Case Name: 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. 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. State of Oregon; State of New York; State of Colorado; State of Connecticut; State of Delaware; District of Columbia; State of Hawaii; State of Illinois; State of Maryland; Commonwealth of Massachusetts; State of Michigan; State of Minnesota; State of Nevada; State of New Jersey; State of New Mexico; State of North Carolina; Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; State of Rhode Island; State of Vermont; Commonwealth of Virginia; State of Wisconsin; American Medical Association; Oregon Medical Association ; Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc.; Planned Parenthood of Southwestern Oregon; Planned Parenthood Columbia Willamette ; Thomas N. Ewing, M.D.; Michele P. Megregian, C.N.M., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Alex M. Azar II; United States Department of Health and Human Services; Diane Foley; Office of Population Affairs, Defendants-Appellants. State of Washington; National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association; Feminist Women's Health Center; Deborah Oyer, M.D.; Teresa Gall, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Alex M. Azar II, in his official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services; United States Department of Health and Human Services; Diane Foley, MD, in her official capacity as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Population Affairs; Office of Population Affairs, Defendants-Appellants.
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2019-07-11
Citations: 928 F.3d 1153
Docket Number: Nos. 19-15974; Nos. 19-15979; No. 19-35386; Nos. 19-35394
Parties: 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.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 928
Pages: 1153–1155

Head Matter:
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.
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.
State of Oregon; State of New York; State of Colorado; State of Connecticut; State of Delaware; District of Columbia; State of Hawaii; State of Illinois; State of Maryland; Commonwealth of Massachusetts; State of Michigan; State of Minnesota; State of Nevada; State of New Jersey; State of New Mexico; State of North Carolina; Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; State of Rhode Island; State of Vermont; Commonwealth of Virginia; State of Wisconsin; American Medical Association; Oregon Medical Association ; Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc.; Planned Parenthood of Southwestern Oregon; Planned Parenthood Columbia Willamette ; Thomas N. Ewing, M.D.; Michele P. Megregian, C.N.M., Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
Alex M. Azar II; United States Department of Health and Human Services; Diane Foley; Office of Population Affairs, Defendants-Appellants.
State of Washington; National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association; Feminist Women's Health Center; Deborah Oyer, M.D.; Teresa Gall, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
Alex M. Azar II, in his official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services; United States Department of Health and Human Services; Diane Foley, MD, in her official capacity as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Population Affairs; Office of Population Affairs, Defendants-Appellants.
Nos. 19-15974
Nos. 19-15979
No. 19-35386
Nos. 19-35394
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Filed July 11, 2019
Jaynie Lilley, Katherine Allen, and Michael S. Raab, Appellate Staff; Brinton Lucas, Senior Counsel; Hashim M. Mooppan, Deputy Assistant Attorney General; Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General; for Defendants-Appellants.
Anna Rich, Ketakee Kane, and Brenda Ayon Verduzco, Deputy Attorneys General; Kristin A. Liska, Associate Deputy Solicitor General; Joshua Patashnik, Deputy Solicitor General; Kathleen Boergers, Supervising Deputy Attorney General; Michael L. Newman, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Edward C. DuMont, Solicitor General; Xavier Becerra, Attorney General; Office of the Attorney General, San Francisco, California; for Plaintiff-Appellee State of California.
Alan E. Schoenfeld, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, New York, New York; Joshua M. Koppel, Albinas J. Prizgintas, Kimberly A. Parker, and Paul R.Q. Wolfson, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Washington, D.C.; Kennon Scott, Per A. Ramfjord, and Jeremy D. Sacks, Stoel Rives LLP, Portland, Oregon; Erin G. Sutton, Leonard A. Nelson, and Brian D. Vandenberg, Office of General Counsel, American Medical Association, Chicago, Illinois; Mark Bonnano, General Counsel, Oregon Medical Association, Portland, Oregon; Carrie Y. Flaxman and Helene T. Krasnoff, Planned Parenthood Federation of America Inc., Washington, D.C.; for Plaintiffs-Appellees American Medical Association; Oregon Medical Association; Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc.; Planned Parenthood of Southwestern Oregon; Planned Parenthood Columbia Willamette; Thomas N. Ewing, M.D.; Michele P. Megregian, C.N.M.
