42 U.S.C. § 18114
Access to therapies
This Act, referred to in text, is Pub. L. 111–148,
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2019–2024 · leading case: State of California v. Alex Azar, II
State of California v. Alex Azar, II (2020)
“119 , 259 (2010) (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 18114 ). In considering these arguments, we are mindful that the Supreme Court’s “interpretive decisions, in whatever way reasoned, effectively become part of the statutory scheme.”
Mayor of Balt. v. Azar (2019)
“For the reasons that follow, this Court holds that the Final Rule likely violates provisions of the Affordable Care Act, 42 U.S.C. § 18114 , enacted in 2010, and Congress' nondirective mandate in the *607 Continuing Appropriations Act, 2019, Pub.”
State v. Azar (2019)
“42 U.S.C. § 18114 . Given the above context, I turn to the Final Rule at issue here.”
California by and through Becerra v. Azar (2019)
“111-148, title I, § 1554 ( 42 U.S.C. § 18114 ) ("§ 1554"). These two provisions could render the Final Rule "not in accordance with law" only by impliedly repealing or amending § 1008, or by directly contravening the Final Rule's regulatory provisions.”
Mayor and City Council of Balt v. Alex Azar, II (2020)
“42 U.S.C. § 18114 (the “Noninterference Mandate”).”
Whitman-Walker Clinic, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2020)
“See 42 U.S.C. § 18114 . Finally, Plaintiffs maintain that the 2020 Rule runs afoul of the Fifth Amendment’s guarantees of equal protection and substantive due process, infringes their right to free speech under the First Amendment, and violates the Establishment Clause.”
Mayor and City Council Of Baltimore v. Azar (2020)
“1 This Court granted a Preliminary Injunction against HHS with respect to Counts I and II, alleging violations of the Non-Interference Provision of the Affordable Care Act, 42 U.S.C. § 18114 , and the Non-Directive Mandate of the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2019, Pub.”
State of California v. Alex Azar, II (2019)
“111-148, title I, § 1554 ( 42 U.S.C. § 18114 ) (“§ 1554”). These two provisions could render the Final Rule “not in accordance with law” only by impliedly repealing or amending § 1008, or by directly contravening the Final Rule’s regulatory provisions.”
Mayor and City Council v. Alex Azar, II (2019)
“The 2019 Final Rule at issue (“Final Rule”) promulgated by Health and Human Services (“HHS”) likely contravenes provisions of the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”), 42 U.S.C. § 18114 , and Congress’ nondirective mandate in the Continuing Appropriations Act for 2019, Pub.”
Mayor and City Council Of Baltimore v. Azar (2019)
“§ 706— Contrary to Law—Contrary to Affordable Care Act (“ACA”)’s Non- Interference Provision, 42 U.S.C. § 18114 . • II – Violation of APA § 706—Contrary to Law—Contrary to Nondirective Mandate of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018 • III – Violation of APA § 706—Contrary…”
Mayor and City Council Of Baltimore v. Azar (2020)
“On May 30, 2019, this Court granted a preliminary injunction with respect to Counts I and II of the Complaint, finding that this rule violated provisions of the Affordable Care Act, 42 U.S.C. § 18114 , as well as the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018.”
Planned Parenthood of Maryland, Inc. v. Azar (2020)
“42 U.S.C. § 18114 . The plaintiffs note that Congress specifically defined “medical care” to include “amounts paid for insurance covering” such care.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.