Korab v. Fink
797 F.3d 572
9th Cir.2014Background
- Korab et al. sue Hawaii over Basic Health Hawaii (BHH), a state plan for COFA Residents that provides less health coverage than Medicaid.
- Welfare Reform Act (PRWORA) creates three alien categories for state benefits; COFA Residents fall in discretionary third category with state discretion.
- Hawaii previously included COFA Residents in full Medicaid benefits funded by both state and federal funds; in 2010 Hawaii moved COFA Residents to BHH funded solely by state funds.
- District court granted a preliminary injunction blocking Hawaii’s reduction of benefits; the court held strict scrutiny applicable and that Hawaii had not shown a valid state interest.
- The panel vacates the injunction, holding Hawaii’s discretionary funding decision is reviewed under rational-basis review because the federal scheme directs, but Konkerns are debated on whether to apply preemption or equal protection.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hawaii’s reduction of COFA Residents’ benefits violates equal protection | Korab argues aliens must receive parity with citizens/qualified aliens | Hawaii followed Congress’s Welfare Reform Act categories and exercised discretionary funding decisions | Yes, but analyzed under rational-basis in majority decision (not strict) due to federal direction |
| What level of scrutiny applies to Hawaii’s action | Equal protection should apply (strict scrutiny) for alienage classifications | Act’s uniform federal framework allows rational-basis review of state action | Rational-basis review applied; district injunction vacated; remand for proceedings consistent with this understanding |
| Whether the Welfare Reform Act’s uniformity precludes state discretion | State discretion undermines uniform federal policy; must be preempted | Discretion is consistent with uniform national policy and not preempted | Discretion under §1622(a) is non-preemptive and does not undermine uniformity; action follows federal direction under the Act |
| Whether the district court injunction was properly granted given the level of scrutiny | Injunction should stand to prevent unequal treatment | Injunction inappropriate because rational-basis review suffices and no irreparable harm established | Vacated; remanded for proceedings consistent with rational-basis standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365 (U.S. 1971) (alienage classifications subject to strict scrutiny unless federal context applies)
- Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67 (U.S. 1976) (distinctions involving aliens may be reviewed under different standards depending on federal vs. state context)
- Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (U.S. 1982) (illustrates uniformity concerns and treatment of aliens)
- Soskin v. Reinertson, 353 F.3d 1242 (10th Cir. 2004) (uniformity of Welfare Reform Act’s federal direction upheld; rational basis review)
- Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting, 563 U.S. 582 (U.S. 2011) (express preemption in immigration employment context; states may mirror federal scheme)
- Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (U.S. 2012) (national power over immigration; preemption principles in immigration law)
- Graham v. Richardson (repeated), 403 U.S. 365 (U.S. 1971) (foundational alienage equal protection rule; strict scrutiny)
- Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U.S. 88 (U.S. 1976) (distinctions involving federal employment of aliens; equal protection principles applied)