Health Republic Insurance Company v. United States, 129 Fed. Cl. 115

Health Republic Insurance Co. sued the United States in the Court of Federal Claims alleging unpaid ACA risk-corridor payments; several other insurers filed related suits.
The DOJ moved to dismiss Health Republic’s complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under RCFC 12(b)(1); briefing on that motion was complete before the House sought to intervene.
The House of Representatives moved for leave to file an amicus curiae brief arguing the complaint should be dismissed on merits grounds (that plaintiffs lack a right to risk-corridor payments exceeding program receipts) similar to arguments DOJ raised in later-filed cases.
Health Republic opposed the House’s motion, arguing the House seeks to introduce new grounds for dismissal after the DOJ’s 12(b)(1) motion was fully briefed, which would prejudice plaintiff and circumvent DOJ control of the litigation.
The court evaluated traditional factors for allowing amicus participation, including usefulness, party consent, potential delay, and whether a party is unable to fully present an argument.
The court denied the House’s motion because the House sought to assert dismissal grounds not raised by the DOJ, impermissibly intruding on DOJ’s exclusive authority to conduct litigation for the United States.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the House may file an amicus brief to raise merits-based dismissal grounds not asserted by DOJ	House’s brief would prejudice Health Republic by effectively introducing a new motion after briefing; plaintiff opposed the House filing	House argued it has institutional interest and should inform court of arguments DOJ raised in other cases; DOJ took no position	Denied — House may not raise dismissal grounds not asserted by DOJ via amicus brief
Whether the House’s participation is timely and useful	Not timely; would inject new issues and delay/class briefing	House claimed timing would aid the court and avoid protracted class-certification briefing	Denied — timing and usefulness outweighed by other factors and DOJ control
Whether an outside government entity may litigate or supplement DOJ’s positions	Plaintiff emphasized DOJ already represents the U.S.; outside filings would intrude on DOJ role	House invoked rule allowing U.S. to file amicus without consent on appeal (FRAP 29(a)) and claimed institutional interest	Denied — DOJ has "exclusive and plenary" authority to supervise and conduct litigation for the U.S.; House cannot separately assert such grounds
Whether allowing the amicus would unfairly prejudice plaintiff	Plaintiff argued prejudice by surprise and procedural unfairness	House argued brief would assist court and conserve resources	Denied — prejudice and improper usurpation of DOJ’s role supported refusal

Hughes Aircraft Co. v. United States, 534 F.2d 889 (Ct. Cl. 1976) (Attorney General/DOJ has statutory authority to supervise and conduct litigation for the United States)
Am. Satellite Co. v. United States, 22 Cl. Ct. 547 (Ct. Cl. 1991) (court may deny amicus participation that simply strengthens one party or raises issues not addressed by parties)
Amoco Oil Co. v. United States, 234 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (appellant and amicus may not split issues; party must raise all issues it wants the court to address)
Favell v. United States, 27 Fed. Cl. 724 (Fed. Cl. 1992) (courts uphold Attorney General’s supervisory role over litigation involving the United States)
Wolfchild v. United States, 62 Fed. Cl. 521 (Fed. Cl. 2004) (factors for allowing amici include usefulness and potential to delay litigation)
Hage v. United States, 35 Fed. Cl. 737 (Fed. Cl. 1996) (amici possessing specialized knowledge may be allowed where beneficial to resolution)