Nevada Opening Brief

Case: 19-10754 Document: 00515244766 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/19/2019
Case No. 19-10754
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
RICHARD W. DEOTTE, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated;

YVETTE DEOTTE; JOHN KELLEY; ALISON KELLEY; HOTZE HEALTH &
WELLNESS CENTER; BRAIDWOOD MANAGEMENT, INCORPORATED, on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs – Appellees,
v.
STATE OF NEVADA,
Movant – Appellant.
On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas
Case No. 4:18-CV-825-O
APPELLANT STATE OF NEVADA’S OPENING BRIEF
HEIDI PARRY STERN

Solicitor General
Office of the Nevada Attorney General
555 E. Washington Avenue, Suite 3900
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
702-486-3594
[email protected]
Counsel for Movant-Appellant, State of Nevada
CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS
Case No. 19-10754 – DeOtte et al. v. Azar, et al.
The undersigned counsel of record certifies that the following listed private
(non-governmental) persons and entities as described in the fourth sentence of
Fifth Circuit Rule 28.2.1 have an interest in the outcome of this case. These
representations are made in order that the judges of this court may evaluate
possible disqualification or recusal.
Named Plaintiffs and members of their nationwide class have a financial
interest in the outcome of this case, to the extent they seek to uphold the district
court’s order and judgment, which allows them not to provide seamless preventive
care required by the Affordable Care Act to their employees. Similarly, employees
of the nationwide class religious employers have a financial interest in the outcome
of this case, to the extent they would lose their right to seamless preventive care
insurance pursuant to the Affordable Care Act and the medical care associated with
it, should the lower court’s order and judgment be upheld.
s/Heidi Parry Stern

HEIDI PARRY STERN
555 E. Washington Ave., Suite 3900
Las Vegas, NV 89101
702-486-3594, [email protected]
Counsel for Movant-Appellant, State of
Nevada
ii
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT
The State of Nevada believes that oral argument would be helpful in
addressing Nevada’s proposed intervention and the merits of this case challenging
the Affordable Care Act’s contraception provisions.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS ....................................................... ii
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT ............................................. iii
JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT .......................................................................... 1
STATEMENT OF ISSUES ....................................................................................... 2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE .................................................................................. 2
BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY .................................. 2
I. The Affordable Care Act’s Contraception Provisions ............................... 2
II. Prior Litigation Pertaining to ACA-Contraceptive Coverage .................... 5
III. The Procedural Posture of this Case......................................................... 10
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ...................................................................... 13
ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................... 15
I. The District Court’s Judgment Creates a Substantial Risk of Harm for

Women in the United States Generally and for Nevada Specifically ...... 15
II. Nevada Has Standing to Pursue this Appeal in Order to Remedy the
Risk of Harm to It from the District Court’s Erroneous Judgment .......... 18
III. Nevada Has the Right to Intervene, and the District Court’s Order to
the Contrary was Legal Error .................................................................. 22
A. Intervention Is Liberally Construed as a Legal Question.............. 22
B. Nevada Has a Direct, Substantial, and Legally Protectable

Interest ........................................................................................... 24
iv
C. Nevada Is Entitled to Special Solicitude in

Order to Protect its Quasi-Sovereign Interests............................... 27
D. This Suit Will Impair Nevada’s Ability to Protect Its

Interests in the ACA’s Contraception Provisions ......................... 29
E. Nevada’s Intervention Was Timely Under the

Circumstances ................................................................................ 30
F. The Federal Defendants Do Not Adequately Represent

Nevada’s Interests .......................................................................... 32
G. In the Alternative, Nevada Should be Permitted to Intervene ...... 34
IV. The District Court’s Nationwide Class Judgment Must be Reversed and
Vacated .......................................................................................................... 35
A. Standard of Review ....................................................................... 35
B. This Circuit’s Precedent Applies Here, Requiring Application

of the Substantial Burden and the Least Restrictive Means
Test ................................................................................................. 35
C. Plaintiffs Are Not Subject to a Substantial Burden for RFRA

Purposes ......................................................................................... 39
D. The Federal Government Has a Compelling Interest in the

ACA’s Contraception Provisions .................................................. 40
E. The Accommodation Constitutes the Least Restrictive

Means for Achieving the Compelling Interest ............................... 41
F. Ordering a Nationwide Class Judgment was Improper,

Regardless of the Merits Asserted by the Individual
Plaintiffs ......................................................................................... 45
G. Alternatively, this Court Should Vacate the Nationwide Class

Judgment for Lack of Adversity Among the Original Parties ....... 45
v
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 48
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................ 49
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ....................................................................... 50
vi
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page
CASES:
Alfred L. Snapp & Son, Inc. v. Puerto Rico,

458 U.S. 592 (1982) ...................................................................................... 22, 27
Ashwander v. TVA,
297 U.S. 288 (1936) .............................................................................................46
Blumfield v. Dodd,
749 F.3d 339 (5th Cir. 2014) ................................................................... 23, 29, 34
Bob Jones Univ. v. United States,

461 U.S. 574, 604 (1983) .....................................................................................41
Bolton v. City of Dallas,

472 F.3d 261 (5th Cir. 2006) ................................................................................35
Bowen v. Roy,
476 U.S. 693 (1986) ...............................................................................................7
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.,

573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2751 (2014) ............................................................ passim
California v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs.,

941 F.3d 410 (9th Cir. 2019) ........................................................................... 6, 10
Catholic Health Care Sys. v. Burwell,

796 F.3d 207 (2d Cir. 2015) ...................................................................................6
Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l, USA,

568 U.S. 398 (2013) .............................................................................................18
Cutter v. Wilkinson,
544 U.S. 709 (2005) .............................................................................................44
Department of Commerce v. New York,

139 S. Ct. 2551 (2019) .........................................................................................26
vii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES, cont.

Page
East Texas Baptist University v. Burwell,

793 F.3d 449 (5th Cir. 2015) ........................................................................ passim
Edwards v. City of Houston,

78 F.3d 983 (5th Cir. 1996) ..................................................................... 23, 30, 33
Entergy Gulf States La., LLC v. E.P.A.,

817 F.3d 198, 203 (5th Cir. 2016) ........................................................................34
Eternal Word Television Network v. Sec’y of U.S. Dep’t Health & Human Servs.,
818 F.3d 1122 (11th Cir. 2016) ..............................................................................6
Farina v. Mission Inv. Trust,

615 F.2d 1068 (5th Cir. 1980) ..............................................................................23
Geneva Coll. v. Sec’y U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs.,

778 F.3d 422 (3d Cir. 2015) ...................................................................................6
Grace Schs. v. Burwell,

801 F.3d 788 (7th Cir. 2015) ..................................................................................6
In re Enron Corp. Sec. Derivative & “RAISA” Litig.,

229 F.R.D. 126 (S.D. Tex. 2005) .........................................................................34
In re Lease Oil Antitrust Litig.,

570 F.3d 244 (5th Cir. 2009) ................................................................................23
Kneeland v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n,

806 F.2d 1285 (5th Cir. 1987) ..............................................................................34
League of United Latin American Citizens, District 19 v. City of Boerne,

659 F.3d 421 (5th Cir. 2011) ................................................................................24
Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged, Denver, Colo. v. Burwell,
794 F.3d 1151 (10th Cir. 2015) ..............................................................................6
viii

Page
Little Sisters of the Poor v. Sebelius,
134 S. Ct. 1022 (2014) ...........................................................................................5
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife,

504 U.S. 555 (1992) .............................................................................................22
Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Ass’n,

485 U.S. 439 (1988) ...............................................................................................7
Massachusetts v. E.P.A.,
549 U.S. 497 (2007) ...................................................................................... 19, 27
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.,

475 U.S. 574 (1986) .............................................................................................35
Mich. Catholic Conference & Catholic Family Servs. v. Burwell,

807 F.3d 738 (6th Cir. 2015) ..................................................................................6
Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms,

561 U.S. 139 (2010) .............................................................................................20
Pennsylvania v. Trump,
351 F. Supp. 3d 791 (E.D. Pa. 2019)....................................................................10
Pennsylvania v. Trump,
930 F.3d 543 (3d Cir. 2019) .................................................................................10
Priests for Life v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs.,

772 F.3d 229 (D.C. Cir. 2014)......................................................................... 6, 38
Real Alternatives, Inc. v. Sec’y Dep't of Health & Human Servs.,

867 F.3d 338 (3d Cir. 2017) ...................................................................................6
Sharpe Holdings, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs.,

801 F.3d 927 (8th Cir. 2015) ..................................................................................6
Sierra Club v. Espy,

18 F.3d 1202 (5th Cir. 1994) ............................................................. 23, 29, 30, 34
ix

Page
Stallworth v. Monsanto Co.,

558 F.2d 257 (5th Cir. 1977) ................................................................................30
Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus,

573 U.S. 149, 158 (2014) .............................................................................. 18, 26
Texas v. United States,

805 F.3d 653, 657 (5th Cir. 2015) ..................................................... 19, 20, 28, 33
Tony & Susan Alamo Found. v. Secretary of Labor,

471 U.S. 290 (1985) .............................................................................................41
Townley v. Miller,
722 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir. 2013) ..............................................................................46
United States v. Lee,

455 U.S. 252 (1982). ............................................................................................41
United States v. Windsor,

570 U.S. 744 (2013) .............................................................................................46
University of Notre Dame v. Burwell,

786 F.3d 606 (7th Cir. 2015) ................................................................................42
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Texas Alcoholic Beverage Comm’n,

834 F.3d 562 (5th Cir. 2016) ......................................................................... 23, 29
Warth v. Seldin,
422 U.S. 490 (1975) .............................................................................................46
Wheaton College v. Burwell,

