Policy & Research, LLC v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., No. 18–cv–00346 (KBJ)

CourtUnited States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
Writing for the CourtKETANJI BROWN JACKSON, United States District Judge
Citation313 F.Supp.3d 62
Decision Date11 May 2018
Docket NumberNo. 18–cv–00346 (KBJ)
Parties POLICY AND RESEARCH, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, et al., Defendants.

313 F.Supp.3d 62

POLICY AND RESEARCH, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, et al., Defendants.

No. 18–cv–00346 (KBJ)

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

Signed May 11, 2018


313 F.Supp.3d 67

Allison Marcy Zieve, Sean M. Sherman, Public Citizen Litigation Group, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.

Michael Joseph Gerardi, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

KETANJI BROWN JACKSON, United States District Judge

As far as the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. , is concerned, this much is clear: a federal agency that changes course abruptly without a well-reasoned explanation for its decision or that acts contrary to its own regulations is subject to having a federal court vacate its action as "arbitrary [and] capricious," id. § 706(2)(A); see also Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro , ––– U.S. ––––, 136 S.Ct. 2117, 2125–26, 195 L.Ed.2d 382 (2016) ; Motor Vehicle Mfs. Ass'n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. , 463 U.S. 29, 48–49, 103 S.Ct. 2856, 77 L.Ed.2d 443 (1983) ; Nat'l Envtl. Dev. Ass'n's Clean Air Project v. EPA , 752 F.3d 999, 1009 (D.C. Cir. 2014). Plaintiffs Policy and Research, LLC, Project Vida Health Center, Sexual Health Initiatives for Teens North Carolina, and South Carolina Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy (collectively, "Plaintiffs") seek that remedy in the instant lawsuit; they have filed a complaint that alleges arbitrary and capricious action on the part of Defendants U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and Secretary Alex Azar ("HHS" or "Defendants") with respect to HHS's administration of the federal Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program ("the TPPP"), because, according to Plaintiffs, HHS suddenly and unlawfully terminated their TPPP grant funding without explanation and in contravention of applicable HHS regulations. (See Compl., ECF No. 1, ¶¶ 71–75; see also Pls.' Mem. in Supp. of Combined Mot. for Prelim. Inj. & for Expedited Summ. J. ("Pls.' Mem."), ECF No. 6–1, at 33–39.)1 In the context of the cross-motions for expedited summary judgment that are before this Court at present, HHS responds that, first of all, it has not "terminated" Plaintiffs' TPPP awards; rather, it has merely exercised its authority to withhold funding for the two fiscal years that remain with respect to the five-year programmatic approval that Plaintiffs received in 2015. (See Mem. in Supp. of Defs.' Cross–Mot. to Dismiss or for Summ J. & in Opp'n to Pls.' Mot. for Summ. J. ("Defs.' Mem."), ECF No. 13, at 19–27.) HHS also insists that its decision to stop funding Plaintiffs' projects two years shy of the initial award period is "committed to agency discretion by law" and thus not subject to judicial review. (See id. at 27–30.)

Notably, HHS appears to have placed all of its eggs into the unreviewability basket, because the agency does not dispute that the one-sentence notice it provided to Plaintiffs announcing the shortening of Plaintiffs' TPPP project periods violates the APA. (See Hr'g Tr., ECF No. 20, at 23:15–21.) Consequently, the parties' cross-motions focus on the threshold inquiry into whether there are meaningful standards for this Court to apply when reviewing that agency decision, such that the Court

313 F.Supp.3d 68

can reach the merits of Plaintiffs' challenge to HHS's determination at all. At bottom, that debate reduces to an argument about the appropriate characterization of the agency action at issue: was it a "termination" of Plaintiffs' grants within the meaning of the framework set forth in the HHS regulations, or a withholding of grant funding under the agency's less-well-defined Grants Policy Statement, which appears to indicate that HHS can withhold funding non-competing continuation award if the agency determines that, "[f]or whatever reason, continued funding would not be in the best interests of the Federal government"? (Grants Policy Statement, Ex. B to Decl. of Michael Gerardi, ECF No. 13–1, at 13.)

