1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |COFC Grants Summary Judgment in Favor of Health Plan in ACA Litigation

COFC Grants Summary Judgment in Favor of Health Plan in ACA Litigation

Client Alert | 1 min read | 10.15.18

In Sanford Health Plan v. U.S. (October 11, 2018), the U.S. Court of Federal Claims granted summary judgment in favor of Sanford Health Plan (a C&M client) in a lawsuit seeking to recover “cost-sharing reduction” (CSR) payments pursuant to Section 1402 of the Affordable Care Act.  Following recent precedent in Montana Health, the Court held on the merits that (i) Section 1402 of the ACA is money-mandating, (ii) Sanford is entitled to full payments owed to it under the statutory formula set forth in the ACA, and (iii) the federal government has a statutory obligation to provide Sanford with the CSR payments notwithstanding the purported lack of appropriations to fund such payments. The Court agreed with Sanford Health Plan that the obligation to make payment under a money-mandating statute is distinct from the appropriation used to fund it, and that the lack of an appropriation merely restricts the Government’s agents (here, HHS), but does not negate the United States’ statutory payment obligation.     

Contacts

Insights

Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26

DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability

On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”...

View All Insights