134 S. Ct. 2806 (2014) ...........................................................................................5
Zubik v. Burwell,
136 S. Ct. 1557 (2016) ................................................................................. passim
x

Page
OTHER:
Affordable Care Act,

42 U.S.C. § 300gg-13(a)(54) ........................................................................ passim
Religious Freedom Restoration Act

42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et al. ............................................................................. passim
28 U.S.C. § 1291 ........................................................................................................1
28 U.S.C. § 1331 ........................................................................................................1
28 U.S.C. § 2106 ......................................................................................................47
42 U.S.C. § 300gg-13(a) ........................................................................................2, 3
26 C.F.R. § 54.9815-2713(a)(1)(iv) ...........................................................................4
29 C.F.R. § 2590.715-2713(a)(1)(iv) .........................................................................4
45 C.F.R. § 147.131(d)-(e).................................................................................. 4, 36
58 CONG. REC. S539 (Feb. 9, 2012) ...........................................................................3
155 CONG. REC. S12027 (DEC. 1, 2009) .....................................................................3
159 CONG. REC. S2268 (MAR. 22, 2013) ....................................................................3
58 Fed. Reg. 51,735 (Oct. 4, 1993)..........................................................................15
77 Fed. Reg. at 16,503 .............................................................................................43
78 Fed. Reg. at 39,888 .............................................................................................43
82 Fed. Reg. at 47,815 ...................................................................................... 15, 16
82 Fed. Reg. at 47,821 .............................................................................................16
xi

Page
82 Fed. Reg. at 47,856 .............................................................................................15
FRAP 28(a)(4)............................................................................................................1
NRS 689A.0418 .......................................................................................................29
NRS 689B.0378 .......................................................................................................29
NRS 689C.1676 .......................................................................................................29
NRS 695A.1865 .......................................................................................................29
NRS 695B.1919 .......................................................................................................29
NRS 695C.1696 .......................................................................................................29

