Justice in Aging’s litigation related work includes acting as a “friend of the court” or amicus in cases that have the potential to significantly impact the lives of low-income older adults.
California, et al. v. Texas, et al. and United States House of Representatives v. Texas, et al. — United States Supreme Court (January 15, 2020)
This amicus brief urges the U.S. Supreme Court to expedite its review of this case in order not to prolong the uncertainty of the future of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Justice in Aging joined AARP and the Center for Medicare Advocacy in this amicus in support of the intervenor-defendant states and the U.S. House of Representatives who are appealing the Fifth Circuit’s ruling and defending the constitutionality of the ACA. The brief argues that the uncertainty caused by the Fifth Circuit’s decision to remand the case to the district court is harming older adults and that declaring the entire ACA unconstitutional will cause millions of older adults to lose health insurance coverage and vital consumer protections.
State of California et al. and Service Employees International Union Local 503 et al. v. Alex M. Azar (November 22, 2019)
This amicus was filed in the United States District Court Northern District of California, San Francisco Division in support of people with disabilities and care providers.
Lawsuits Challenging the Department of Homeland Security’s Final Rule on Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds (September 9 & 10, 2019)
Justice in Aging filed this amicus in multiple lawsuits in the Northern District of California, the Southern District of New York, and the Eastern District of Washington arguing that the Department of Homeland Security’s Final Rule on Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds specifically targets older adults, making it impossible for older immigrants to pass the public charge test and causing irreparable harm to older adults and their families. We filed these briefs with pro bono partner Proskauer Rose LLP, and were joined by amici American Society on Aging, Caring Across Generations, Jewish Family Service of Los Angeles, The National Asian Pacific Center on Aging, National Council on Aging, National Hispanic Council on Aging, MAZON: A Jewish Response to Hunger, and PHI.
- State of Washington, et al., v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security
- City and County Of San Francisco, et al., v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Service
- State of California, et al., v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security
- State of California, District of Columbia, State of Maine, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and State of Oregon v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Kevin McAleenan, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and Kenneth T. Cuccinelli (Filed in the Northern District of California)
- La Clinica De La Raza, California Primary Care Association, Maternal and Child Health Access, Farmworker Justice, Council on American Islamic Relations-California, African Communities Together, Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County, Central American Resource Center, and Korean Resource Center v. Donald J. Trump, United States Department of Homeland Security, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, Kevin McAleenan (Filed in the Northern District of California)
- City and County of San Francisco and County of Santa Clara v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, Kevin McAleenan, and Kenneth T. Cuccinelli (Filed in the Northern District of California)
- State of New York et. al. v. United States Department of Homeland Security et. al. (Filed in the Southern District of New York)
- Make the Road New York et. al. v. Ken Cuccinelli et. al. (Filed in the Southern District of New York)
- State of Washington, et al. v. United States Department of Homeland Security, et al. (Filed in the Eastern District of Washington)
Northport Health Services of Arkansas LLC, et al., v. United States Department of Health and Human Services et al. (11/1/2019) This amicus was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas Fayetteville Division in support of the federal regulation limiting pre-dispute arbitration in nursing facilities.
Ronnie Maurice Stewart et. al., v Azar (6/27/2019)
This amicus was filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on behalf of low-income Kentuckians whose Medicaid coverage is at risk due to Kentucky’s Medicaid waiver.
Samuel Philbrick et al. v. Azar (5/23/19)
This amicus was filed on behalf of New Hampshire Medicaid beneficiaries age 19-64 who gained coverage under the state’s Medicaid expansion, but now stand to lose that coverage because the federal government approved the state’s request to impose work reporting requirements. This brief was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia with Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund and the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys.
State of Texas, ET AL v. United States of America ET AL (Defendants-Appellants) State of California ET AL (intervenor Defendants-Appellants) (4/1/19)
This brief, filed in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, urges the court to reverse a December 2018 federal district judge’s decision ruling the entire Affordable Care Act (ACA) unconstitutional. Justice in Aging joined AARP and the Center for Medicare Advocacy in this amicus in support of appellant states. This amicus demonstrates how the Affordable Care Act’s protections and coverage expansions have improved the health and well-being of older adults.
Stewart, et al., v. Azar–United States District Court for the District of Columbia (1/24/19)
This was the second amicus brief filed by Justice in Aging in this case. The litigation challenges joint efforts by Kentucky and the federal government to establish work requirements for Medicaid coverage, and impose other limitations. The federal court disallowed the changes, but then the federal government reapproved the same work requirements and program limitations, but with slightly different justifications. The validity of changes is again before the court. The amicus brief points out, among other things, that persons from age 55 to 64 can have significant health needs, and that transportation to medical appointments can be critical for low-income persons. The amicus brief was filed in cooperation with AARP, AARP Foundation, the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys, and the Disability Rights and Education Fund.
Stewart, et al., v. Azar–United States District Court For the District of Columbia (4/6/18)
This amicus brief was filed with AARP, AARP Foundation, National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys and Disability Rights and Education Fund, with the assistance of Arnold and Porter. Amici filed in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgement. Kentucky received a waiver from the US Department of Health and Human Services allowing it to impose work requirements on certain Medicaid beneficiaries and other restrictions on covered services. Amici identified the harm these changes would cause to Kentuckians with chronic conditions and detailed the manner in which the waiver undermines the objectives of the Medicaid Act. The Court agreed, ordering that the waiver be withdrawn. The Court’s order cites the amicus brief as part of the support for the Court’s ruling.
Georgia State Conference of the NAACP, et al., v. City of Lagrange, Georgia–United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (3/6/18). This amicus brief was filed with the Southern Poverty Law Center. The City of La Grange’s linkage of court debt to access to the municipally owned utility service disproportionally harms low-income African Americans and acts as an end run around federal garnishment protections.
Monk v. Shulkin–United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (12/26/17)
This amicus brief was filed with the Impact Fund. Justice in Aging was invited by the Court to file an amicus brief regarding the value aggregate appeals and the potential for Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 (class actions) as a model for aggregate claims in the Veteran’s appeal context. The brief drew upon our experience with class action suits in the Social Security context.