Judith N. Vale, Senior Assistant Solicitor General; Anisha S. Dasgupta, Deputy Solicitor General; Barbara D. Underwood, Solicitor General; Letitia James, Attorney General; Office of the Attorney General, Albany, New York; Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General; Jona J. Maukonen, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General; Office of the Attorney General, Salem, Oregon; Phil Weiser, Attorney General, State of Colorado; William Tong, Attorney General, State of Connecticut; Kathy Jennings, Attorney General, State of Delaware; Karl A. Racine, Attorney General, District of Columbia; Clare E. Connors, Attorney General, State of Hawaii; Kwame Raoul, Attorney General, State of Illinois; Brian E. Frosh, Attorney General, State of Maryland; Maura Healey, Attorney General, Commonwealth of Massachusetts; Dana Nessel, Attorney General, State of Michigan; Keith Ellison, Attorney General, State of Minnesota; Aaron Ford, Attorney General, State of Nevada; Gurbir Singh Grewal, Attorney General, State of New Jersey; Hector Balderas, Attorney General, State of New Mexico; Josh Stein, Attorney General, State of North Carolina; Josh Shapiro, Attorney General, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; Peter F. Neronha, Attorney General, State of Rhode Island; T.J. Donovan, Attorney General, State of Vermont; Mark R. Herring, Attorney General, Commonwealth of Virginia; Josh Kaul, Attorney General, State of Wisconsin; for Plaintiffs-Appellees State of Oregon, State of New York, State of Colorado, State of Connecticut, State of Delaware, District of Columbia, State of Hawaii, State of Illinois, State of Maryland, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, State of Michigan, State of Minnesota, State of Nevada, State of New Jersey, State of New Mexico, State of North Carolina, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, State of Rhode Island, State of Vermont, Commonwealth of Virginia, and State of Wisconsin.
Douglas Hallward-Driemeier, Andrew J. Sutton, and Thomas N. Bulleit, Ropes & Gray LLP, Washington, D.C.; Haley Eagon, Ropes & Gray LLP, Boston, Massachusetts; Taylor Washburn, Lane Powell PC, Seattle, Washington; Amy W. Malone, Ropes & Gray LLP, New York, New York; Daniel W. Richards, Ropes & Gray LLP, East Palo Alto, California; Nadia Dahab, Stoll Berne, Portland, Oregon; for Amici Curiae American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Family Physicians, California Medical Association, Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine, and Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.
Fiona Kaye, Brigitte Amiri, Elizabeth Deutsch, Anjali Dalal, and Ruth E. Harlow, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation; Emily Chiang, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Washington; Joe Shaeffer, MacDonald Hoague & Bayless, Seattle, Washington; for Plaintiffs-Appellees National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, Feminist Women's Health Center. Deborah Oyer M.D., and Teresa Gall.

Opinion:
D.C. No. 3:19-cv-01184-EMC, Northern District of California, San Francisco
D.C. No. 3:19-cv-01195-EMC, Northern District of California, San Francisco
D.C. Nos. 6:19-cv-00317-MC, 6:19-cv-00318-MC, District of Oregon, Eugene
D.C. Nos. 1:19-cv-03040-SAB, 1:19-cv-03045-SAB, Eastern District of Washington, Yakima
Before: Sidney R. Thomas, Chief Judge, and Edward Leavy, Kim McLane Wardlaw, William A. Fletcher, Richard A. Paez, Jay S. Bybee, Consuelo M. Callahan, Milan D. Smith, Jr., Sandra S. Ikuta, Eric David Miller, and kenneth K. Lee, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
Pending before the en banc court are several emergency motions for an administrative stay of the three-judge panel order staying the district courts' 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.