Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, Inc. v. Alex Azar, II

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit · November 19, 2019 · No. 18-5218, 18-5219

Summary

The D.C. Circuit held that appeals challenging HHS's 2018 Title X family planning grant Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) were moot because the grant cycle had ended, funds were disbursed, and the agency issued a materially different 2019 FOA and amended the governing regulation (42 C.F.R. § 59.7). The court rejected the capable-of-repetition exception, finding the precise controversy—whether the 2018 FOA violated the prior regulation—was unlikely to recur due to the 2019 FOA's significant changes and the amended regulation's inclusive language. The dissenting opinion argued that the plaintiffs' separate APA notice-and-comment claim was capable of repetition because HHS continued to adjust funding criteria without rulemaking. The court vacated the district court's judgment and remanded with instructions to dismiss as moot.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Writing for the Court
Katsas; Srinivasan; Sentelle
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decision date
November 19, 2019
Docket number
18-5218, 18-5219
Procedural posture
Appeal from grant of summary judgment for defendants in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
Precedential value
published
Parties
Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, Inc., et al. v. Alex Michael Azar, II, in his official capacity as United States Secretary of Health and Human Services, and Diane Foley, in her official capacity as Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Office of Population Affairs
Disposition
vacated

Topics

appellate procedureadministrative lawhealth lawmootness

Practice areas

Administrative LawAppellate PracticeHealth Law

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the appeal challenging the 2018 FOA is moot because the grant funds have been disbursed, the 2018 FOA is expired, and the regulation has been amended.
  2. Whether the capable-of-repetition exception to mootness applies.

Holdings

  1. The appeal is moot because intervening events—disbursement of 2018 grant funds, issuance of a different 2019 FOA, and amendment of the regulation—make it impossible to grant effectual relief.

Key quotations

An appeal becomes moot if intervening events make it impossible for us to grant 'effectual relief' to the prevailing party. (6)
If the exception swept that broadly, it would be inconsistent with 'the Constitution’s requirement, set forth in Article III, that courts resolve only continuing controversies between the parties.' (8)

Factual background

Title X of the Public Health Service Act authorizes HHS to award grants for voluntary family-planning projects. HHS promulgates regulations and issues FOAs to solicit applications. In 2018, HHS issued a FOA that updated program priorities and modified the scoring process. The plaintiffs, including Planned Parenthood affiliates, challenged the FOA. After the district court upheld the FOA, HHS disbursed the 2018 grant funds, issued a substantially different 2019 FOA, and amended the relevant regulation, 42 C.F.R. § 59.7.

Procedural history

The plaintiffs (Planned Parenthood affiliates and NFPRHA) challenged the 2018 FOA in district court, arguing it was inconsistent with the governing regulation and required notice-and-comment rulemaking. The district court granted summary judgment for HHS. Plaintiffs appealed. After the appeal was filed, HHS disbursed the 2018 grant funds, issued a modified 2019 FOA, and amended the regulation.

Remand instructions

Remand the case with instructions to dismiss as moot.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…