Sherley v. Sebelius
396 U.S. App. D.C. 1
| D.C. Cir. | 2011Background
- Drs. Sherley and Deisher alleged NIH 2009 Guidelines enabling embryonic stem cell (ESC) research violated the Dickey-Wicker Amendment prohibiting funding for research destroying embryos.
- District court granted a preliminary injunction; on appeal, the D.C. Circuit vacated the injunction, focusing on statutory interpretation questions.
- Dickey-Wicker bans funding for creation of embryos for research and for research in which embryos are destroyed; the dispute centers on whether using ESCs constitutes impermissible funding.
- Historically, Dickey-Wicker has been reenacted annually; Bush-era and Obama-era policies distinguished derivation versus use of already-derived ESC lines.
- NIH Guidelines permit funding for research using ESCs not derived from new embryos, with restrictions on donor consent and embryo-source conditions.
- The court analyzes whether the Guidelines’ permissive interpretation is a reasonable construction of Dickey-Wicker under Chevron and whether interim relief was appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dickey-Wicker ambiguity | Sherley argues Dickey-Wicker unambiguously bars any ESC research. | Sebelius argues Dickey-Wicker is ambiguous and permits ESC-use funding. | Dickey-Wicker ambiguous; EPA not resolved here |
| Chevron step two reasonableness | NIH interpretation of 'research' is unreasonable and broad. | NIH's interpretation is reasonable and consistent with the statute and reenactments. | NIH interpretation deemed reasonable; injunction vacated |
| Effect of sequencing of research | Derivation of ESCs is part of 'research' and thus prohibited. | Derivation is not necessarily within 'research' using ESCs; funding can cover subsequent use. | Accepted that derivation may be included or excluded; not dispositive |
| Preliminary injunction standard | Sliding-scale analysis supports injunctive relief due to likelihood of success and irreparable harm. | Balance of equities weighs against injunction given ongoing ESC-research investments. | District court abused discretion; injunction vacated |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (U.S. Sup. Ct. 2008) (establishes four-factor test for preliminary injunctions)
- Davis v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., 571 F.3d 1288 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (discusses sliding-scale approach to injunctions)
- Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292 (U.S. Sup. Ct. 1993) (no-set-of-circumstances standard in facial challenges to regulation cited)
- Public Citizen, Inc. v. HHS, 332 F.3d 654 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (agency must provide reasoned justification for interpretations)
- National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Boston & Maine Corp., 503 U.S. 407 (U.S. Sup. Ct. 1992) (agency interpretation may be given deference if reasonable)
- Brown v. Gardner, 513 U.S. 115 (U.S. Sup. Ct. 1994) (presumption Congress understands agency interpretations when reenacting statutes)