Immigration ruling

Download Immigration ruling

Post on 07-Dec-2014

560 views

Category:

Documents

0 download

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

 

TRANSCRIPT

<ul><li> 1. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISIONPLANNED PARENTHOOD OF INDIANA, INC., )MICHAEL KING M.D., CARLA CLEARY C.N.M, )LETITIA CLEMONS, and DEJIONA JACKSON, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Case No. 1:11-cv-630-TWP-TAB )COMMISSIONER OF THE INDIANA STATE )DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, DIRECTOR OF THE )INDIANA STATE BUDGET AGENCY, )COMMISSIONER OF THE INDIANA DEPARTMENT )OF ADMINISTRATION, SECRETARY OF THE )INDIANA FAMILY AND SOCIAL SERVICES )ADMINISTRATION, THE PROSECUTOR OF MARION )COUNTY, THE PROSECUTOR OF MONROE COUNTY,)THE PROSECUTOR OF TIPPECANOE COUNTY, )INDIANA GENERAL ASSEMBLY, and the )UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Defendants. ) ENTRY ON MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Following a vigorous and often contentious legislative debate, Governor Mitch Danielssigned House Enrolled Act 1210 (HEA 1210") into law on May 10, 2011. The new lawaccomplishes two objectives. First, HEA 1210 prohibits certain entities that perform abortionsfrom receiving any state funding for health services unrelated to abortion including for cervicalPAP smears, cancer screenings, sexually transmitted disease testing and notification, and familyplanning services (the defunding provision). This portion of the law codified at Ind. Code 5-22-17-5.5(b) through (d) went into effect immediately. Second, HEA 1210 modifies theinformed consent information that abortion providers must give patients prior to receiving 1 </li> <li> 2. abortion services (the informed consent provision). This portion of the law codified at Ind.Code 16-34-2-1.1(a)(1) goes into effect July 1, 2011. Within minutes of HEA 1210 being signed into law, Plaintiffs Planned Parenthood ofIndiana, Inc. (PPIN), Michael King, M.D., Carla Cleary, C.N.M., Letitia Clemons, andDejiona Jackson, (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed a lawsuit against the Commissioner of theIndiana State Department of Health, et al. (collectively, Commissioner), challenging thelegality of both the defunding provision and the informed consent provision. That same day, thisCourt heard oral arguments on Plaintiffs Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO),which related only to the defunding provision. The next day, on May 11, 2011, the Court deniedPlaintiffs Motion. In doing so, the Court cited the exacting standard required for a TRO, PPINslimited evidence supporting immediate and irreparable harm, and the fact that the Commissionerhad not yet had the opportunity to brief the relevant issues. Now, this matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Dkt.9). The parties have fully briefed the issues and the Court heard oral arguments on this matter onJune 6, 2011. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs Motion is GRANTED in part andDENIED in part. I. THE DEFUNDING PROVISIONA. Background The defunding provision of HEA 1210 generally prohibits Indiana agencies fromcontracting with or making grants to any entities that perform abortion services. It alsoimmediately canceled past state appropriations to pay for contracts with or grants made toentities that perform abortions. The defunding provision reads as follows: (b) An agency of the state may not: 2 </li> <li> 3. (1) enter into a contract with; or (2) make a grant to; any entity that performs abortions or maintains or operates a facility where abortions are performed that involves the expenditure of state funds or federal funds administered by the state. (c) Any appropriations by the state: (1) in a budget bill; (2) under IC 5-19-1-3.5; or (3) in any other law of the state; to pay for a contract with or grant made to any entity that performs abortions or maintains or operates a facility where abortions are performed is canceled, and the money appropriated is not available for payment of any contract with or grant made to the entity that performs abortions or maintains or operates a facility where abortions are performed. (d) For any contract with or grant made to an entity that performs abortions or maintains or operates a facility where abortions are performed covered under subsection (b), the budget agency shall make a determination that funds are not available, and the contract or the grant shall be terminated under section 5 of this chapter.Ind. Code 5-22-17-5.5. The defunding provision does not apply to hospitals licensed underInd. Code 16-21-2 or ambulatory surgical centers licensed under Ind. Code 16-21-2. Ind.Code 5-22-17-5.5(a). PPIN is an Indiana not-for-profit corporation that provides comprehensive reproductivehealthcare services throughout Indiana. With 28 health centers in Indiana, PPIN has providedapproximately 76,229 patients with health care services, including cervical smears, cancerscreening, sexually transmitted disease (STD) testing, self-examination instructions, and avariety of family planning and birth control options. Only a small percentage of PPINs servicesinvolve abortion. For abortion services, PPIN uses funds from private sources and takes steps toensure no commingling of private and taxpayer dollars. PPIN is audited annually by an 3 </li> <li> 4. independent auditing firm and routinely by the Indiana Family Health Council. To date, no audithas uncovered inappropriate commingling.1B. PPINs Enrollment in Medicaid Significant to this dispute, PPIN is a Medicaid provider. To that end, PPIN has executeda provider agreement (Provider Agreement) with the Indiana Family and Social ServicesAdministration (FSSA), which administers Indianas Medicaid program. Under the ProviderAgreement, PPIN provides Medicaid-approved services and is then reimbursed by federal andstate funds, paid through FSSA and the Indiana State Budget Agency. Reimbursable servicesinclude, among other things, the diagnosis and treatment of STDs, health education andcounseling, pregnancy testing and counseling, the provision of contraceptives, and cervicalsmears. In the past year, PPIN provided Medicaid services to more than 9,300 patients throughoutIndiana and, in turn, received $1,360,437.00 in funds as a Medicaid provider. Plaintiffs LetitiaClemons and Dejiona Jackson are two such Medicaid recipients who receive annualexaminations and other health services at their local PPIN health centers. Both wish to continueusing PPIN as their provider for various Medicaid-funded services, and PPIN remains acompetent provider of these services.C. PPINs Receipt of Other Federally Funded Grants PPIN also receives reimbursement for other services from funds originating from federal1 The Commissioner, however, contends that PPINs audited financial statements for 2009 and 2010 giverise to a reasonable inference that it commingles Medicaid reimbursements with other revenues itreceives. (Dkt. 28 at 1). In particular, the Commissioner alleges that Medicaid reimbursements help payfor total operational costs, such as management, personnel, facilities, equipment and other overhead.(Dkt. 28 at 2). 4 </li> <li> 5. grants and programs that pass through the State of Indiana in various ways. For instance, PPINhas entered into two contracts with the Indiana State Department of Health. The contracts,which total $150,000, are for Disease Intervention Services (DIS) and are designed to ensurethat individuals diagnosed with or exposed to STDs are provided notification and testing. PPINinvestigates and intervenes in approximately 3,500 STD infection cases each year. The funds forthe DIS grants are made through the federal Preventative Health Services Block Grant Program,42 U.S.C. 247c, et seq., and utilize entirely federal monies.D. The Effect of HEA 1210 on PPIN HEA 1210 will exact a devastating financial toll on PPIN and hinder its ability tocontinue serving patients general health needs. Despite a large influx of donations followingHEA 1210s passage and the Courts ruling denying Plaintiffs request for a TRO, the law hasalready affected PPIN in tangible ways. Specifically, PPIN has ceased performing servicesunder the DIS grant and has stopped taking new Medicaid patients. As of June 20, 2011, PPINstopped treating its Medicaid patients and has laid off two of its three STD specialists. PPINestimates that the new law will force it to close seven health centers and eliminate roughly 37employees. According to PPIN, thousands of patients have lost or will lose their healthcareprovider of choice. Additional facts are added below as needed. II. LEGAL STANDARD A preliminary injunction is an exercise of a very far-reaching power, never to beindulged in