Texas Department of State Health Services v. Balquinta
2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 3766
| Tex. App. | 2014Background
- Texas operated a state-funded Women’s Health Program (WHP) originally as a Medicaid Section 1115/1315 demonstration; Planned Parenthood–affiliated providers participated so long as they did not perform abortions at the WHP sites.
- The Legislature added restrictions (Tex. Hum. Res. Code § 32.024(c-1)) and HHSC/DSHS adopted rules (TWHP rules) defining "promote" and "affiliate," causing Planned Parenthood entities to be excluded from the successor Texas Women’s Health Program (TWHP).
- The TWHP rule set included: (1) §39.38 (ban on performing/promoting elective abortion and related certification), (2) §39.33(1) (definition of "affiliate"), and (3) §39.45 (a "poison-pill" nonseverability provision declaring the program invalid if those provisions are struck).
- Planned Parenthood entities and one enrollee sued seeking declarations (under APA §2001.038 and UDJA) that the rules/statutes do not authorize exclusion, plus injunctive relief; appellants pleaded sovereign immunity and lack of standing.
- The trial court denied the plea to the jurisdiction and denied temporary injunctive relief; this appeal challenges only jurisdiction. The appellate court concluded it has jurisdiction over the APA and injunctive claims but not over the UDJA claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to sue | Planned Parenthood: exclusion causes concrete economic injury (lost TWHP clients/revenue) and is redressable by court relief | State: providers lack standing because only program beneficiaries, not providers, have entitlement to public subsidies (Patterson concurrence) | Held: Providers have constitutional standing (injury-in-fact, causation, redressability) |
| APA §2001.038 waiver of sovereign immunity | Plaintiffs: §2001.038 permits declaratory challenge to agency rules that impair a legal right or privilege; their injuries satisfy that standard | State: "legal right or privilege" is narrower than constitutional standing and plaintiffs lack such a right | Held: Norwood controls; §2001.038’s requirement tracks constitutional standing; waiver applies and DSHS is subject to suit under §2001.038 |
| UDJA claims against state/officials | Plaintiffs: UDJA allows declaration that statutes/authority don’t permit exclusion or program termination | State: UDJA does not waive sovereign immunity for these claims and UDJA claims are redundant of APA challenges | Held: UDJA claims are jurisdictionally barred as redundant or unripe; dismissed without prejudice to reassert non-redundant UDJA claims later |
| Injunctive relief (permanent) | Plaintiffs: seek injunctions enjoining enforcement of invalid rules; grounded in APA waiver and/or ultra vires relief against officials | State: §2001.038 authorizes only declaratory relief and does not waive immunity for injunctive relief; ultra vires theory insufficient | Held: Court may award injunctive relief tied to APA §2001.038 declaratory relief; injunctions also available against officials under ultra vires theory; district court has jurisdiction over injunctive claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Planned Parenthood of Houston & Se. Tex. v. Sanchez, 480 F.3d 734 (5th Cir. 2007) (settlement-based guidelines on Title X funding and structural separation)
- Patterson v. Planned Parenthood of Houston & Se. Tex., 971 S.W.2d 439 (Tex. 1998) (concurrence questioned providers’ standing to challenge appropriations/administration)
- Finance Comm’n of Tex. v. Norwood, 418 S.W.3d 566 (Tex. 2013) (APA §2001.038’s "legal right or privilege" requirement equated with constitutional standing)
- Texas Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (pleadings construed liberally for jurisdiction; standing is jurisdictional)
- El Paso Hosp. Dist. v. Texas Health & Hum. Servs. Comm’n, 247 S.W.3d 709 (Tex. 2008) (APA rule challenge adjudicated and enforcement enjoined)
- El Paso Cnty. Hosp. Dist. v. Texas Health & Hum. Servs. Comm’n, 400 S.W.3d 72 (Tex. 2013) (affirmed authority to render permanent injunctions in APA rule challenges)
- City of El Paso v. Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d 366 (Tex. 2009) (sovereign immunity and distinctions between suits against State and officials; jurisdictional principles)