Regulatory Planning and Review, Executive Order 12,866 ....................................15
xii
JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT
Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. (FRAP) 28(a)(4), Nevada provides the following
jurisdictional statement:
1. The district court had federal subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1331, as Plaintiffs challenged certain provisions of the
Affordable Care Act (ACA) (42 U.S.C. § 300gg-13(a)(54)) as being
in violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) (42
U.S.C. § 2000bb et al.).
2. Nevada’s appeal is from the district court order denying intervention
and issuing final judgment.
3. This court has appellate jurisdiction to address Nevada’s proposed
intervention and the judgment issued by the district court as a final
order. 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
4. Nevada filed a timely appeal. On July 3, 2019, Nevada timely filed a
notice of protective appeal against the district court’s June 5, 2019,
order granting summary judgment and a permanent injunction. On
August 27, 2019, Nevada timely filed an amended notice of appeal
against the district court’s July 29, 2019, order denying intervention
and issuing final judgment.
1
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
1. Nevada has standing to pursue this appeal.
2. The district court should have granted Nevada’s motion to intervene on the
merits as a defendant in the district court.
3. The district court erred in awarding Plaintiffs a permanent nationwide class
injunction.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal from an order of summary judgment in the district court in
favor of Plaintiffs. The district court certified plaintiffs’ nationwide class and
awarded Plaintiffs’ class a nationwide injunction against the ACA’s requirement
that certain group health insurance plans provide coverage for women’s preventive
care, including contraception.
BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
I. The Affordable Care Act’s Contraception Provisions
The ACA provides that certain group health insurance plans cover
preventive care and screenings without imposing costs on the employee and his/her
covered dependents. 42 U.S.C. § 300gg-13(a). This includes women’s “preventive
care and screenings . . . as provided for in comprehensive guidelines supported by
the Health Resources and Services Administration [HRSA].” 42 U.S.C. § 300gg-
13(a)(54).
2
The 2009 Women’s Health Amendment, adopted by Congress along with
the ACA, sought to redress the “fundamental inequity” that women were
systematically charged more for preventive services than men. 155 Cong. Rec.
S12027 (Dec. 1, 2009) (statement of Sen. Gillibrand). At the time, “more than half
of women delay[ed] or avoid[ed] preventive care because of its costs.” Id.
Supporters expected that eradicating these discriminatory barriers to preventive
care – including contraceptive care – would result in substantially improved health
outcomes for women. See, e.g., id. at S12052 (statement of Sen. Franken); id. at.
S12059 (statement of Sen. Cardin); id. (statement of Sen. Feinstein). Congress
rejected a competing amendment that would have permitted broad moral and
religious exemptions to the ACA’s coverage requirements – the same moral and
religious exemptions that are reflected by Plaintiffs’ proposed nationwide class. 58
Cong. Rec. S539 (Feb. 9, 2012); 159 Cong. Rec. S2268 (Mar. 22, 2013).
Rather than set forth a comprehensive definition of women’s preventive
services that must be covered, Congress opted to rely on HRSA’s expertise. 42
U.S.C. § 300gg-13(a)(4). HRSA, in turn, commissioned the Institute of Medicine
(IOM) to study the issue, and make evidence-based recommendations. The IOM
assembled a panel of independent experts who surveyed the relevant literature and
peer-reviewed medical research, and ultimately issued a final report. See IOM,
Clinical Prevention Services for Women: Closing the Gaps (2011) (IOM Report),
3
available at https://www.nap.edu/read/13181/chapter/1. The IOM Report
acknowledged many of Congress’ concerns raised during adoption of the Women’s
Health Amendment and recommended covering all FDA-approved contraceptive
methods. The IOM considers these services essential so that “women can better
avoid unwanted pregnancies and space their pregnancies to promote optimal birth
outcomes.” Id. at https://www.nap.edu/read/13181/chapter/7#104. The IOM also
recommended that “preventive care” include not only contraceptive coverage such
as access to all FDA-approved contraceptive methods, but also counseling and
education to ensure that women received information on the best method for their
individual set of circumstances. Id. at
https://www.nap.edu/read/13181/chapter/7#107.
HRSA adopted the IOM Report’s recommendations in its guidelines, and the
three federal agencies responsible for implementing the ACA promulgated
regulations requiring that regulated entities cover all FDA-approved contraceptive
methods without cost to women and their covered dependents.1 45 C.F.R. §
147.130(a)(1)(iv); 29 C.F.R. § 2590.715-2713(a)(1)(iv); 26 C.F.R. § 54.9815-
2713(a)(1)(iv). In implementing this statutory scheme, the Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS) made clear that these coverage requirements were not
1
HRSA reaffirmed their guidelines based on recommendations by the
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in 2016 and these remain the
standard. See https://www.hrsa.gov/womens-guidelines/index.html.
4
applicable to group health plans sponsored by religious employers. Further, HHS
made available a religious accommodation to certain employers who seek to not
provide this coverage. Through this religious accommodation, the federal
government ensured that women had access to seamless contraceptive coverage as
entitled under the ACA, while also providing employers with a mechanism to opt
out of providing or paying for this coverage.
II. Prior Litigation Pertaining to ACA-Contraceptive Coverage
Significant litigation has been pursued within this Circuit and before the
United States Supreme Court pertaining to the balance between providing equal
access to preventive care and respecting sincerely held religious beliefs. These
initial lawsuits culminated in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. __,
134 S. Ct. 2751 (2014), which held that, at minimum, closely held, for-profit
corporations that oppose contraceptive coverage for religious reasons must be
allowed to use the “accommodation” offered to religious non-profits. See id. at
2781-82. The Supreme Court also issued emergency relief to non-profit employers
that sought to avoid delivering the prescribed certification form. See Little Sisters
of the Poor v. Sebelius, 134 S. Ct. 1022 (2014); Wheaton College v. Burwell, 134
S. Ct. 2806 (2014). The federal government subsequently amended regulations
implementing the ACA to allow closely held, for-profit corporations to use the
accommodation offered to religious non-profits and to allow objecting employers
5
to choose whether to notify the HHS Secretary directly, or to notify their health
insurance issuers or third-party administrators.
Further litigation followed throughout the Circuits, including this one.2 In
East Texas Baptist University v. Burwell, 793 F.3d 449 (5th Cir. 2015), this Circuit
2
Seven other Circuits (out of eight) that considered this issue before Zubik
reached same conclusion this Circuit did – that the accommodation process did not
impose a substantial burden on religious exercise under RFRA. See Priests for Life
v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 772 F.3d 229 (D.C. Cir. 2014), vacated,
Zubik, 136 S. Ct. at 1561; Catholic Health Care Sys. v. Burwell, 796 F.3d 207 (2d
Cir. 2015), vacated, ––– U.S. ––––, 136 S. Ct. 2450; Geneva Coll. v. Sec’y U.S.
Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 778 F.3d 422 (3d Cir. 2015), vacated, Zubik, 136
S. Ct. at 1561; E. Tex. Baptist Univ. v. Burwell, 793 F.3d 449 (5th Cir. 2015),
vacated, Zubik, 136 S. Ct. at 1561; Mich. Catholic Conference & Catholic Family
Servs. v. Burwell, 807 F.3d 738 (6th Cir. 2015), vacated, ––– U.S. ––––, 136 S. Ct.
2450 (2016); Grace Schs. v. Burwell, 801 F.3d 788 (7th Cir. 2015), vacated, –––
U.S. ––––, 136 S. Ct. 2011 (2016); Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged,
Denver, Colo. v. Burwell, 794 F.3d 1151 (10th Cir. 2015), vacated, Zubik, 136 S.
Ct. at 1561; Eternal Word Television Network v. Sec’y of U.S. Dep’t Health &
Human Servs., 818 F.3d 1122 (11th Cir. 2016), vacated, 2016 WL 11503064 (11th
Cir. May 31, 2016) (No. 14-12696-CC), as modified by 2016 WL 11504187 (11th
Cir. Oct. 3, 2016).
Only the Eighth Circuit concluded otherwise. See Sharpe Holdings, Inc. v.
U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 801 F.3d 927, 945 (8th Cir. 2015)
(affirming grant of preliminary injunction to religious objectors because “they
[were] likely to succeed on the merits of their RFRA challenge to the contraceptive
mandate and the accommodation regulations”), vacated sub nom. Dep’t of Health
& Human Servs. v. CNS Int’l Ministries, No. 15-775, ––– U.S., 2016 WL 2842448,
at *1 (May 16, 2016).
After Zubik, the Third Circuit reiterated its prior conclusion that the
accommodation process did not impose a substantial burden under RFRA. See
Real Alternatives, Inc. v. Sec’y Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 867 F.3d 338, 356
n.18 (3d Cir. 2017). The Ninth Circuit most recently held “that the accommodation
process likely does not substantially burden the exercise of religion.” California v.
U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 941 F.3d 410, 429-30 (9th Cir. 2019).
6
held that the ACA’s contraception requirements did not violate RFRA because
religious objectors had “not shown and [were] not likely to show that the
requirement substantially burdens their religious exercise under established law.”
Id. at 452. In its analysis, this Circuit noted that plaintiffs must show that the
challenged regulations “substantially burden their religious exercise” to establish a
RFRA violation. Id. at 456. In that case, this Circuit considered the extent to which
it should “defer to a religious objector’s view on whether there is a substantial
burden.” Id. Based on two applicable free-exercise decisions by the Supreme
Court, this Circuit concluded it was bound by precedent to decide, as a question of
law, whether the challenged law pressures the objector to modify his religious
exercise. Bowen v. Roy, 476 U.S. 693 (1986) (pertaining to the issuance of a Social
Security number); Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Ass’n, 485 U.S.
439 (1988) (pertaining to road and permit logging on federal land).3
This Circuit concluded that “the acts [religious objectors] are required to
perform do not include providing or facilitating access to contraceptives. Instead,
the acts that violate their faith are those of third parties.” East Texas Baptist
University, 793 F.3d at 459. First, this Circuit rejected the argument that
submitting a notice seeking exemption from the ACA’s contraception requirements
“will authorize or trigger payments for contraceptives” because the “ACA already
3
These two Supreme Court cases remain binding precedent.
7
requires contraceptive coverage.” Id. Second, this Circuit rejected the argument
that held that the accommodation uses the insurance plans as vehicles for payments
for contraceptives, recognizing that this is just what the regulations prohibit. Id.
Third, this Circuit rejected the argument that offering a group health plan pressures
objectors to authorize or facilitate the use of contraceptives, recognizing that the
accommodation excludes contraceptive coverage from their plans and allowing
objectors to express their disapproval of it. Id. at 461. Stated differently, this
Circuit held that “RFRA does not entitle [objectors] to block third parties from
engaging in conduct with which they disagree.” East Texas Baptist University, 793
F.3d at 461. “In short, the acts the plaintiffs are required to perform do not involve
providing or facilitating access to contraceptives, and the plaintiffs have no right
under RFRA to challenge the independent conduct of third parties.” Id. at 463.
The United States Supreme Court did not vacate East Texas Baptist
University, on the merits. See Zubik v. Burwell, 136 S. Ct. 1557 (2016). Instead,
the Court, following supplemental briefing from the parties addressing “whether
contraceptive coverage could be provided to petitioners’ employees, through
petitioners’ insurance companies, without any such notice from petitioners,”
remanded the cases to provide “an opportunity to arrive at an approach going
forward that accommodates petitioners’ religious exercise while at the same time
8
ensuring that women covered by petitioners’ health plans receive full and equal
health coverage, including contraceptive coverage.” Id. at 1560.
Following Zubik, the Department of Treasury and HHS (Departments)
published a request for information to determine whether modification to the
existing accommodation procedure could resolve the objections asserted by
religious objectors while still ensuring that affected women receive full and equal
health coverage, including contraception coverage. See ROA.911. The
Departments received over 54,000 public comments. ROA.911. In response, the
Departments concluded that the “comments demonstrate that a process like the one
described in the [Zubik] Court’s supplemental briefing order would not be
acceptable to those with religious objections to the contraceptive-coverage
requirement.”4 ROA.911-13, 915. Accordingly, the Departments did not modify
the accommodation regulations at that time. ROA.911.
Following the change in administrations and consistent with the current
administration’s general opposition to the ACA, the Departments instituted
rulemaking proceedings to provide further exemptions for objecting employers and
individuals. They eventually issued final rules that allow employers and
individuals to object to the ACA’s preventive care requirements on sincerely held
4
It is unclear whether the Plaintiffs in this case would have found such a
process acceptable, although they note the Departments’ conclusion that “no
feasible approach had been identified at this time that would resolve the concerns
of religious objectors.” ROA.911.
9
religious or moral grounds. See Religious Exemptions and Accommodations for
Coverage of Certain Preventive Services Under the Affordable Care Act, 83 Fed.
Reg. 57,536 (November 15, 2018). The Departments’ revised rules are subject to
litigation in multiple federal courts and are currently stayed by one nationwide
preliminary injunction. See Pennsylvania v. Trump, 351 F. Supp. 3d 791 (E.D. Pa.
2019), aff’d, Pennsylvania v. Trump, 930 F.3d 543 (3d Cir. 2019). The Final Rules
are also stayed by a preliminary injunction for the 13 States (plus the District of
Columbia) that were parties to the Ninth Circuit lawsuit. See California v. U.S.
Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 941 F.3d 410, 431 (9th Cir. 2019).
III. The Procedural Posture of this Case
Plaintiffs filed this suit in direct response to nationwide injunctions issued
against federal rulemaking associated with the ACA’s “Contraception Mandate”
concerning preventive healthcare provisions by employers asserting religious
objections to such healthcare. See ROA.276 (First Amended Complaint). Plaintiffs
sought a nationwide class action in this case against the ACA’s contraceptive
provisions because of purported violations of RFRA. Plaintiffs filed on October 6,
2018. ROA.38. They subsequently submitted an amended complaint on February
5, 2019. ROA.276.
To date, the Federal Defendants have not filed an answer or other responsive
pleading in this case, notwithstanding the district court’s prior order to do so. See
10
ROA.266. The Federal Defendants have not opposed Plaintiffs’ request for a
temporary restraining order. See ROA.1117. The Federal Defendants “are not
raising a substantive defense of the Mandate or the accommodation process with
respect to Plaintiffs’ RFRA challenge.” ROA.1411. Instead, the Federal
Defendants agreed to convert a motion for preliminary injunction into a motion for
permanent injunction and summary judgment. ROA.1392. The Federal Defendants
also agreed to brief the newly converted summary judgment on an expedited basis.
ROA.1395.
Nevada sought to intervene to ensure its sovereign interests in the existing
ACA contraception protections. Rather than consider the intervention motion, the
district court entertained argument and granted summary judgment shortly
thereafter, accepting Plaintiffs’ arguments that this case was substantively different
than East Texas Baptist University. ROA.1845-79. Only after awarding Plaintiffs’
final relief did the district court deny Nevada’s motion to intervene – without
hearing. ROA.2061-82.
The court denied intervention on three primary bases:
First, the district court conducted a sua sponte analysis to determine Nevada
lacked standing. ROA.2064-69. After Nevada’s appeal, the court issued a notice
reversing its standing determination. See Notice, Record Excerpts (RE.134-35).
11
Second, the district court rejected Nevada’s motion to intervene solely due
to its conclusion that Nevada does not have a protectable interest in this case. This
erroneous conclusion resulted in the court’s issuance of a nationwide class
judgment that contradicts the ACA. ROA.2071-75.
Third, the district court considered and rejected Nevada’s assertion that the
East Texas Baptist University analysis should govern this RFRA case. ROA.2079-
81.
Nevada timely appealed, first by filing a notice of protective appeal within
thirty days of the order granting summary judgment. ROA.1937. Plaintiffs moved
this Court to dismiss the appeal on standing grounds. See Motion (Sept. 6, 2019).
Prior to Nevada’s opposition being due, the Federal Defendants appealed the
judgment. See Notice of Appeal (Sept. 27, 2019). Subsequently, the Federal
Defendants sought leave to stay the appeal pending the Court’s determination of
standing. See Motion (Oct. 1, 2019). In a joint motion with Plaintiffs, the Federal
Defendants also sought leave to stay this appeal pending the Court’s determination
of intervention. See Motion (Oct. 11, 2019). As set forth in the joint motion, the
Federal Defendants did “not intend to proceed with their appeal if Nevada is not
permitted to intervene and proceed with its merits appeal.” See Motion (Oct. 11,
2019) at 5. Following that request being denied by this Court, the Federal
12
Defendants voluntarily dismissed their appeal. See Motion for Voluntary Dismissal
(Dec. 6, 2019).
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
In this Affordable Care Act contraception case, the original parties have
continuously sought to avoid adverse rulings before other federal courts on the
same substantive policy issue presented here. Disheartened that “a federal judge in
Philadelphia issued a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of [final rules
issued by the Federal Defendants], Plaintiffs filed this class action case to “seek an
injunction against [the] enforcement [of the Affordable Care Act’s contraception
provisions].” ROA.277. Similarly disheartened by this and another preliminary
injunction issued against their preferred “final rules,” the Federal Defendants
provided little to no adversity to Plaintiffs’ efforts in this case. They filed no
responsive pleading. Rather than seek a stay or appeal following class certification,
the Federal Defendants expedited “briefing” on the merits, making no reference to
this Circuit’s recent analysis of the same legal question. Given this lack of
adversity, Plaintiffs effectively circumvented the administrative rulemaking
litigation by obtaining a permanent injunction in this case, precluding the adverse
rulings in the other litigations.
Nevada seeks intervention to protect its interests and the interests of women
nationwide. In support of intervention, Nevada provides declarant support
13
premised on the Federal Defendants’ own rulemaking – demonstrating that
Nevadan women will be harmed by the permanent injunction. For Nevada, this
risk of harm takes the form of financial cost, increased health care costs, increased
unplanned pregnancies, and increased abortions. Ignoring these facts, the district
court denied intervention, erring by asserting Nevada suffered no injury for
standing purposes and had no significant, protectable interest affected by the
nationwide class injunction. On appeal, the Federal Defendants have switched
positions on whether or what issues they will appeal.
Nevada has standing to appeal the district court’s order denying intervention
and, if intervention is granted, the nationwide class injunction. As a matter of right,
Nevada assert a significant, legally protectable interest necessitating intervention in
this case. On the merits, the district court erred when making distinctions from this
Circuit’s prior analysis of the same legal issue, which is consistent with almost
every other circuit that has considered the issue.
This Court should reverse the district court’s judgment, and Nevada should
be allowed to participate in all further proceedings as a defendant-intervenor.
14
ARGUMENT
I. The District Court’s Judgment Creates a Substantial Risk of

