Amicus Briefs
Amicus briefs for which PHLW was a drafter, signatory, and/or affiliate:
Baptiste, et al. v. Commonwealth, et al., Civil Action No. 1:20-CV-11335-MLW
In this action, plaintiff landlords challenged both an emergency Act adopted by the Massachusetts Legislature that prevents “non-essential” evictions from proceeding in Massachusetts for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic and emergency regulations promulgated by the Massachusetts Executive Office of Housing and Economic Development that require landlords’ notices of nonpayment of rent to include a statement that the tenants are protected under the Act as well as resources that tenants may contact for help paying their rent. In this amicus brief, Public Health Law Watch, the Children’s Hospital Corporation, Boston Medical Center, Health Law Advocates, and Health Care for All argue that the public interest supersedes landlords’ individual rights in this case. The amici argue that both the Act and the regulations prevent myriad evictions resulting from many Massachusetts residents’ loss of income during the pandemic, thus preventing the spread of COVID-19. The amici also argue that during the pandemic, the deleterious health effects of eviction and homelessness will be made all the more severe due to other consequences of COVID-19, including a strained medical system and less likelihood that evicted tenants will be able to regain financial stability. Therefore, the amici argue, the Commonwealth properly used its police power to protect the health and welfare of tenants during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Matorin, et al. v. Commonwealth, et al., Civil Action No. 2084CV01334
Plaintiff landlords requested a preliminary injunction against the Commonwealth’s enforcement of an emergency Act adopted by the Massachusetts Legislature that prevents certain evictions from proceeding for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic and emergency regulations promulgated by the Massachusetts Executive Office of Housing and Economic Development that require landlords’ notices of nonpayment of rent to include a statement that the tenants are protected under the Act as well as resources that tenants may contact for help paying their rent. In this amicus brief, Public Health Law Watch, Health Law Advocates, and Health Care for All oppose the plaintiffs’ requested relief on the grounds that lifting this temporary suspension on evictions will increase the transmission risk of SARS-CoV-2 and create additional challenges for residents of Massachusetts that will face eviction, particularly those with preexisting chronic conditions. The amici argue that the health of the public, particularly the most vulnerable members of the population, is of greater concern than the potential economic issues that arise out of a landlord’s inability to evict nonpaying tenants.
WA v. Dep’t. Homeland Security, no. 4:19-cv-05210-RMP (09/09/2019)
This brief supports the state of Washington’s challenge to the legality of the Public Charge Rule, a federal regulation that radically reinterprets the Immigration and Nationality Act to exclude any prospective immigrant that may be expected to rely on certain public benefits, including public health insurance coverage. Public Health Law Watch is among the many amici joining this brief. According to the amici, the Executive Branch does not have the power to promulgate this rule, as it is inconsistent with an existing statutory framework. The amici also argue that, as a result of this rule, more people will be uninsured, health outcomes will worsen, and health care costs will rise to the detriment of everyone, including those with private insurance. They argue that this new framework for defining a “public charge” undermines Congress’s original intent to encourage broad participation in federally-funded health insurance programs, stigmatizes the use of public benefits such as health care, and disincentivizes immigrants and citizens alike from seeking the public benefits that they may need. The amici also argue that the Public Charge Rule undermines the role of state health care systems established by Congress and will irreparably disrupt those health care systems.
In Re: National Prescription Opiate Litigation, no. 1:17-MD-2804 (05/03/2019)
This brief recommends four key provisions to include in the settlement agreement for the multidistrict litigation against opioid manufacturers and distributors that would lead to favorable public health outcomes. The amici, Public Health Law Watch, the Center for Public Health Law Research at Temple University, ChangeLab Solutions, the Health in Justice Action Lab, the Network for Public Health Law, Northeastern University’s Center for Health Policy and Law, and The Public Health Advocacy Institute, discuss the tobacco litigation that culminated in the Master Settlement Agreement (MSA). They outline several provisions of the MSA and discuss how they were ineffective or effective, and how they could have been improved. The amici then discuss differences between opioids and tobacco. Based on these differences and the lessons learned from the MSA, the amici identify the following key elements to a remedial response to the opioid epidemic: better and more accessible addiction treatment and overdose reversal drugs, improvements to the regulation of pain management, addressing the root causes of substance use disorders, and making the defendant pharmaceutical companies’ private documents available to the public. The amici also recommend founding a public health-focused nonprofit foundation that would coordinate and implement initiatives to reduce the public health impact of the opioid crisis.
Correa v. Schoeck, Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, no. SJC-12409 (01/19/2018)
The question before the court in this case is whether a pharmacy has a duty to notify a patient’s physician that their insurer will not pay for the patient’s prescription medication without prior authorization. The amici, Health Law Advocates, Inc., Massachusetts Law Reform Institute, Northeastern University’s Center for Health Policy and Law, and The Public Health Advocacy Institute, argue that a pharmacy owes a legal duty to take reasonable care to inform the prescribing physician that a patient’s insurance requires prior authorization before approving payment for a prescription medication. The amici’s reasoning includes public policy considerations as well as the established duties of pharmacies to determine when prior authorization requirements create a barrier for a patient who cannot access their medicine, especially when that barrier may create an emergency situation for the patient.
MA v. Eldred, Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, no. SJC-12279 (09/2017)
This case addresses the question of whether incarceration is an appropriate response for the criminal justice system to take when a person is suffering from a relapse of their substance use disorder. The amici, Massachusetts Medical Society, American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry, Association for Behavioral Healthcare, Grayken Center for Addiction Medicine at Boston Medical Center, Massachusetts Organization for Addiction Recovery, Massachusetts Society of Addiction Medicine, Northeastern University School of Law’s Center for Health Policy and Law, and several independent practitioners, argue that this is an inappropriate response. The amici explain that substance use disorder is a chronic disease of the brain, and that punitive sanctions for people who relapse may undermine public health and help proliferate the opioid epidemic. The amici argue that the best course of action for individuals who experience relapses is medical treatment, not punishment.
In this brief, several practitioners respond to the question of whether the Constitution limits a state’s ability to impose restrictions on the movements of its residents ostensibly to prevent a public health event. In this case, the public health event in question is an outbreak of Ebola. The amici argue to the appeals court that the lower court’s ruling incorrectly applied public health policy in its decision regarding the standard of review for state health officials’ response to disease outbreaks. They further argue that public health officials’ fear of disease does not warrant discriminatory or ineffective measures to curb the spread of that disease. The amici also implore the appellate court to consider more modern judicial standards for reviewing quarantine decisions beyond Jacobson v. Massachusetts. Finally, the amici argue that the government response to the Ebola outbreak warrants continued meaningful judicial review.
Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman, Supreme Court, no. 15-1391 (12/21/2016)
In this brief, the amici dispute the plaintiff’s argument that the New York law requiring advertised prices to include credit card surcharges is a violation of merchants’ right to free speech. The amici, a group of constitutional, administrative, contracts, and health law scholars, argue that the claimed violation is subject only to rational basis review, not the heightened review that the plaintiffs seek. In addition, the amici argue that adopting a heightened standard of review in this case would have detrimental, far-reaching consequences. The amici argue that routine commercial regulations would be disrupted by new First Amendment claims, which could undermine existing efforts to regulate commercial speech for the purposes of consumer protection, public health, and public safety.