considered whether Title X reproductive healthcare clinics in Oklahoma can defy the federal requirement...
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
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Idaho v. United States

In Idaho v. United States, the Ninth Circuit 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
September 13, 2022

RELEASE: Text and History Support President Biden’s COVID-19 Federal Employee Vaccine Policy

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument this morning in the U.S. Court of Appeals for...
By: Smita Ghosh