Harm for Women in the United States Generally and for Nevada
Specifically.
Adoption of the ACA’s contraception mandate resulted in a 35% decrease in
Nevada’s abortion rate among women aged 15 to 19 and a 10% decrease amount
women aged 20 to 24 between 2012 to 2017.5 ROA.1598. Nevada has concluded,
through straightforward math, based on extrapolating nationwide calculations in
the Federal Government’s proposed Final Rules, between 600 to 1,200 Nevadan
women would be harmed from implementation of Plaintiffs’ proposed class relief.6
ROA.1596. Nevada derived these numbers as follows:
The Departments included a regulatory impact analysis, (see 82 Fed. Reg. at
47,815-28; 82 Fed. Reg. at 47,856-59), as required by law. See Regulatory
Planning and Review, Executive Order 12,866, 58 Fed. Reg. 51,735 (Oct. 4, 1993).
In their regulatory impact analysis, the Departments estimated that, nationwide,
between 31,700 and 120,000 women would be affected by the expanded
5
Plaintiffs do not dispute this specific number, which alone demonstrates
Nevada’s interest in this case. This estimate resulted from implementation of these
provisions, per Nevada’s declarant. Reducing abortion is a direct, substantial,
legally protectable interest of Nevada. At this stage of the proceedings, this court
and the district court are obligated to defer to Nevada’s factual assertions.
6
Even if this was a mere factual allegation (rather than a fact from a
declaration issued by Nevada under penalty of perjury), this Court would still be
obligated to take this factual allegation as true for purposes of considering
intervention. Texas v. United States, 805 F.3d 653, 657 (5th Cir. 2015).
15
exemptions. See Fed. Reg. at 47,821-23. The Departments accounted for various
factors that could skew the estimates.
The Departments based their lower bound estimate of 31,700 women
partially on the number of employers that had previously challenged the
contraceptive coverage requirement in litigation, and partially on an estimate of the
number of employers using the accommodation. See 82 Fed. Reg. 47815-21. The
Departments based their upper bound estimate of 120,000 women from the
consideration of a pre-ACA Kaiser Family Foundation survey, further reduced by
estimating “that no more than approximately one third of the persons covered by
relevant entities … would likely be subject to potential transfer impacts.” Id. at
47,823.
From there, the Departments estimated an “average annual expenditure on
contraceptive products and services of $584 per user,” resulting in a “transfer
effect[]” attributable to the Interim Final Rules of between about $18.5 and $63.8
million annually nationwide. Id. at 47,823-24. This amount does not include a
numerical estimate for the “noteworthy potential impact[]” of “increased
expenditures on pregnancy-related medical services.” Id. at 47,828 n.113.
Subsequently, for the final rules, based on the same methodology, the
Departments calculate that between 70,515 and 126,400 women will lose
employer-based coverage for their chosen method of contraception. See 83 Fed.
16
Reg. 57578, 57580; 83 Fed. Reg. 57627-28. The increase was largely attributable
to the fact that the Departments failed to account for nearly two-thirds of the
people receiving contraceptive coverage through the accommodation. Compare 82
Fed. Reg. 47821 (stating that 1,027,000 people “are covered in accommodated
plans”), with 83 Fed. Reg. 57577 (stating that 2,907,000 people “were covered in
plans using the accommodation under the previous regulations”). Nevada simply
multiplied these numbers from the final rule by its percentage of the total United
States population to calculate the 600 to 1,200 Nevada women.
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) notes that women with unintended
pregnancies are more likely to delay prenatal care, which is imperative to positive
birth outcomes. ROA.1597. The increase in Nevada women relying on publicly
funded services would strain Nevada’s existing family planning programs and
providers, making it more difficult for them to meet the current need for care. For
instance, in 2014, 194,000 women were in need of publicly funded family planning
in Nevada, with the existing state family planning network only able to meet 10%
of this need. RR 1624;7 see also Frost JJ, Frohwirth L and Zolna MR,
Contraceptive Needs and Services, 2014 Update, New York: Guttmacher Institute,
7
Ms. Kost is the Acting Vice President for Domestic Research at the
Guttmacher Institute, having served in various capacities there for nearly 30 years.
ROA.1599. Her declaration describes harms associated with Plaintiffs’ proposed
permanent injunction, both on a nationwide and Nevada-specific basis.
17
2016, https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/contraceptive-
needs-and-services-2014_1.pdf).
Nevada also implements the ACA in numerous other ways, including the
provision of the state marketplace for obtaining individual health insurance. See,
e.g., NEV. REV. STAT. (NRS) § 695I. Nevada has a public interest in the health of
its citizens, as advanced by the existing provisions. Nevada also has an interest in
ensuring equal treatment of its citizens for preventive health care, regardless of
their sex. NEV. CONST. art. IV, § 21.
Nevada has standing to appeal as well as a direct, substantial, legally-
protectable interest warranting intervention as a matter of right.
II. Nevada Has Standing to Pursue this Appeal in Order to Remedy the
Risk of Harm to It from the District Court’s Erroneous Judgment.
The test of Nevada’s standing on appeal is not whether injury is certain to
occur. Rather, Nevada must show only a substantial risk of injury to satisfy the
imminence component of Article III. See, e.g., Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus,
573 U.S. 149, 158 (2014); Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l, USA, 568 U.S. 398, 414 n. 5
(2013) (stating that plaintiffs are not required “to demonstrate that it is literally
certain that the harms they identify will come about”). Because Nevada faces a
18
substantial risk of injury as a result of the district court’s judgment, it has standing
to appeal.8
The district court’s nationwide injunction barring implementation of the
ACA’s contraceptive mandate will harm Nevada’s economic and quasi-sovereign
interests. This Court thus owes Nevada “special solicitude in [the] standing
analysis”—not heightened skepticism. See Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497,
520 (2007).
Nevada is not required to identify a “particular woman” who has lost or will
lose coverage as a result of the district court’s judgment. The effects detailed
above, which demonstrate that Nevada women will be negatively impacted by the
judgment and that as a result Nevada faces a substantial risk of economic injury are
sufficient to establish standing. SBA List, 573 U.S. at 158. Requiring Nevada to
identify a “particular woman” who has lost or will lose coverage because of the
rules would be equivalent to insisting that Nevada show that injury is certain to
occur. Because Article III does not demand such a showing to establish standing,
this Court should not require it here.
Most recently, in Texas v. United States, Case No. 19-10011, at 32 n.30 (5th
Cir. Dec. 18, 2019), this Circuit rejected arguments that standing requires proof
pertaining to at least one specific person. Id. This Court did so, recognizing that if
8
The district court determined that Nevada did not need to establish standing
in that court. RE.136-137.
19
it did otherwise, it “would create a split with our sister circuits.” Id. The avoided
split was with the First, Third, and Ninth Circuits’ standing analysis relative to the
ACA’s contraception coverage and arguments premised on “failing to identify a
specific woman.” Id. In short, this Circuit avoided a split with sister circuits on this
issue. This Court should follow its recent opinion on this issue and reject the
“specific woman” argument.
Both the Supreme Court’s and this Court’s precedent recognizes standing
based on a substantial risk of future injury of similar or lesser magnitude than
Nevada has asserted in this case. See Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, 561
U.S. 139, 153-55 & n. 3 (2010) (finding the conventional alfalfa farmers had
standing even though they did not identify a particular alfalfa plant that had been
pollinated by or was likely to be pollinated by bees carrying the genetically
engineered gene); see Texas v. United States, 809 F.3d 134, 155-56, 162 (5th Cir.
2015), aff’d, 136 S. Ct. 2271 (2016) (per curiam) (finding, in a case challenging
DAPA, that Texas had standing even where it did not identify particular
noncitizens who had applied, or would likely apply, for driver’s licenses “because
driving is a practical necessity in most of the state,” and there was thus a sufficient
likelihood that “some DAPA beneficiaries would apply”). Based on the
information provided by the administrative record for the final rules, it is highly
likely that Nevada employers, such as Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., will use the
20
nationwide class judgment to avoid providing contraceptive coverage. Compare
with Massachusetts, 923 F.3d at 224 (containing identical analysis pertaining to
Hobby Lobby).
The risk of harm to Nevada is not speculative. There is a substantial risk that
Nevada women affected by the judgment will be forced to choose a method of
contraception that is not covered by their employers’ plans. See ROA.603 (plaintiff
Braidwood’s representation that it is unwilling to provide insurance to cover any
“contraception because it is often (though not always) used to facilitate sexual
activity outside of marriage).” Given that 90% of all women at risk of an
unintended pregnancy are currently using a contraceptive method, (ROA.1601), no
speculation is required to conclude that an objecting employer like Braidwood,
who would provide no contraception coverage whatsoever, will inevitably employ
women who choose some otherwise covered form of contraception.
Likewise, no speculation is required to conclude that some Nevada women
who lose coverage will be eligible for state-funded public insurance programs.
Nevada submitted declarations demonstrating that such programs paid 60% of all
expenses for unintended pregnancies that ended in birth, costing Nevada $37
million in 2010, prior to the ACA. ROA.1597-98, 1625. At the pre-trial stage of
this case, the declarations strongly support that Nevada faces a substantial risk of
fiscal injury from the district court’s judgment. Plaintiffs provided no evidence to
21
contest those declarations, and the evidence in them must therefore “be taken to be
true.” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992).
Nevada must be able to challenge the district court’s judgment based upon
the substantial risk—not certainty—that it will suffer harm. Imposing a stricter
standard to establish standing would mean that a state like Nevada would only be
able to challenge the judgment after Nevada women have suffered unacceptable
harm. Nevada’s request for a remedy cannot wait. This is particularly true here,
where Nevada is a sovereign state that has quasi-sovereign interests, regardless of
whether it causes Nevada any financial injury. See Alfred L. Snapp & Son, Inc. v.
Puerto Rico, 458 U.S. 592, 607 (1982) (finding that Puerto Rico has a “quasi-
sovereign interest in the health and well-being . . . of its residents”).
In short, this Court has standing to consider all issues raised by Nevada in
this appeal.
III. Nevada Has the Right to Intervene, and the District Court’s Order to
the Contrary was Legal Error.
A. Intervention Is Liberally Construed as a Legal Question.
Nevada is entitled to intervene as a matter of right if: (1) its motion is timely;
(2) it has an interest “relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of
the action;” (3) the outcome of the action may, “as a practical matter, impair or
impede his ability to protect that interest;” and (4) the existing parties cannot
22
adequately represent that interest. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Texas Alcoholic
Beverage Comm’n, 834 F.3d 562, 565 (5th Cir. 2016).
Rule 24 is “liberally construed” in favor of intervention. Blumfield v. Dodd,
749 F.3d 339, 341 (5th Cir. 2014). “[D]oubts [are] resolved in favor of the
proposed intervenor.” In re Lease Oil Antitrust Litig., 570 F.3d 244, 248 (5th Cir.
2009). In fact, this Circuit has allowed parties to intervene even where they never
filed a motion to do so. See Farina v. Mission Inv. Trust, 615 F.2d 1068, 1074 (5th
Cir. 1980). For the purposes of Nevada’s motion for intervention, this Court must
accept Nevada’s factual allegations as true. Texas v. United States, 805 F.3d 653,
657 (5th Cir. 2015). Intervention as a matter of right “must be measured by a
practical rather than a technical yardstick,” and the inquiry is a “flexible one”
focused on the “particular facts and circumstances” of each case. Edwards v. City
of Houston, 78 F.3d 983, 999 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc). “Federal courts should
allow intervention where no one would be hurt and the greater justice could be
obtained.” Texas v. United States, 805 F.3d at 657; Sierra Club v. Espy, 18 F.3d
1202, 1206 (5th Cir. 1994).
Here, the district court held that Nevada met its burden as to the timeliness,
impairment, and adequate representation prongs of the intervention test.
ROA.2069-70, 2075-79. The district court nevertheless concluded that “Nevada
23
Does Not Have a Protectable Interest.” ROA.2071-75. This conclusion is
erroneous as a matter of law.
B. Nevada Has a Direct, Substantial, and Legally Protectable

