State of Kansas v. United States, 124 F.4th 529

CMS issued a final rule in May 2024 allowing DACA recipients to enroll in ACA health insurance exchanges.
Nineteen states sued to block the rule, arguing it violates the Administrative Procedure Act.
The district court in North Dakota granted a preliminary injunction preventing enforcement of the rule in those states.
The federal government appealed and requested a stay of the injunction pending appeal, claiming administrative disruption.
The Eighth Circuit first granted a temporary administrative stay but then, after briefing, denied the stay pending appeal, emphasizing the agency had not shown irreparable harm from the injunction.
A dissent argued that North Dakota lacked standing and venue was not proper, urging dismissal or transfer.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Stay Pending Appeal	Needed to prevent enforcement disruption	Irreparable harm to agency and enrolled third parties	Stay denied; no irreparable harm to agency
Likelihood of Success on Merits	Rule unlawfully extends ACA to DACA recipients	Rule based on proper agency authority	Assumed for argument; not dispositive
Irreparable Harm	States face burdens if rule takes effect	Agency/third parties face harm if injunction stays	Agency showed no irreparable harm to itself
Standing and Venue (raised in dissent)	North Dakota has injury from downstream costs	No direct injury; venue improper without standing	Majority did not decide; dissent: no standing

Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) (sets out four-factor test for stays pending appeal)
Brady v. Nat’l Football League, 640 F.3d 785 (8th Cir. 2011) (preliminary injunction and stay standards overlap)
Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (irreparable harm standard for injunctive relief)
United States v. Texas, 599 U.S. 670 (2023) (Article III standing requirements)
Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (2013) (speculative injuries and standing)