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.
AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals v. Becerra (Nov. 8, 2023): Justice in Aging joined this amicus brief filed by AARP along with the Center for Medicare Advocacy and the Medicare Rights Center urging the federal court to reject claims filed by the pharmaceutical company, AstraZeneca, contending that the Medicare drug negation is unconstitutional. In August, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced the first 10 drugs that would be subject to negotiations with Medicare as part of the Inflation Reduction Act. This list included the drug Farxiga, a diabetes medication distributed by AstraZeneca.
Jimenez Perea v. DHCS (Aug. 3, 2023) Justice in Aging joined this amicus brief filed by the National Health Law Program along with Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County. Plaintiffs in this case claim that California’s low reimbursement rates in Medicaid lead to less access to care for low-income individuals in California compared to people enrolled in other forms of health insurance coverage. The subject of this amicus brief is on whether payments for Long Term Care (LTC) Medicaid can serve as a proper comparator to payments for Medicaid physician services in a case alleging discrimination in the program.
Logan v. Country Oaks (June 5, 2023) Justice in Aging filed this amicus brief in the Supreme Court of California in support of the ruling of the Second Appellate District and trial court that held that an agent’s authority to make “health care decisions” on a principal’s behalf does not include the authority to execute optional arbitration agreements. In this case, a nursing facility attempted to compel a resident’s nephew to enter into arbitration on the basis that the nephew executed the admission agreement as the resident’s health care agent. AARP, AARP Foundation, California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform, California Long-Term Care Ombudsman, and the National Consumer Voice for Quality Long-Term Care joined the amicus.
Braidwood v. Becerra (June 27, 2023) This amicus was filed in the United States Court Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The amicus asks the court to reverse the opinion of the District Court on the basis that the lower court’s holding that the US Preventive Services Task Force and the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices does not have the authority to recommend preventive services and vaccines would harm low-income people enrolled in the Medicaid program. Justice in Aging joined 16 national and state-based advocacy organizations in this amicus filing.
Biden v. Nebraska (January 11, 2023) This amicus was filed in the United States Supreme Court in support of the Biden Administration’s plan to offer student debt relief, which would help older adult borrowers. Justice in Aging joined this brief with more than 70 legal services and borrower advocacy organizations from across the country.
Health and Hospital Corp. v. Talevski (September 23, 2022) This amicus was filed in the United States Supreme Court on behalf of residents of nursing facilities to maintain their ability to enforce their rights under the Federal Nursing Home Reform Act and Section 1983. Justice in Aging joined this brief with AARP, AARP Foundation, California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform, Center for Medicare Advocacy, the Long-term Care Community Coalition, and the National Consumer Voice for Quality Long-Term Care.
Taking Offense v. State of California (July 22, 2022), Justice in Aging filed this amicus brief in the Supreme Court of California in support of the “pronoun provision” of California law that requires residents be treated with respect and dignity, which includes that nursing facility staff use a resident’s chosen pronouns.
Saldana v. Glenhaven Healthcare (May 4, 2021), Justice in Aging filed this amicus brief in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Relatives of Ricardo Saldana, a resident of Glenhaven Healthcare nursing home, sued after Saldena died from COVID-19. The nursing facility had tried to move the case from state to federal court in order to reduce or eliminate the facility’s responsibility. Justice in Aging’s amicus brief explains why federal nursing facility COVID guidance did not convert nursing facilities into federal agents.
Dorce v. City of New York (December 22, 2021) Justice in Aging, along with the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. and Mobilization for Justice, filed this amicus brief in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of older homeowners, primarily in communities of color, who are being stripped of their wealth and equity by a New York City tax program known as the Third Party Transfer Program.
Taking Offense v. State of California (September 13, 2021) Justice in Aging recently submitted a friend of the court letter to the California Supreme Court on behalf of itself and the California Commission on Aging, SAGE, California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform (CANHR), and Openhouse. The letter supports the State of California’s request that the California Supreme Court review the lower court’s July decision invalidating a law requiring long-term care facilities to use a transgender resident’s “preferred” name and pronouns.
