Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21a240_d18e.pdf
Page Number: 4

4 

BIDEN v. MISSOURI 

Per Curiam 

medically necessary care,” creating a further “ris[k] to pa-
tient health and safety.”  Id., at 61588.  He further noted 
that staffing shortages caused by COVID–19-related expo-
sures or illness has disrupted patient care.  Id., at 61559. 

The Secretary issued the rule as an interim final rule, 
rather than through the typical notice-and-comment proce-
dures, after finding “good cause” that it should be made ef-
fective  immediately.  Id.,  at  61583–61586;  see  5  U. S. C. 
§553(b)(B).  That good cause was, in short, the Secretary’s
belief  that  any  “further  delay”  would  endanger  patient 
health and safety given the spread of the Delta variant and 
the upcoming winter season.  86 Fed. Reg. 61583–61586. 

C 
Shortly  after  the  interim  rule’s  announcement,  two 
groups  of  States—one  led  by  Louisiana  and  one  by  Mis-
souri—filed  separate  actions  challenging  the  rule.  The 
U. S. District Courts for the Western District of Louisiana 
and the Eastern District of Missouri each found the rule de-
fective and entered preliminary injunctions against its en-
forcement.  Louisiana v. Becerra, 2021 WL 5609846 (Nov. 
30,  2021);  Missouri  v.  Biden,  2021  WL  5564501  (Nov.  29, 
2021).  In each case, the Government moved for a stay of
the injunction from the relevant Court of Appeals.  In Lou-
isiana, the Fifth Circuit denied the Government’s motion. 
20 F. 4th 260 (2021).  In Missouri, the Eighth Circuit did so
as  well.  See  Order  in  No.  21–3725  (Dec.  13,  2021).  The 
Government filed applications asking us to stay both Dis-
trict  Courts’  preliminary  injunctions,  and  we  heard  expe-
dited argument on its requests. 

II 
A 
First, we agree with the Government that the Secretary’s
rule  falls  within  the  authorities  that  Congress  has  con-
ferred upon him.