To accommodate the parties' need for expeditious resolution of Plaintiffs' APA claim, this Court ruled on their cross-motions orally on April 19, 2018—the day after the motion hearing. The Court announced its conclusion that HHS had terminated Plaintiffs' grants within the meaning of the agency's regulations, and thus Plaintiffs' APA claim is subject to judicial review. (See Tr. of Oral Ruling, ECF No. 21, at 13:8–22.) The Court also held that HHS's termination of Plaintiffs' TPPP grants was plainly arbitrary and capricious and in violation of the law for APA purposes. (See id. at 21:6–14.)

The instant Memorandum Opinion provides a more comprehensive explanation of the Court's conclusions. In short, it is clear to this Court that, while a federal agency's allocation of congressionally-appropriated grant funding is the type of discretionary action that is presumptively unreviewable, HHS's regulations provide clear and applicable standards for evaluating Plaintiffs' challenge to the agency's decision to shorten the project periods for Plaintiffs' federal awards, such that HHS's decision to shorten Plaintiffs' project periods is not unreviewable agency action. And because HHS terminated Plaintiffs' grant funding within the meaning of the HHS regulations without any explanation and in contravention of its own regulations, HHS's action easily qualifies as an arbitrary and capricious act under the APA. Therefore, as detailed in this Court's April 19, 2018 Order (see ECF No. 19), Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment has been GRANTED and Defendants' motion for summary judgment has been DENIED . In addition, this Court has VACATED the agency's decision to shorten the project period for Plaintiffs' projects, and has ordered HHS to accept and process Plaintiffs' applications as if the agency had never terminated Plaintiffs' federal awards.

I. BACKGROUND

A. The History And Administration Of The Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program

The federal government has long recognized that teenage pregnancy carries "high economic, social, and health costs" for teen parents, their families, and society at large. Carmen Solomon–Fears, Teenage Pregnancy Prevention: Statistics And Programs 1, 2 (Jan. 15, 2016).2 In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Congress set out to address this problem. By statute, Congress established a number of federal programs aimed at reducing the rate of teen pregnancy in America, and over the years, Congress has repeatedly increased the number of programs, and the amount of federal funding, directed toward those efforts. See id. at 8–10. Meanwhile, the teen pregnancy rate in the United States has steadily fallen. See id. at 7.

313 F.Supp.3d 69

Notably, although the federal government's commitment to reducing teenage pregnancy has never waned, its preferred method of addressing this societal concern has changed over time. These shifts in policy roughly occurred during three separate periods. First, between 1981 and 1996, the federal government funded programs that educated teenagers and their families about abstinence, contraceptives, sexual health, and the social services available to young mothers. See id. at 8–9. Then, from 1996 to 2009, Congress used "abstinence-only education as the primary tool" for lowering teen pregnancy rates, and did not authorize funding for preventative services that promoted the use of contraceptives or birth control. Id. at 9. Most recently, beginning in 2009, Congress once again provided funding that could be used for both "abstinence-only and contraception information/services" approaches. Id. at 10.

Congress created the TPPP as part of this latest shift in policy. The program was initially enacted through the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2010, and most recently, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018 reauthorized it. In relevant part, the 2018 appropriations legislation provided that

of the [$470,629,000] made available under this heading, $101,000,000 shall be for making competitive contracts and grants to public and private entities to fund medically accurate and age appropriate programs that reduce teen pregnancy and for the Federal costs associated with administering and evaluating such contracts and grants ....

Consol. Appropriations Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115–141. Through this appropriation, Congress further specifically stated that it was funding contracts and grants for two types of projects; namely, on the one hand, projects that seek to replicate successful evidence-based approaches that discourage teen pregnancy, see id. (specifying that the bulk of the $101 million "shall be for replicating programs that have been proven effective through rigorous evaluation to reduce teenage pregnancy, behavioral risk factors underlying teenage pregnancy, or other associated risk factors"), and on the other hand, projects that involved the researching and developing of new evidence-based approaches for lowering the teen pregnancy rate, see id. (reserving some of the funds "for research and demonstration grants to develop, replicate, refine, and test additional models and innovative strategies for preventing teenage pregnancy").

