Friends of the Court: Amicus Briefs for Change

The Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation’s (CHLPI) advocacy efforts include amicus curiae work, which are legal briefs submitted to a court or agency on behalf of stakeholders other than the parties themselves.  We draft or join these briefs routinely both to support the legal and policy goals of the communities that we work for, as well as to support our colleagues and fellow advocates in the areas of health care access, anti-discrimination, and social determinants of health.  A representative sample of our amicus work is below. 

Civil Rights Protections in the Affordable Care Act

• T.S. v. Heart of CarDon (November 2021, Seventh Circuit, on appeal from the Southern District Court of Indiana): Arguing that categorical exclusions in health care coverage for people with autism undermine nondiscrimination protections in the Affordable Care Act.
• CVS v. Doe (October 2021, Supreme Court, on writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit): Arguing that mandatory mail order pharmacy programs present significant privacy, timeliness, and safety concerns for people living with HIV. 
• Kadel v. Folwell (October 2020, Fourth Circuit, on appeal from the Middle District of North Carolina at Greensboro): Arguing the need for state liability to uphold the Affordable Care Act’s civil rights protections.
• Trump v. Pennsylvania (April 2020, Supreme Court, on writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit): Arguing that expanded religious exemptions to the contraceptive guarantee set forth in 45 C.F.R. § 147.132 (2019) will cause significant harm to third parties, including people living with HIV, hepatitis C, and other medical conditions for whom contraceptives are an essential part of health care.
• Zubik v. Burwell (February 2016, Supreme Court, on writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the Third, Fifth, Tenth and District of Columbia Circuits): Arguing the importance of the mandated preventive care package, including contraception services, established under the Affordable Care Act.

Behavioral and Mental Health

• Wit v. United Behavioral Health (May 2021, Ninth Circuit, on appeal from this Northern District of California): Arguing that United Behavioral Health Applied overly restrictive medical necessity guidelines, contrary to standards of care, to deny needed behavioral health care to its beneficiaries.

Transgender Rights

• Tara Kulwicki v. Aetna Life Insurance Company (August 2023, Proposed, United States District Court for the District of Connecticut): Arguing that health care consumers should be able to challenge discrimination that originates with third-party administrator plan design. CHLPI also filed a Motion for Leave to file the Amicus Brief.
• Shorter v. United States of America (November 2020, Third Circuit, on appeal from the District of New Jersey): Arguing that prison officials must have known the increased risk of sexual assault faced by an incarcerated transgender individual.
• Declaratory Ruling on October 31, 2019 Petition Regarding Health Insurers’ Categorization of Certain Gender Confirming Surgeries as Cosmetic (February 2020, State of Connecticut Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities): Arguing the medical necessity of gender affirming care.
• R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (July 2019, Supreme Court, on writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit): Arguing that Aimee Stephens, fired from her job for being transgender, suffered employment discrimination “because of… sex,” under the plain terms of Title VII

Access to Lifesaving Hepatitis C Treatment

• Vanwagner v. C. Faulks (August 2020, Fifth Circuit, on appeal from the Northern District of Mississippi): Arguing that categorical denial of treatment to prisoners with chronic hepatitis C on the basis of an institutional policy violates the Eighth Amendment.
• Woodcock v. Correct Care Solutions (April 2020, Sixth Circuit, on appeal from the Eastern District of Kentucky): Arguing that categorical denial of treatment to prisoners with chronic hepatitis C on the basis of an institutional policy violates the Eighth Amendment.
• Mann v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Corrections (January 2020, Sixth Circuit, on appeal from the Southern District of Ohio): Arguing that categorical denial of treatment to prisoners with chronic hepatitis C on the basis of an institutional policy violates the Eighth Amendment.

Enforcing the Affordable Care Act

• Gobeille v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (September 2015, Supreme Court, on writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the Second Court): Arguing that ERISA does not preempt state laws requiring all in-state health payers, including self-funded insurance plans, to report claims and health care services data to the State in order to create an APCD.
• King v. Burwell (January 2015, Supreme Court, on writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit): Arguing that it makes eminent sense that Congress, Under the Affordable Care Act, aimed to permit the use of federal subsidies even in states that decline to establish state marketplace exchanges.