Interest.
Nevada satisfies Rule 24’s requirement that intervenors must have a “direct,
substantial, legally protectable interest in the proceedings.” Texas v. United States,
805 F.3d at 657. Property or pecuniary interests are the “most elementary type[s]
of right[s]” protected by Rule 24(a) and “are almost always adequate.” Id. at 658.
This is the primary nature of Nevada’s interest.
Rule 24(a) safeguards less tangible interests as well, however, such as a right
to vote. See, e.g., League of United Latin American Citizens, District 19 v. City of
Boerne, 659 F.3d 421, 434 (5th Cir. 2011). For instance, this Court has recognized
that intervention as of right does not require proof of a property right in the context
of a public-law case. Further, “although an asserted interest must be ‘legally
protectable,’ it need not be legally enforceable.” Id. at 658-59 (emphasis in
original). “In other words, an interest is sufficient if it is of the type that the law
deems worthy of protection, even if the intervener does not have an enforceable
legal entitlement or would not have standing to pursue her own claim.” Id.
Here, Nevada, a sovereign state, seeks to defend existing ACA provisions.
As set forth above, Nevada has achieved concrete public health gains in reducing
unintended pregnancies and abortions from these provisions. The ACA intended to
24
provide Nevada these public health benefits, along with potential fiscal benefits.
Under these circumstances, Nevada has a legally protectable interest in this case.
The district court’s first holding—that Nevada was “asserting a mere
economic interest not directly related [to] this litigation”—is simply incorrect.
ROA.2072. Rather, Nevada has asserted its interest in the provision of
contraception care to preserve resulting public health gains and to conserve
financial resources that were previously expended attempting to address unplanned
pregnancies. Nevada has provided declarant testimony supporting its asserted
interest, which courts are obligated to treat as true for purposes of adjudicating this
motion. Texas v. United States, 805 F.3d at 657.
As noted, supra, adoption of the contraception mandate resulted in a 35%
decrease in Nevada’s abortion rate among women aged 15 to 19 and a 10%
decrease in women aged 20 to 24 between 2012 and 2017. ROA.1598 (emphasis
added). Nevada has concluded, based on extrapolating nationwide calculations in
the federal government’s proposed final rules, that between 600 to 1,200 Nevada
women would be harmed from implementation of Plaintiffs’ proposed class relief.
ROA.1598. This is straightforward math. The CDC notes that women with
unintended pregnancies are more likely to delay prenatal care, which is imperative
to positive birth outcomes. ROA.1597. In addition, the increase in Nevada women
relying on publicly funded services as a result of unplanned pregnancies would
25
strain Nevada’s existing family planning programs and providers, making it more
difficult for them to meet the current need for care.
Nevada’s determination that its citizens face a substantial risk of harm is not
speculative. The determination is based squarely on the facts detailed above. This
Court should thus reject the district court’s contention that Nevada’s interest is not
“direct” because “Nevada argues that the class-wide injunction Plaintiffs seek will
have ripple effects.” ROA.2072. In making this finding, the district court
inappropriately substitutes a test for certainty instead of risk at the pleading stage
of this case. See Department of Commerce v. New York, 139 S. Ct. 2551, 2565-66
(2019). The Supreme Court has explained the concept of risk, recognizing that
future injuries associated with seeking citizenship information from Census
participants, for example, “may suffice if the threatened injury is certainly
impending, or there is a substantial risk that the harm will occur.” Id. at 2565
(citing Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. 149, 158 (2014) (SBA List)).
The Court rejected causation arguments that asserted speculation about the
decisions of independent actors. Id. The Court held that traceability was satisfied
“on the predictable effect of Government action on the decisions of third parties.”
Id. at 2566.
Nevada has pled, based on the calculations made by the federal government,
that 600-1,200 Nevada women would be affected, such that they would be at risk
26
of increased pregnancies, abortions, or expense. In addition, the district court erred
when it concluded that Nevada “failed to establish a ‘substantial’ interest in the
outcome of these proceedings because it does not estimate the amount of additional
spending [Nevada] will incur.” ROA.2073.
This Court has recognized that “a party within the zone of interests protected
by a statute may possess a type of substantive right not to have the statute
violated.” New Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc. v. United Gas Pipeline Co. (NOPSI), 732
F2d. 452, 465 (5th Cir. 1984) (en banc). This Court did not further “determine the
zone of interests protected or regulated by a constitutional provision or statute of
general application” in NOPSI because that dispute did “not involve such a public
law question,” instead centering on a breach of contract claim.9 Id.
C. Nevada Is Entitled to Special Solicitude in

Order to Protect its Quasi-Sovereign Interests.
In addition to Nevada’s proprietary injuries, the Supreme Court has
recognized that states have a quasi-sovereign interest in the physical and economic
well-being of their residents. See, e.g., Alfred L. Snapp & Son v. Puerto Rico, 458
U.S. 592, 607-608 (1982); Massachusetts v. E.P.A., 549 U.S. 497, 519-20 (2007).
Nevada has demonstrated the extensive harm to itself and its residents that would
9
NOPSI rejected intervention because it determined that there was adequate
representation of the City of New Orleans’ interest by NOPSI in the breach of
contract dispute with a fuel supplier. Id. at 472-73. Here, Plaintiffs cannot and do
not argue that the Federal Defendants have represented Nevada’s interests in this
case.
27
flow from Plaintiffs’ unopposed prosecution of this lawsuit. “States are not normal
litigants for the purposes of invoking federal jurisdiction.” Massachusetts, 549
U.S. at 518.
This Circuit similarly recognizes the importance of states’ quasi-sovereign
interests. See Texas v. United States, 809 F.3d at 150–62 (5th Cir. 2015). Among
other factors considered in this case, this Court held that certain actions can affect
“the states’ ‘quasi-sovereign’ interests by imposing substantial pressure on them to
change their laws.”10 Id. at 153. This Court rejected the argument that states had
the ability to avoid injury by changing applicable law. “States have a sovereign
interest in the power to create and enforce a legal code,” and the possibility that a
plaintiff could avoid injury by incurring other costs does not negate standing. Id.
at 156-57.
Here, Nevada has demonstrated the extensive harm to itself and its residents
that would flow from Plaintiffs’ unopposed prosecution of this lawsuit. Nevada has
asserted its public health and financial interests in maintaining the existing balance
under federal law for providing Nevadans equal access to preventive care without
regard to their sex. Existing Nevada statute highlights Nevada’s support for this
existing balance, as they also balance access to preventive care with the religious
liberty interests of insurers who are “affiliated with a religious organization.” See
10
The Court limited its recognition of “quasi-sovereign” interests to the facts
asserted in the case. Id. at 154-55.
28
NRS 689A.0418, 689B.0378, 689C.1676, 695A.1865, 695B.1919, and 695C.1696.
Nevada’s efforts to preserve the existing balance is consistent with these Nevada
statutes.
This interest further warrants intervention as of right.
D. This Suit Will Impair Nevada’s Ability to Protect Its

