Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca9-19-15979/USCOURTS-ca9-19-15979-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 899
Nature of Suit: Other Statutes - Administrative Procedure Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision
Cause of Action: 

---

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, by and

through Attorney General Xavier Becerra,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

 v.

ALEX M. AZAR II, in his Official

Capacity as Secretary of the U.S.

Department of Health & Human Services;

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH &

HUMAN SERVICES,

Defendants-Appellants.

Nos. 19-15974

D.C. No. 3:19-cv-01184-EMC

Northern District of California, 

San Francisco

ORDER

ESSENTIAL ACCESS HEALTH, INC.;

MELISSA MARSHALL, M.D.,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

 v.

ALEX M. AZAR II, Secretary of U.S.

Department of Health and Human

Services; UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES,

Defendants-Appellants.

Nos. 19-15979

D.C. No. 3:19-cv-01195-EMC

Northern District of California, 

San Francisco

FILED

JUL 11 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

Case: 19-15979, 07/11/2019, ID: 11360141, DktEntry: 82, Page 1 of 3
STATE OF OREGON; et al.,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

 v.

ALEX M. AZAR II; et al.,

Defendants-Appellants.

No. 19-35386

D.C. Nos. 6:19-cv-00317-MC

6:19-cv-00318-MC

District of Oregon, 

Eugene

STATE OF WASHINGTON; et al.,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

 v.

ALEX M. AZAR II, in his official capacity

as Secretary of the United States

Department of Health and Human

Services; et al.,

Defendants-Appellants.

Nos. 19-35394

D.C. Nos. 1:19-cv-03040-SAB

1:19-cv-03045-SAB

Eastern District of Washington, 

Yakima

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and LEAVY, WARDLAW, W. FLETCHER,

PAEZ, BYBEE, CALLAHAN, M. SMITH, JR., IKUTA, MILLER, AND LEE,

Circuit Judges.

Pending before the en banc court are several emergency motions for an

administrative stay of the three-judge panel order staying the district courts’

2

Case: 19-15979, 07/11/2019, ID: 11360141, DktEntry: 82, Page 2 of 3
preliminary injunction orders. See Oregon, et. al. v. Azar, No. 19-35386 (Dkt. nos.

59 and 66); Washington, et. al. v. Azar, No. 19-35394 (Dkt. nos. 35, 37, and 40). 

Pursuant to prior order of the Court upon granting reconsideration en banc,

the three-judge panel Order on Motions for Stay Pending Appeal in these cases

was ordered not be cited as precedent by or to any court of the Ninth Circuit. 

However, the order granting reconsideration en banc did not vacate the stay order

itself, so it remains in effect. Thus, the motions for administrative stay remain

pending and were not mooted by the grant of reconsideration en banc. 

After due consideration of the emergency motions, the motions for

administrative stay of the three-judge panel order are DENIED. The en banc court

will proceed expeditiously to rehear and reconsider the merits of the Appellants’

motions for stay of the district courts’ preliminary injunction orders pending

consideration of the appeals on the merits. Until further order of the Court, no

further briefing is required of the parties for the en banc court’s reconsideration of

the three-judge panel order. The briefing schedule established for the merits

appeal shall remain as originally ordered.

Chief Judge Thomas and Judges Wardlaw, W. Fletcher, and Paez would

grant the motions for administrative stay and therefore respectfully dissent from

this order.

3

Case: 19-15979, 07/11/2019, ID: 11360141, DktEntry: 82, Page 3 of 3