State of Louisiana v. Becerra ( 2022 )

Case: 21-30734 Document: 00516354654 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/13/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
June 13, 2022
No. 21-30734
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
State of Louisiana; State of Montana; State of
Arizona; State of Alabama; State of Georgia; State of
Idaho; State of Indiana; State of Mississippi; State of
Oklahoma; State of South Carolina; State of Utah;
State of West Virginia; Commonwealth of Kentucky;
State of Ohio,
Plaintiffs—Appellees,
versus
Xavier Becerra, Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services; United States Department of Health and Human
Services; Chiquita Brooks-Lasure; Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services,
Defendants—Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC 3:21-CV-3970
Before Jolly, Elrod, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.
Case: 21-30734 Document: 00516354654 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/13/2022
No. 21-30734
Per Curiam:*
In November 2021, the Secretary of Health and Human Services
issued an interim final rule which required that, in order to receive Medicare
or Medicaid funding, participating facilities must ensure that their employees
are vaccinated against COVID-19. See 86 Fed. Reg. 61555 (2021). States
across the country sued to challenge the rule. A district court in Missouri
preliminarily enjoined enforcement of the rule as applied to the plaintiff–
states in that case. Missouri v. Biden, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2021 WL 5564501, at
*15 (E.D. Mo. Nov. 29, 2021). The next day, the district court in this case
did the same for every other state, effectively enjoining enforcement of the
rule nationwide. Louisiana v. Becerra, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2021 WL 5609846,
at *17 (W.D. La. Nov. 30, 2021). A panel of this court partially granted a stay
of that injunction as to the non-party states, but denied a stay as to the
fourteen plaintiff–states. Louisiana v. Becerra, 20 F.4th 260, 264 (5th Cir.
2021). The Supreme Court later stayed both injunctions in their entirety and
remanded the case back to this court. Biden v. Missouri, 142 S. Ct. 647, 654–
55 (2022).
Although this court had not responded to the Supreme Court’s
remand, Louisiana, joined by the remainder of the plaintiff–states, moved in
the district court for leave to amend its complaint. Because our court had
jurisdiction over the case, the district court denied that motion and issued an
indicative ruling noting that it would grant the motion for leave to
amend. Louisiana then moved in our court for a limited remand so the
district court could grant leave to amend the complaint and to allow those
new claims to be litigated in the district court. The motions panel denied that
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
2
Case: 21-30734 Document: 00516354654 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/13/2022
No. 21-30734
motion, allowing the merits panel to resolve the remand issue and the
propriety of the district court’s preliminary injunction.
We have jurisdiction to decide only whether the district court erred in
granting the earlier preliminary injunction that the Supreme Court has now
stayed and remanded. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). The parties now agree
that the preliminary injunction should be vacated. Accordingly, we
VACATE the district court’s preliminary injunction and REMAND this
case to the district court for further consideration in the light of the Supreme
Court opinion. In addition, we VACATE the motions panel’s order denying
the motion to remand as MOOT. Finally, we express no opinion on whether
the district court should grant or deny leave to amend the complaint or on
the propriety of Louisiana’s other claims.
VACATED and REMANDED.
3