United States District Court, D. Maryland
Richard D. Bennett United States District Judge.
30, 2019, this Court issued an Order preliminarily enjoining
the Health and Human Services Final Rule ("Final
Rule"), entitled Compliance with Statutory Program
Integrity Requirements, 84 Fed. Reg. 7, 714 (Mar. 4,
2019), to be codified at 42 C.F.R. Part 59, as to
enforcement in the State of Maryland. (ECF No. 44.)
Defendants have filed an interlocutory appeal and seek a stay
of the preliminary injunction pending the appeal of the
Order. (See ECF Nos. 48, 49 .) For the following
reasons, this Court shall DENY Defendants' Motion for
Stay of Injunction Pending Appeal (ECF No. 49).
factors regulating the issuance of a stay under Fed.R.Civ.P.
62 (c) are similar to those that guide the court when
evaluating whether a preliminary injunction should issue:
"(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong
showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2)
whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a
stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially
injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and
(4) where the public interest lies." Hilton v.
Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987); Long v.
Robinson, 432 F.3d 977, 979 (4th Cir. 1970); see
also Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S.
7, 20 (2008) (requiring a movant for a preliminary injunction
to show that: (1) the movant is likely to succeed on the
merits; (2) the movant is likely to suffer irreparable harm
absent preliminary relief; (3) the balance of equities favors
the movant; and (4) that an injunction is in the public
interest). A stay is not a "matter of right" but
rather, "an exercise of judicial discretion . . .
dependent upon the circumstances of the particular
case." Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 433 (2009)
(quoting Virginian Ry. Co. v. United States, 272
U.S. 658, 672 (1926)).
discussed in this Court's Memorandum Opinion issued only
seven days prior to the filing of the instant motion, the
Final Rule likely violates existing laws passed by the United
States Congress. (ECF No. 43 at 2-3, 18-20.) After reviewing
extensive briefing and hours of oral argument, this Court
found that Plaintiff established a likelihood of irreparable
harm unless the Final Rule is enjoined, and the balance of
equities and public interest weighed in favor of the issuance
of a preliminary injunction. (Id. at 25-26.)
Accordingly, this Court issued a preliminary injunction on
May 30, 2019. (Id. at 28.) Since that time, there
has been no change in the record to justify a different
result. Defendants largely rely on the same
arguments made in opposition to the motion for a preliminary
injunction. (See Mot. Mem. passim, ECF No.
49-1.) This Court respectfully disagrees with Defendants
regarding the probability of success on appeal.
also assert that this Court's injunction is overbroad in
two respects: (1) the injunction applies to the State of
Maryland rather than simply the City of Baltimore, or
possibly the City of Baltimore and its sub-grantees operating
in the City; and (2) despite the Final Rule's
severability statement, the entire Final Rule was enjoined,
including provisions that were not challenged. (Mot. Mem.
7-8, ECF No. 49-1.) As noted in its Memorandum Opinion, when
this Court reviewed the scope of the injunction, it
considered that the City of Baltimore will be impacted by
loss of funding in neighboring communities as well as
neighboring States. (ECF No. 43 at 25, 26-27.) Enjoining
enforcement within the State of Maryland is narrowly tailored
to avoid irreparable harm to the Plaintiff. Finally, this
Court recognizes the Final Rule's severability provision
and that Plaintiff did not challenge every aspect of the
Final Rule. However, based on the record before it at this
time, there is no clear delineation of which aspects of the
Rule could or should be severed from the injunction.
Preliminarily enjoining the enforcement of the Final Rule
wholesale at this time best achieves the purpose of the
injunction-"preserv[ing] the relative positions of the
parties" pending final resolution of this case on die
merits. United States v. South Carolina, 720 F.3d
518 (4th Cir. 2013)
this Court declines to exercise its discretion to stay the
preliminary injunction pending appeal and will deny the
reasons stated above, IT IS this 19th day of June 2019,
1. Defendants' Motion for Stay of Injunction Pending
Appeal (ECF No. 49) is DENIED;
2. That the Clerk of the Court transmit copies of this Order
and accompanying Memorandum Opinion to counsel for both