Interests in the ACA’s Contraception Provisions.
If Plaintiffs prevail, the proposed nationwide class action would “impair or
impede” Nevada’s ability to protect its interests detailed above. Wal-Mart, 834
F.3d at 565. With complete disregard for Nevada’s interests, Plaintiffs seek to
impose nationwide restrictions outside the ongoing federal rulemaking process—a
process that requires opportunities for interested parties to participate. Significant
numbers of Nevada women will lose access to necessary healthcare, reversing
significant public health gains achieved following adoption of the ACA.
Nevada should not be forced to “wait on the sidelines” while a court decides
issues “contrary to their interests.” Brumfield, 749 F.3d at 344–45. Rather, the
“very purposes of intervention is to allow interested parties to air their views so
that a court may consider them before making potentially adverse decisions.” Id. at
345 (emphasis added). Indeed, the mere “stare decisis effects of the district court’s
judgment” sufficiently impairs Nevada’s interests to allow it to intervene now.
Sierra Club, 18 F.3d at 1207.
29
E. Nevada’s Intervention was Timely Under the

Circumstances.
This Court considers four factors when evaluating the timeliness of a motion
to intervene:
(1) The length of time the applicants knew or should have known of
their interest in the case;
(2) Prejudice to existing parties caused by the applicant’s delay;
(3) Prejudice to the applicant if the motion is denied; and
(4) Any unusual circumstances.
Stallworth v. Monsanto Co., 558 F.2d 257, 264–66 (5th Cir. 1977). Each factor
here demonstrates the timeliness of Nevada’s motion under the circumstances of
this case.
The first inquiry is contextual, as “absolute measures of timeliness should be
ignored.” Sierra Club, 18 F.3d at 1205. The clock beings to run when the
applicants knew or reasonably should have known of their interests, or from the
time they became aware that their interests would no longer be protected by the
existing parties to the lawsuit. Edwards, 78 F.3d at 1000; Sierra Club, 18 F.3d at
1206.
Here, the district court, at the behest of the parties, including the Federal
Defendants who had not answered or otherwise responded to any pleading,
converted a potential motion for preliminary injunction into a motion for summary
30
judgment and permanent injunction. ROA.1406. It took the parties the week of
April 15th to complete the briefing. ROA.1409-35. Only then did the Federal
Defendants file a “Response” in which they stated they “do not oppose an order by
this Court entering partial summary judgment on the legal question whether any
employers or individuals who in fact fall within the certified classes have stated a
valid RFRA claim.” ROA.1411.
Nevada has acted diligently and did not unduly delay its efforts to intervene
in this case. Nevada could not have known the district court was considering
summary judgment or a permanent injunction prior to “the briefing on the merits
[having been concluded] during those next nine days.” ROA.2070. It was simply
impossible under the circumstances for Nevada to have known. Accordingly,
Nevada only learned of the Federal Defendants’ position in this case after the week
of April 19th, and it then prepared the motion to intervene and proposed opposition
to the pending motion for summary judgment.
Plaintiffs fail to address how named Plaintiffs would be prejudiced by
prompt consideration of Nevada’s proposed opposition in light of the district
court’s subsequent order granting summary judgment. Named Plaintiffs were
protected by an unopposed temporary restraining order. ROA.1130. In contrast,
Nevada is prejudiced by not being able to defend the existing preventive health
care provisions premised on this Court’s prior analysis. Nevada’s motion satisfies
31
Rule 24(a)(2)’s timeliness requirement. This Court should uphold the district
court’s determination on timeliness. ROA.2069-70.
F. The Federal Defendants Do Not Adequately Represent

Nevada’s Interests.
No current party represents Nevada’s interests in defense of the ACA. The
Federal Defendants:
 failed to file a responsive pleading;
 did not conduct discovery;
 refused to oppose the request for a temporary restraining order;
 agreed to convert a motion for preliminary injunction into a motion
for permanent injunction and summary judgment;
 chose not to defend the ACA’s contraception provisions on their
merits, even though this Court previously analyzed the same issue
in East Texas Baptist University,11 and
11
Nevada recognizes that the United States Supreme Court vacated this
Circuit’s decision in Zubik and remanded to allow the parties in those cases to
explore whether further modifications to the existing accommodation procedure
could resolve the asserted objections while still ensuring affected women receive
full and equal health coverage, including contraceptive coverage. Based in part on
comments that the process described in Zubik would not resolve the concerns of
religious objectors, the Departments concluded that there was no feasible approach
“identified at this time.” See U.S. Dep’t of Labor, Emp. Benefits Sec. Admin.,
FAQs About Affordable Care Act Implementation Part 36, (Jan. 9, 2017). The
Departments further noted that they “continue to believe the existing
accommodation regulations are consistent with RFRA” based on the prior holdings
32
 undertook varying positions on whether they appealed the
judgment and, even if they did so, whether Nevada should first be
required to engage in piecemeal appellate work as to 1)
demonstrating standing and 2) obtaining reversal of the
intervention order.
This lack of adversity forced Nevada to seek intervention to avoid injuries to
its interests resulting from a nationwide injunction. These circumstances more than
satisfy the “minimal” requirement that the Federal Defendants’ representation of
Nevada’s interests “may be inadequate.” Edwards, 78 F.3d at 1005.
The district court recognized that no presumption of adequate representation
by the Federal Defendants applied to this case and that Nevada was not adequately
represented by any party to this case. ROA.2076-77. Because Nevada has
identified “particular ways in which its interests diverge” from the Federal
Defendants, it is entitled to intervene. Texas v. United States, 805 F.3d at 663. This
Court has repeatedly held that intervention is required under these circumstance—
where the proposed intervenor seeks intervention as a defendant, has rebutted the
presumption of adequate representation, and has shown adversity of interest by
identifying its divergent interests and legal arguments from the existing defendants.
by eight other Circuits (including this one) that the requirement does not
substantially burden their exercise of religion. Id. Nevada submits (and would
argue, upon intervention) that the prior analysis undertaken by this Circuit should
govern this Court’s analysis of that legal question.
33
See Brumfield, 749 F.3d at 346; Texas v. United States, 805 F.3d at 663; Entergy
Gulf States La., LLC v. E.P.A., 817 F.3d 198, 203 (5th Cir. 2016); Wal-Mart, 834
F.3d at 569. Because Nevada has met those requirements, this Court should grant it
intervention as a matter of right.
G. In the Alternative, Nevada Should Be Permitted to Intervene.
Alternatively, Nevada is entitled to permissive intervention under Rule
24(b), which permits the Court to use its discretion to grant intervention where the
application is timely, there is a common question of law or fact, and there will be
no undue delay or prejudice to the original parties. Kneeland v. Nat’l Collegiate
Athletic Ass’n, 806 F.2d 1285, 1289 (5th Cir. 1987); In re Enron Corp. Sec.
Derivative & “ERISA” Litig., 229 F.R.D. 126, 131 (S.D. Tex. 2005). Rule 24(b)(2)
further allows a state such as Nevada to intervene on a timely motion where a
claim is premised on “a statute or executive order administered by [Nevada].” This
Court has also instructed that “[f]ederal courts should allow intervention where no
one would be hurt and the greater justice could be obtained.” Texas v. United
States, 805 F.3d at 657 (citing Sierra Club, 18 F.2d at 1205).
First, as discussed above, Nevada’s motion is timely. Second, it is clear that
Nevada, without a final determination of the merits, has asserted a defense that
shares a question of law with Plaintiffs pertaining to whether the ACA’s
contraception provisions constitute a RFRA violation. Based on prior litigation
34
involving the same preventive health care provisions, there is no doubt that this is a
valid defense. See East Texas Baptist Univ., 793 F.3d 449. This is consistent with
the district court’s subsequent “notice,” in which it determined that it erred when
determining Nevada lacked standing because Nevada seeks defense of the ACA.
RE.136-137. Third, given the existing temporary restraining order protecting
named Plaintiffs and the ability of any other class member to seek similar relief,
Nevada’s intervention would not cause undue delay or prejudice to the original
parties.
IV. The District Court’s Nationwide Class Judgment Must be Reversed

and Vacated.
A. Standard of Review
This Court views all evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving
party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587
(1986). Summary judgment is appropriate only where there is no genuine issue of
material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Bolton v. City of Dallas, 472 F.3d 261, 263 (5th Cir. 2006).
B. This Circuit’s Precedent Applies Here, Requiring Application