After Congress first appropriated funding for the TPPP in 2009, HHS undertook to authorize "cooperative...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 practice notes
  • Am. Fed'n of Labor & Cong. of Indus. Organizations v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., Civ. No. 20-cv-0675 (KBJ)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • June 7, 2020
    ...the agency's decision as an appellate court addressing issues of law." Policy & Research, LLC v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs. , 313 F. Supp. 3d 62, 74 (D.D.C. 2018) (internal quotation marks, alterations, and citation omitted). Thus, in the instant context, "it is the role of the agency t......
  • Planned Parenthood of N.Y.C., Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 18 Civ. 5680 (NRB)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • August 30, 2018
    ...at *1-2 (E.D. Wash. Apr. 24, 2018) ; King Cty. v. Azar, 320 F.Supp.3d 1167, 1176–78 (W.D. Wash. 2018) ; Pol'y & Research, LLC v. HHS, 313 F.Supp.3d 62, 68–72 (D.D.C. 2018) ; Healthy Teen Network v. Azar, 322 F.Supp.3d 647, 649–53, 2018 WL 1942171, at *1-4 (D. Md. 2018) ).On May 8, 2018, HHS......
  • Multnomah Cnty., an Existing Cnty. Gov'T&a Body Politic & Corporate v. Azar, Case No. 3:18-cv-01015-YY
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Oregon)
    • August 30, 2018
    ...2018), appeal docketed , No. 18-1709 (4th Cir. June 26, 2018); Policy & Research, LLC v. United States Dep't of Health & Human Servs. , 313 F.Supp.3d 62, 84 (D.D.C. 2018), appeal docketed , No. 18-5190 (D.C. Cir. June 21, 2018); King Cty. v. Azar , 320 F.Supp.3d 1167, 1177 (W.D. Wash. 2018)......
  • Eagle Trust Fund v. U.S. Postal Serv., No. 1:17-cv-2450 (KBJ)
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • February 4, 2019
    ...v. Robbins , 519 U.S. 452, 459, 117 S.Ct. 905, 137 L.Ed.2d 79 (1997) ; Policy & Research, LLC v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs. , 313 F.Supp.3d 62, 72 (D.D.C. 2018). But as has by now been stated repeatedly, it is well-settled law that APA review does not apply to USPS determinations. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
13 cases
  • Am. Fed'n of Labor & Cong. of Indus. Organizations v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., Civ. No. 20-cv-0675 (KBJ)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • June 7, 2020
    ...decision as an appellate court addressing issues of law." Policy & Research, LLC v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs. , 313 F. Supp. 3d 62, 74 (D.D.C. 2018) (internal quotation marks, alterations, and citation omitted). Thus, in the instant context, "it is the role of the age......
  • Planned Parenthood of N.Y.C., Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 18 Civ. 5680 (NRB)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • August 30, 2018
    ...*1-2 (E.D. Wash. Apr. 24, 2018) ; King Cty. v. Azar, 320 F.Supp.3d 1167, 1176–78 (W.D. Wash. 2018) ; Pol'y & Research, LLC v. HHS, 313 F.Supp.3d 62, 68–72 (D.D.C. 2018) ; Healthy Teen Network v. Azar, 322 F.Supp.3d 647, 649–53, 2018 WL 1942171, at *1-4 (D. Md. 2018) ).On May 8, 2018, HH......
  • Multnomah Cnty., an Existing Cnty. Gov'T&a Body Politic & Corporate v. Azar, Case No. 3:18-cv-01015-YY
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Oregon)
    • August 30, 2018
    ...appeal docketed , No. 18-1709 (4th Cir. June 26, 2018); Policy & Research, LLC v. United States Dep't of Health & Human Servs. , 313 F.Supp.3d 62, 84 (D.D.C. 2018), appeal docketed , No. 18-5190 (D.C. Cir. June 21, 2018); King Cty. v. Azar , 320 F.Supp.3d 1167, 1177 (W.D. Wash. 2018......
  • Eagle Trust Fund v. U.S. Postal Serv., No. 1:17-cv-2450 (KBJ)
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • February 4, 2019
    ..., 519 U.S. 452, 459, 117 S.Ct. 905, 137 L.Ed.2d 79 (1997) ; Policy & Research, LLC v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs. , 313 F.Supp.3d 62, 72 (D.D.C. 2018). But as has by now been stated repeatedly, it is well-settled law that APA review does not apply to USPS determinations. See......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT