119 F.4th 618
9th Cir.2024Background
- The Montana Legislature enacted House Bill 702 (HB 702), prohibiting discrimination based on vaccination status in employment and public accommodations, with limited exceptions in health care settings.
- Plaintiffs (medical providers, associations, and immunocompromised individuals) challenged HB 702, arguing it conflicted with federal law and constitutional provisions, and sought to enjoin its enforcement in health care settings.
- The district court found HB 702 preempted by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act), and violative of the Equal Protection Clause, issuing a permanent injunction.
- The State of Montana appealed, arguing that HB 702 did not facially conflict with these federal statutes and was rationally based.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court’s rulings de novo, focusing on facial preemption and equal protection standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ADA Preemption | HB 702 prevents employers from meeting ADA accommodation duties involving vaccination status. | ADA does not require knowledge/discrimination based on vaccination status in all cases. | No facial preemption; conflicts are hypothetical, not actual. |
| OSH Act Preemption | HB 702 prevents employers from complying with the OSH Act’s general duty to provide a safe workplace. | General duty clause does not mandate vaccination policies; no regulatory conflict. | No facial preemption; record supports only speculative conflict. |
| Equal Protection | HB 702’s carve-outs treat similar healthcare facilities differently without rational basis. | Classification is rational, reflecting different risk profiles and policy choices. | Rational basis satisfied; scheme is constitutionally permissible. |
| CMS Regulation Preemption | HB 702 must be enjoined to the extent it conflicts with now-rescinded CMS COVID-19 vaccine rules. | Rescission of CMS rules moots any current conflict. | Moot due to rescission of the relevant CMS regulation. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987) (sets the demanding standard for facial challenges—that no set of circumstances exists under which the statute would be valid)
- Rice v. Norman Williams Co., 458 U.S. 654 (1982) (facial preemption does not lie for merely hypothetical or potential conflict; an actual conflict is needed)
- FCC v. Beach Communications, Inc., 508 U.S. 307 (1993) (rational basis review allows for speculative justifications for legislative classifications)
- Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1 (1992) (states need not articulate the actual rationale for legislative classifications under rational basis review)
- Heller v. Doe by Doe, 509 U.S. 312 (1993) (state has no obligation to produce evidence supporting the rationality of its classifications)
- Fortyune v. American Multi-Cinema, Inc., 364 F.3d 1075 (9th Cir. 2004) (reasonableness of ADA accommodations turns on particular facts and setting)