except in a case clearly demanding it. Roland Mach. Co. v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 749F.2d 380, 389 (7th Cir. 1984) (citation and internal quotations omitted). When a court ispresented with a request for preliminary injunction, it considers multiple factors. As the SeventhCircuit has recognized, a party seeking to obtain a preliminary injunction must demonstrate: (1) 5 </li> <li> 6. a likelihood of success on the merits, (2) a lack of an adequate remedy at law, and (3) afuture irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted. Reid L. v. Ill. State Bd. of Educ., 289F.3d 1009, 1021 (7th Cir. 2002). The court must then balance, on a sliding scale, the irreparableharm to the moving party with the harm an injunction would cause to the opposing party. SeeGirl Scouts of Manitou Council, Inc. v. Girl Scouts of U.S. of America, Inc., 549 F.3d 1079, 1086(7th Cir. 2008). The greater the likelihood of success, the less harm the moving party needs toshow to obtain an injunction, and vice versa. Id. Finally, the court must consider the interest ofand harm to nonparties that would result from a denial or grant of the injunction. See StorckUSA, L.P. v. Farley Candy Co., 14 F.3d 311, 314 (7th Cir. 1994). III. DISCUSSION OF DEFUNDING PROVISIONA. Likelihood of Success on the Merits Plaintiffs make four separate arguments challenging the legality of the defundingprovision. First, the law violates the freedom of choice provision of the Medicaid statute.Second, along similar lines, the defunding provision is preempted by federal law. Third, thedefunding provision violates the Contract Clause of the United States Constitution. Fourth, thedefunding provision imposes an unconstitutional condition on PPINs receipt of state andfederal funds. Given the nature of its ruling, the Court only needs to address Plaintiffsarguments relating to freedom of choice and preemption. Specifically, the Court finds thatPlaintiffs have established: (1) a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of their freedomof choice argument; and (2) a reasonable likelihood of success on their preemption argument asit relates to the DIS grants. 6 </li> <li> 7. B. Does the defunding provision violate federal law relating to Medicaid? This dispute can be distilled into a single question: Can the State of Indiana exclude PPINas a qualified Medicaid provider because PPIN performs abortion services that are unrelated toits Medicaid services? The Commissioner argues that Indiana is free to exclude PPIN as aMedicaid provider because states have the authority to determine what constitutes a qualifiedprovider. PPIN sharply disagrees, arguing that the defunding provision illegally limits aMedicaid recipients choice of providers. Before the Court reaches the merits of this verydifficult question, however, some background is instructive. 1. Background The Medicaid program, jointly funded by the states and federal government, pays formedical services to low-income persons pursuant to state plans approved by the Secretary of theDepartment of Health and Human Services (hereinafter, HHS). See 42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)-(b).As the Supreme Court has noted, Medicaid is a federal-state program that is designed toadvance cooperative federalism. Wisconsin Dept of Health &amp; Family Servs. v. Blumer, 534U.S. 473, 495 (2002). State participation in Medicaid is voluntary. But if a state opts to participate, and thusreceive federal assistance, it must conform its Medicaid program to federal law. See Blanchard v.Forrest, 71 F.3d 1163, 1166 (5th Cir. 1996). A state electing to participate in Medicaid mustsubmit a plan detailing how it will expend its funds. Community Health Center v. Wilson-Coker,311 F.3d 132, 134 (2d Cir. 2002); see also S.D. ex rel. Dickson v. Hood, 391 F.3d 581, 586 (5thCir. 2004) (a state must submit to the [federal government] and have approved a state plan formedical assistance . . . that contains a comprehensive statement describing the nature and scopeof the states Medicaid program.) (citations omitted). From there, the Secretary of HHS 7 </li> <li> 8. reviews each plan to ensure that it complies with a long list of federal statutory and regulatoryrequirements. See Wilson-Coker, 311 F.3d at 134; 42 C.F.R. 430.15(a). The Secretary ofHHS delegates power to review and approve plans...</li></ul>