January 2, 2024, opinions

Posted on by tadbartlett

Designated for publication

  • Texas v. Becerra, 23-10246, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • Engelhardt, J. (Southwick, Engelhardt, Wilson), abortion, administrative law, standing, preemption
    • Affirming district court’s permanent injunction against Guidance letter issued by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”), the agency of the Department of Health and Human Services charged with administering the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1986, which Guidance provided that, post-Dobbs, a state trigger laws outlawing abortion or failing to provide health exceptions in line with EMTALA would be preempted by EMTALA, and that a provider would be in violation of EMTALA for failing to provide an abortion in the case of an “emergency medical condition,” including “ectopic pregnancy, complications of pregnancy loss, or emergent hypertensive disorders, such as preeclampsia with severe features.”
    • The Court first held that the CMS Guidance was a final agency action capable of judicial review under the APA because mandatory legal consequences flow from the provisions of the Guidance, and that the Guidance was not a mere restatement of existing provisions.
    • The Court held that the Guidance went beyond the scope of the statutory provisions in EMTALA by mandating a specific procedure, abortion, as a “stabilizing treatment” under the statute. “EMTALA does not specify stabilizing treatments in general, except one: delivery of the unborn child and the placenta. 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd(e)(3)(A). The inclusion of one stabilizing treatment indicates the others are not mandated. … EMTALA does not mandate any specific type of medical treatment, let alone abortion.”
    • The Court held that the Guidance did not preempt state abortion restrictions, specifically Texas’s HLPA, finding that “Texas law does not stand in the way of providing stabilizing treatment for a pregnant woman or the unborn child.” Because EMTALA was amended in 1989 to specifically reference the health and stabilization of “the woman or her unborn child,” the Court held that “[t]he text speaks for itself[.] … EMTALA leaves the balancing of stabilization to doctors, who must comply with state law. Id. § 1395dd(e)(1), (e)(3)(A). We agree with the district court that EMTALA does not provide an unqualified right for the pregnant mother to abort her child especially when EMTALA imposes equal stabilization obligations.”
    • The Court then held that, under the Medicare Act (even if not under the APA), the Guidance was required to undergo notice-and-comment rulemaking.
    • The Court further held that the injunction language was not overbroad.

Unpublished

  • U.S. v. Alexander, 22-30643, appeal from E.D. La.
    • per curiam (King, Haynes, Graves), criminal, guilty plea, sentencing
    • Affirming conviction of conspiring to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute one kilogram or more of heroin, based on factual basis involving fentanyl distribution; and affirming 262-month sentence.
  • Guillen-Perez v. Garland, 22-60108, petition for review of BIA order
    • per curiam (Jones, Haynes, Oldham), immigration
    • On remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, again denying Mexican citizen’s petition for review of BIA order affirming IJ’s denial of cancellation of removal or, alternatively, motion for voluntary departure.
  • U.S. v. Murray, 23-10234, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Willett, Duncan, Wilson), criminal, guilty plea
    • Affirming guilty plea conviction of possession of a firearm by a felon.
  • U.S. v. Fontnett, 23-30320, appeal from W.D. La.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Stewart, Douglas), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming 151-month sentence on conviction of possession with the intent to distribute cocaine.
  • U.S. v. Hernandez-Torres, 23-40319, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Higginbotham, Stewart, Southwick), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Aguilar-Martinez, 23-50450, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Davis, Haynes, Ho), criminal, compassionate release
    • Affirming denial of motion for compassionate release.