Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Gresham v. Azar

950 F.3d 93 (2020)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 34,000+ case briefs...

Gresham v. Azar

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

950 F.3d 93 (2020)

Facts

Originally, Medicaid provided healthcare coverage to the disabled, the blind, the elderly, and needy families with dependent children. In 2010, Congress expanded Medicaid’s coverage to low-income adults who did not previously qualify. States could choose whether to expand Medicaid to cover the new population. Medicaid established certain minimum coverage requirements that states had to include in their plans. States could deviate from the requirements if the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the secretary) (defendant) waived the requirements so that the state could engage in experimental, pilot, or demonstration projects. In 2014, Arkansas expanded Medicaid coverage to the new population of low-income adults. In 2013, Arkansas gained approval for its Medicaid demonstration waiver and in 2016, introduced the Arkansas Works program. The program encouraged Medicaid enrollees to seek employment by offering voluntary referrals to the Arkansas Department of Workforce Services. To increase participation in the program, Arkansas introduced a new version of Arkansas Works that required beneficiaries aged 19 to 49 to work or engage in educational, job training, or job search activities for at least 80 hours per month. Certain categories of beneficiaries were exempted from the hour requirement, such as pregnant women and full-time students. Nonexempt beneficiaries that failed to meet the requirements for three months during a plan year were disenrolled. The secretary approved the new Arkansas Works program requirements under the label of community engagement, finding that they would improve health outcomes, address behavioral and social factors that influence health outcomes, and incentivize beneficiaries to improve their health and achieve better health outcomes. In 2018, Charles Gresham and nine other Arkansans (plaintiffs) filed an action in district court for declaratory and injunctive relief against the secretary. The district court entered a judgment vacating the secretary’s approval of the new Arkansas Works program requirements. The district court found that the objective of Medicaid was to furnish medical assistance to those who could not afford it and that the Arkansas Works requirements’ focus on health was no substitute for providing free or low-cost health coverage. The secretary appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Sentelle, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 607,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 607,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 34,000 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 607,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 34,000 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership