Justice in Aging’s litigation related work includes acting as a “friend of the court” or amicus in cases that have the potential to singificantly impact the lives of low-income older adults.
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.