of the Substantial Burden and Least Restrictive Means
Test.
This Court has already determined that “RFRA does not entitle [objectors] to
block third parties from engaging in conduct with which they disagree.” East Texas
Baptist University, 793 F.3d at 461. It has also previously analyzed the acts
35
required to comply with the “accommodation” provided for under the
contraception mandate. Id. This Circuit held that “the acts [objectors] are required
to perform do not include providing or facilitating access to contraceptives.” Id. at
459. Accordingly, because “RFRA confers no right to challenge the independent
conduct of third parties,” [this Circuit joined other circuits] in concluding that the
plaintiffs have not shown a substantial burden on their religious exercise.” Id.
Without any opportunity for discovery, the district court erred in its efforts to
distinguish this case from what this Circuit already considered in East Texas
Baptist University.
First, the district court erred in agreeing that contraception coverage would
be “provided through [Plaintiffs’] plan if it opts for the accommodation,” based on
a statement pertaining to ERISA formalities during briefing for Zubik. ROA.581.
This assertion ignores the plain language of the accommodation, which excludes
contraceptive coverage from the group coverage, segregates all premium revenue,
and provides separate notice regarding the separate contraceptive coverage. See 45
C.F.R. § 147.131(d)-(e). As the federal government told the Supreme Court in
Zubik, “[i]n all cases, the regulations mandate strict separation between the
contraceptive coverage provided by an insurer or [third party administrator] TPA
and other coverage provided on behalf of the employer.” Zubik, Response Brief
(Resp. Br.), 2016 WL 537623, at *18. Plaintiffs point to no evidence
36
demonstrating that their own health plans “sponsor” the entirely separate
contraceptive coverage, because none exists. That result is impermissible under the
existing regulations. See 45 C.F.R. § 147.131(d)-(e).
The federal government’s Zubik brief directly refutes the claims made by
Plaintiffs and the district court: “Nor does the government, in fact, provide
contraceptive coverage using any ‘plan infrastructure’ belonging to petitioners.”
Zubik, Resp. Br., 2016 WL 537623, at *38. The federal government did state that if
an objecting employer has a self-insured plan subject to ERISA, “the Departments’
authority to require the TPA to provide contraceptive coverage derives from
ERISA.” Id. at *38. That simply means that the separate contraceptive coverage
between the TPA and the employee—for purposes of ERISA only—is part of the
same ERISA plan as the coverage provided by the employer. Id. That does not
change the fact that even for those self-insured plans, the “rules governing
contraceptive coverage are established by the government, not the employer, and
the employer does not fund, control, or have any other involvement in that separate
coverage—instead, the TPA alone does so.” Id. (emphasis added).
In short, the ERISA status of the separate contraceptive coverage between
the TPA and the employee does not affect the terms of the group health coverage
that the employer and the insurer have contractually agreed upon— coverage that
excludes contraceptives. See, e.g., Priests for Life v. Department of Health and
37
Human Servs., 772 F.3d 229, 225 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (stating that the fact that the
government names the TPA as the plan administrator of the separate contraceptive
coverage, for purposes of ERISA only, “does not . . . amend or alter Plaintiffs’ own
plan instruments . . .”). This Court’s prior analysis was not based on a mistaken
factual premise. The district court’s conclusion to the contrary was error.
Second, this Court has already specifically acknowledged that the ACA
itself “already requires contraceptive coverage” and that nothing “suggests that
insurers’ or third-party administrators’ obligations would be waived if the plaintiffs
refused to apply for the accommodation.” East Texas Baptist University, 793 F.3d
at 459. Plaintiffs previously argued that the submission of the form for
accommodation is the “but-for cause” of providing contraception. ROA.582-83.
This Court recognized, however, that “the plaintiffs cannot authorize or trigger
what others are already required by law to do.” ROA.583. Plaintiffs are not entitled
to absolute deference on the issue of substantial burden under these circumstances.
See Brief of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty as Amicus Curiae in
Support of Respondents, Zubik, 2016 WL 692850 (Feb. 17, 2016) (opposing
efforts to seek absolute deference to objectors’ assessment of substantial burden).
Third, Plaintiffs’ objections to the proposed accommodation process, alone,
without further evidence, do not make it impossible to follow this Circuit’s prior,
persuasive analysis. It is not, in fact, “impossible for a court to accept East Texas
38
Baptist University’s holding that the certification form does nothing to ‘facilitate’
or ‘trigger’ access to contraception” as Plaintiffs have contended. RA.583.
Plaintiffs’ arguments pertaining to the post-Zubik administrative process are
misleading. Their arguments on this point are based solely on their own stated
opinion that “a process like the one described in the Court’s supplemental briefing
order [in Zubik] would not be acceptable to those with religious objections to the
contraceptive-coverage requirement.” RA.269. No evidence supports such a
statement.
The record contains no evidence that an individual’s purchase of health
insurance necessarily subsidizes another’s contraception. As noted by this Court,
“insurers will not lose money by paying for contraceptives, because the savings on
pregnancy care at least are expected to equal the costs of contraceptives.” East
Texas Baptist University, 793 F.3d at 460. Providing preventive health care results
in reduced health care costs, constituting long-term savings for insurers that are
passed along to all insureds. Without record evidence showing an actual subsidy,
Plaintiffs’ argument has no merit.
C. Plaintiffs Are Not Subject to a Substantial Burden for RFRA

Purposes.
Plaintiffs do not face a “substantial burden” associated with the existing
contraception provisions. East Texas Baptist Univ., 793 F.3d 449. Simply put, the
39
actions Plaintiffs are required to take to implement the accommodation do not
burden them whatsoever.
D. The Federal Government Has a Compelling Interest in the ACA’s

Contraception Provisions.
The district court’s order presumed “- without finding -” that there was a
compelling government interest. RA.1864. This is consistent with the Supreme
Court’s recognition in Hobby Lobby that the contraceptive-coverage requirement
“serves the Government’s compelling interest in providing insurance coverage that
is necessary to protect the health of female employees, coverage that is
significantly more costly than for a male employee.” Id. at 2785-86 (Kennedy, J.,
concurring); accord id. at 2799-2800 & n.23 (Ginsburg, J., dissenting).
Here, Nevada would only be “demonstrating” what the federal government
has already determined to be a “compelling government interest” by the “least
restrictive means” available. The federal government demonstrated that the
existing methods were the “least restrictive means” available for implementing the
existing provisions during the post-Zubik administrative process, while maintaining
the seamlessness of providing equal preventive health care. See, generally,
RA.1661, 1664-65. The sole dispute now is the federal government’s potential
change in position as to whether the existing contraception provisions further that
compelling interest by “the least restrictive means” available, contingent on the
validity of the rulemaking presently being challenged before other courts.

40
This Court should similarly assume the compelling governmental interest or,
alternatively, remand to the district court for further consideration.
E. The Accommodation Constitutes the Least Restrictive

Means for Achieving the Compelling Interest.
This Court must next consider whether the government has pursued that
interest through the least-restrictive means “available.” Bob Jones Univ. v. United
States, 461 U.S. 574, 604 (1983). RFRA does not provide for any imaginable new
governmental program to constitute a less-restrictive alternative. Under Plaintiffs’
logic, an employer with religious objections to certain immunizations would be
entitled to an exemption from the obligation to cover immunization because
Congress could enact a new law establishing separate insurance. The Supreme
Court has rejected exemption from minimum-wage laws simply because Congress
could pass a law ensuring additional monies are paid to make up the difference.
See Tony & Susan Alamo Found. v. Secretary of Labor, 471 U.S. 290, 303-06
(1985).
This Circuit has already addressed the factual infirmities in Plaintiffs’
presumption that present law requires employers to provide access to free
contraception. See East Texas Baptist University, 793 F.3d 449. Plaintiffs’ position
likewise has no support under Supreme Court precedent. In particular, it is
impossible to reconcile with United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252, 259-61 (1982).
There, the Supreme Court denied an exemption to an Amish employer with

41
religious objections to participating in the Social Security system in part because
the exemption would have resulted in the denial of benefits to employees. Id.
Under Plaintiffs’ argument, the government itself should have stepped in to pay
Social Security benefits directly to the employees, or restructured the Social
Security system to rely on direct employee contributions or general tax revenues,
rather than employer withholding. Each step was theoretically within Congress’
power, and each would have been less burdensome on the employer than requiring
participation in the Social Security system. The Supreme Court rejected that logic
under the Free Exercise Clause, and this Court should recognize the district court’s
error in attributing to Congress an intent to take such a dramatic step in RFRA.
The ACA’s accommodation provision amply satisfies this standard for the
least restrictive means available. “The heart of the Affordable Care Act was a
decision to approach universal health insurance by expanding” and improving the
existing “employer-based system of private health insurance that had evolved in
our country, rather than to substitute a new ‘single payer’ government program to
pay for health care, like the systems in place in the United Kingdom and Canada.”
University of Notre Dame v. Burwell, 786 F.3d 606, 625 (7th Cir. 2015) (Hamilton,
J., concurring); see 78 Fed. Reg. at 39,888. The accommodation works within that
system of private, employer-based coverage to ensure that the compelling interests
42
served by the contraceptive-coverage requirement are met, while also eliminating
any role for objecting employers.
The Departments engaged in an extensive rulemaking process that included
multiple rounds of public comment and consultation with “representatives of
religious organizations, insurers, women's groups, insurance experts, and other
interested stakeholders.” 77 Fed. Reg. at 16,503. They considered a wide variety of
alternative approaches, but concluded that those alternatives “were not feasible
and/or would not advance the government's compelling interests as effectively” as
the accommodation. 78 Fed. Reg. at 39,888. The post-Zubik request-for-
information process confirmed that there was no such process that would resolve
religious objections to the accommodation, which appear to apply to any system in
which employees gain an entitlement to contraceptive coverage from third parties
after petitioners opt out.
Unlike Hobby Lobby, this is not a case in which a proposed less-restrictive
alternative is “an existing, recognized, workable, and already-implemented
framework to provide coverage.” Hobby Lobby, 134 S. Ct. at 2786 (Kennedy, J.,
concurring). The Supreme Court explained that accepting the RFRA challenge in
Hobby Lobby “need not result in any detrimental effect on any third party” because
the accommodation already in place for religious nonprofit organizations could be
extended to closely held for-profit companies. Id. at 2781 n.37. The Supreme
43
Court has thus repeatedly emphasized that the effect of its decision on female
employees and beneficiaries “would be precisely zero.” Id. at 2760; see id. at 2759,
2782-2783. Here, Plaintiffs seek to invalidate the very regulatory accommodation
that Hobby Lobby identified, while conceding that it would require Congress to
establish “a whole new program” of contraceptive coverage, id. at 2786 (Kennedy,
J., concurring), or to significantly modify an existing program. Unless Congress
took such action, women who rely on objecting employers for their health
coverage would be denied contraceptive coverage altogether.
The accommodation serves the government’s compelling interest while
minimizing the burden on objecting employers. In contending that even more is
required, and that RFRA grants them a right to prevent the affected women from
obtaining separate coverage from third parties, Plaintiffs disregard the Supreme
Court’s admonition that courts applying RFRA “must take adequate account of the
burdens a requested accommodation may impose on nonbeneficiaries.” Hobby
Lobby, 134 S. Ct. at 2781 n.37 (quoting Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 720
(2005)). The free exercise of religion protected by RFRA cannot “unduly restrict
other persons, such as employees, in protecting their own interests, interests the
law deems compelling.” Id. at 2787 (Kennedy, J., concurring).
44
F. Ordering a Nationwide Class Judgment Was Improper,