United States of America v. Jose Luis Vaello-Madero (September 3, 2021) Justice in Aging, along with AARP, the National Organization of Social Security Claimants’ Representatives, and others, filed this amicus brief in the Supreme Court of the United States on behalf of older and disabled residents of Puerto Rico, who are currently excluded from the Supplementary Security Income (SSI) program simply because they live in Puerto Rico. Justice in Aging supported Mr. Vaello-Madero’s challenge based on the Equal Protection Clause and highlighted the significant unmet need for SSI benefits among older adults in Puerto Rico. The organizations were joined in the brief by the Law Offices of Barry A. Schultz and the Law Office of Pedro Cruz Sanchez.
Brown v. Azar (August 17, 2021) Justice in Aging filed this amicus in the Central District of California on behalf of older adults and people with disabilities residing in institutional settings who have lost access to critical oral health services due to cuts to Medicaid reimbursement rates and arduous pre-authorization requirements that California put in place in 2018. The American Dental Hygienists’ Association, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, LeadingAge California, LifeLong Medical Care, the National Health Law Program, and the Western Center on Law and Poverty joined the amicus.
Cochran v. Gresham et al. (February 25, 2021) This amicus was filed in the United States Supreme Court on behalf of older adults and people with disabilities and chronic conditions in Arkansas and New Hampshire who gained coverage under Medicaid expansion, but would be at risk of losing that coverage if the Supreme Court upheld the federal government’s approval of the respective state’s request to impose work requirements. Justice in Aging joined this brief with AARP, AARP Foundation, The National Academy Of Elder Law Attorneys, The Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund, The National Disability Rights Network, The American Heart Association, and The American Lung Association.
Amicus to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to Reconsider Case Concerning Immigration and Insurance Coverage (January 29, 2021) Justice in Aging joins Amicus to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider a case, Doe v. Trump, that would bar entry to immigrants unless they prove that they have “approved” health insurance or enough money to pay for their foreseeable health care costs.
State of New York, et. al. v. United States Department of Health and Human Services (September 17, 2020) This amicus argues that the rollback of the health care rights law illegally allows health entities to discriminate against older adults, people with disabilities, LEP individuals, and LGBTQ+ people, causing harm.
Fulton, et. al. v. City of Philadelphia, et. al. --Supreme Court of the United States (August 2, 2020) This amicus argues that religious exemptions would harm older adults and people with disabilities.
State of Washington v. US Department of Health and Human Services, et. al. – United States District Court, Western District of Washington (August 14, 2020) This amicus brief argues that the changes to the Affordable Care Act’s non-discrimination mandate, Section 1557, are arbitrary and capricious and would harm older adults, LGBTQ individuals, people with disabilities, and those with Limited English Proficiency.
Bellin et. al., v. Zucker, et. al. – United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (July 8, 2020) This amicus brief argues that the Medicaid Act and constitutional mandates are intended to ensure that Medicaid beneficiaries in managed care systems have robust and continuous due process rights to challenge denials of services.
California et. al. v Texas et.al. (May 13, 2020) This amicus brief, filed in the Supreme Court of the United States along with AARP and the Center for Medicare Advocacy supports several states urging the Supreme Court to reverse a Fifth Circuit ruling and uphold the constitutionality of the the Affordable Care Act.
Wisconsin Legislature v. Secretary-Designee Andrea Palm, Julie Willems Van Dijk, and Nicole Safar, in Their Official Capacities as Executives of Wisconsin Department of Health Services – Wisconsin Supreme Court (April 30, 2020) This amicus brief argues that re-opening cities and states too early against the advice of state public health officials would increase spread of the virus and overwhelm our health care system with a resurgence of COVID-19, with disproportionate and devastating effects on people with disabilities and older adults, who are far more likely to experience life-threatening consequences from the virus.
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.
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.
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 (Filed in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)
City and County Of San Francisco, et al., v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (Filed in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)
State of California, et al., v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (Filed in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)
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)
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)
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.
