Whitman-Walker Clinic, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Civil Action No. 2020-1630

Plaintiffs (Whitman-Walker Clinic et al.) challenge HHS’s 2020 Section 1557 regulation, which rolled back nondiscrimination protections for LGBTQ patients established by the 2016 Rule.
In Sept. 2020 the court issued a lengthy opinion granting preliminary injunctive relief as to core provisions (redefinition of “on the basis of sex,” incorporation of a Title IX religious exemption, and repeal of a regulation protecting transgender patients) while finding plaintiffs lacked standing or were unlikely to succeed on other challenges.
The parties jointly moved to stay the case in Feb. 2021 to allow the Biden Administration to review the 2020 Rule; the stay remains in place.
Plaintiffs moved to lift the stay in 2021 seeking to resume litigation; Defendants opposed, pointing to HHS actions (a Notification of Interpretation and planned rulemaking) indicating reconsideration of the 2020 Rule.
HHS has issued a Notification interpreting Section 1557 to cover sexual orientation and gender identity, held listening sessions, and announced plans for an NPRM in early 2022.
The court denied Plaintiffs’ motion to lift the stay, reasoning that (1) the most disputed provisions remain enjoined, (2) plaintiffs’ prejudice from continued stay is minimal, (3) HHS is actively revisiting the rule, and (4) lifting the stay would expend substantial judicial and party resources without likely prompt relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court should lift the stay and resume litigation	Stay is no longer warranted; ongoing harms from non-enjoined portions require prompt relief	Stay should remain while HHS reviews and plans rulemaking; substantial resources conserved	Denied — stay remains in place
Whether plaintiffs suffer undue prejudice from continuation of the stay	Continuation prolongs harms to plaintiffs and their patients from remaining portions of the 2020 Rule	Prejudice is minimal because key, contested provisions are already enjoined and other relief is uncertain	Held minimal prejudice; favors continuing stay
Whether preliminary relief already addresses plaintiffs’ core objections	Plaintiffs argue remaining provisions still cause ongoing harm despite injunctions	Defendants note injunctions cover plaintiffs’ primary objections and HHS actions indicate forthcoming corrective rulemaking	Court notes preliminary relief already protects central objections; supports staying case
Whether judicial economy favors lifting the stay given HHS rulemaking	Plaintiffs say litigation should proceed regardless of agency action	Defendants emphasize imminent agency reconsideration and NPRM, making litigation potentially wasteful	Court finds judicial economy favors maintaining stay until agency acts

Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997) (federal courts have broad discretion to stay proceedings)
Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248 (1936) (stay of proceedings is an incident of the court’s docket-control power)
Bostock v. Clayton County, 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020) (Title VII interpretation holding discrimination because of sexual orientation or gender identity is discrimination "because of sex")
Whitman-Walker Clinic, Inc. v. HHS, 485 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2020) (court’s prior preliminary-injunction opinion in this litigation)
Walker v. Azar, 480 F. Supp. 3d 417 (E.D.N.Y. 2020) (nationwide injunctions enjoining repeal of 2016 Rule definitions and transgender-protection regulation)
Leyva v. Certified Grocers of California, Ltd., 593 F.2d 857 (9th Cir. 1979) (efficiency and fairness support stays pending resolution of related proceedings)
Belbacha v. Bush, 520 F.3d 452 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (prior determinations can be persuasive though not law of the case)