Regardless of the Merits Asserted by the Individual
Plaintiffs.
The Federal Defendants opposed additional relief beyond named Plaintiffs
because “unnamed class members have not yet established that they in fact have a
sincere religious objection to the Mandate.” ROA.1412. The Federal Defendants
submitted that they are required to have “an opportunity … to contest such a
showing,” (ROA.1414), and that the “proposed injunction puts [them] at risk of
contempt when enforcing the Mandate.” ROA.1416. Finally, the Federal
Defendants argued that “Plaintiffs are improperly proposing that this Court enter
final judgment,” effectively putting “the cart before the horse.” ROA.1417.
Nevada and the Federal Defendants have a fundamental disagreement
pertaining to the validity of the ACA contraception provisions, but agree on the
inappropriateness of class certification. This certification further constitutes error
by the district court.
G. Alternatively, this Court Should Vacate the Nationwide Class

Judgment for Lack of Adversity Among the Original Parties.
In the event this Court denies Nevada’s intervention, it should recognize the
lack of Article III “case or controversy” between the original parties to this case
and vacate the nationwide class judgment. The district court judgment occurred
without the “concrete adverseness” considered by the Supreme Court when
determining it was prudent to proceed to the merits in United States v. Windsor,

45
570 U.S. 744, 759-62 (2013), where the federal government refused to defend the
Defense of Marriage Act.
This case exemplifies the Supreme Court’s concern with facing a “friendly,
non-adversary, proceeding …[in which] ‘a party beaten in the legislature [seeks to]
transfer to the courts an inquiry as to the constitutionality of the legislative act.’”
Id. at 759-60 (quoting Ashwander v. TVA, 297 U.S. 288, 346 (1936) (Brandeis, J.,
concurring)). “Nonparties to litigation may suffer directly from poorly considered
decisions reached in actions brought by parties who may not have adequate
incentives or motives to effectively present a legal challenge.” Townley v. Miller,
722 F.3d 1128, 1135 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Wright et al., FED. PRACTICE AND
PROCEDURE § 3531.1 (3d ed. 2008)). This allows courts to avoid deciding “abstract
questions of wide public significance even though other governmental institutions
may be more competent to address the questions and even though judicial
intervention may be unnecessary to protect individual rights.” Warth v. Seldin, 422
U.S. 490, 500 (1975).
Here, if Nevada is not permitted to intervene, there will never be sufficient
adversity on this issue in this case. As a result, “nonparties” will suffer from poorly
considered decisions in this case, including the lack of factual distinctions with this
Court’s prior analysis of the identical legal issue. Even before this Court, the
Federal Defendants have demonstrated inadequate (and perplexing) mixed motives
46
for effectively defending the Affordable Care Act. They appealed the judgment
solely to force Nevada to engage in a three-part appeal consisting of 1)
demonstrating standing, 2) obtaining reversal on the denial of intervention, and
then 3) addressing the merits of the underlying judgment. The Federal Defendants
forced these contortions—all while insisting that they would not actually appeal
should Nevada be defeated during the first two stages of the process. See Joint
Motion (October 11, 2019). In short, the Federal Defendants wanted the
nationwide class judgment despite not being able to succeed through the
administrative rulemaking process. The rulemaking process, in fact, would be more
competent at addressing the underlying issue in this case, as it does provide
interested parties such as Plaintiffs and Nevada to participate and to seek judicial
relief.
Even if Nevada is not allowed to intervene as a matter of right, this Court
has the authority to vacate the nationwide class judgment. It should recognize that
the district court acted imprudently in exercising jurisdiction and awarding a
nationwide judgment where there was insufficient adversity. 28 U.S.C. § 2106.
This would allow any other objector to file suit for individual judgment while the
courts address the overarching administrative rulemaking dispute. If individual
objectors sought class relief, they could provide appropriate notice to any and all
47
interested parties, such that the interplay between RFRA and the ACA’s
contraception provisions can be litigated with sufficient adversity.
CONCLUSION
Nevada requests that this Court reverse and vacate the district court’s
judgment and order the district court to permit Nevada to intervene in the action
below.
Dated: January 7, 2020,
SUBMITTED BY:
s/Heidi Parry Stern

HEIDI PARRY STERN
Las Vegas, NV 89101
702-486-3594
[email protected]
Counsel for Movant-Appellant, State of
Nevada
48
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of
the Court for the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit by using the
appellate CM/ECF System on January 7, 2020. I certify that all participants in the
case are registered CM/ECF users and that service will be accomplished by the
appellate CM/ECF system.
Dated: January 7, 2020.
s/Heidi Parry Stern

An employee of the Office of the Nevada
Attorney General
49
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
1. This document complies with the word limit of FED. R. APP. P.
32(a)(7)(B) because, excluding the parts of the document exempted by FED. R.
APP. P. 32(f), this document contains 11,523 words.
2. This document complies with the typeface requirements of FED. R. APP.
P. 32(a)(5) and the type-style requirements of FED. R. APP. P. 32(a)(6) because this
document has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using Microsoft
Word 2010 in Times New Roman, 14 point font.
Dated: January 7, 2020.
s/Heidi Parry Stern

HEIDI PARRY STERN
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
702-486-3594, [email protected]
Counsel for the State of Nevada
50

Nevada Opening Brief

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nevada Opening Brief

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nevada Opening Brief

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the case about?

What is the case about?

What arguments does Nevada make for intervening in the case?

What arguments does Nevada make for intervening in the case?

Case: 19-10754 Document: 00515244766 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/19/2019

Case No. 19-10754

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

RICHARD W. DEOTTE, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated;

On Appeal from the United States District Court

APPELLANT STATE OF NEVADA’S OPENING BRIEF

HEIDI PARRY STERN

CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS

Case No. 19-10754 – DeOtte et al. v. Azar, et al.

(non-governmental) persons and entities as described in the fourth sentence of

possible disqualification or recusal.

Named Plaintiffs and members of their nationwide class have a financial

it, should the lower court’s order and judgment be upheld.

s/Heidi Parry Stern

STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT

The State of Nevada believes that oral argument would be helpful in

the Affordable Care Act’s contraception provisions.

CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS ....................................................... ii

STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT ............................................. iii

JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT .......................................................................... 1

STATEMENT OF ISSUES ....................................................................................... 2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE .................................................................................. 2

BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY .................................. 2

I. The Affordable Care Act’s Contraception Provisions ............................... 2

II. Prior Litigation Pertaining to ACA-Contraceptive Coverage .................... 5

III. The Procedural Posture of this Case......................................................... 10

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ...................................................................... 13

I. The District Court’s Judgment Creates a Substantial Risk of Harm for

A. Intervention Is Liberally Construed as a Legal Question.............. 22

B. Nevada Has a Direct, Substantial, and Legally Protectable

C. Nevada Is Entitled to Special Solicitude in

D. This Suit Will Impair Nevada’s Ability to Protect Its

E. Nevada’s Intervention Was Timely Under the

F. The Federal Defendants Do Not Adequately Represent

G. In the Alternative, Nevada Should be Permitted to Intervene ...... 34

A. Standard of Review ....................................................................... 35

B. This Circuit’s Precedent Applies Here, Requiring Application

C. Plaintiffs Are Not Subject to a Substantial Burden for RFRA

D. The Federal Government Has a Compelling Interest in the

E. The Accommodation Constitutes the Least Restrictive

F. Ordering a Nationwide Class Judgment was Improper,

G. Alternatively, this Court Should Vacate the Nationwide Class

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................ 49

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ....................................................................... 50

Alfred L. Snapp & Son, Inc. v. Puerto Rico,

Bob Jones Univ. v. United States,

Bolton v. City of Dallas,

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.,

California v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs.,

Catholic Health Care Sys. v. Burwell,

Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l, USA,

Department of Commerce v. New York,

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES, cont.

East Texas Baptist University v. Burwell,

Edwards v. City of Houston,