Skip to main content

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Recent court decisions impacting the Marketplace

These recent court decisions may impact eligibility and coverage.

Court decision on Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals

On December 9, 2024, the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota issued a preliminary injunction in Kansas v. United States of America (Case No. 1:24-cv-00150). As a result, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients’ ability to enroll in a qualified health plan (QHP) through the Health Insurance Marketplace® has been placed on hold in the 19 states that are involved in the lawsuit. These states are: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. If you live in one of these states, get details on Marketplace eligibility for DACA recipients and certain other immigration statuses.
DACA recipients and consumers with certain other immigration statuses who don't live in one of these states aren't affected.
The Marketplace is reviewing the court’s decision and its impact on consumers—including DACA recipients in these 19 states who already selected a QHP or planned to do so—and will issue further information shortly.
This is a preliminary court decision and final decisions could affect your eligibility for coverage. Check back for updates before January 15 when Marketplace Open Enrollment ends.

Court decisions on nondiscrimination

Pursuant to decisions by various district courts regarding the 2024 Final Rule implementing Section 1557, entitled Nondiscrimination in Health Programs and Activities, 89 Fed. Reg. 37,522 (May 6, 2024) (“2024 Final Rule”), provisions are stayed or enjoined as indicated below:  
  1. In Florida v. Department of Health and Human Services, No. 8:24-cv-1080-WFJ-TGW (M.D. Fla.), the court stayed 45 C.F.R. 92.101(a)(2)(iv), 92.206(b), 92.207(b)(3)-(5), and 42 C.F.R. 438.3(d)(4), in Florida. OCR also may not enforce the interpretation of discrimination “on the basis of sex” in 45 C.F.R. 92.101(a)(2)(iv), 92.206(b), or 92.207(b)(3)-(5) in Florida.
  2. In Tennessee v. Becerra, No. 1:24cv161-LG-BWR (S.D. Miss.), the court stayed nationwide the following regulations to the extent they “extend discrimination on the basis of sex to include discrimination on the basis of gender identity”: 42 C.F.R. 438.3, 438.206, 440.262, 460.98, 460.112; 45 C.F.R. 92.5, 92.6, 92.7, 92.8, 92.9, 92.10, 92.101, 92.206-211, 92.301, 92.303, 92.304; and enjoined HHS from enforcing the 2024 Final Rule “to the extent that the final rule provides that ‘sex’ discrimination encompasses gender identity.”
  3. In Texas v. Becerra, No. 6:24-cv-211-JDK (E.D. Tex.), the court stayed nationwide the following regulations: 42 C.F.R. 438.3(d)(4), 438.206(c)(2), 440.262, 460.98(b)(3), 460.112(a); 45 C.F.R. 92.101(a)(2) (and all references to this subsection), 92.206(b), 92.207(b)(3)–(5).
Notices of appeal have been filed in all three cases.
Review our accessibility and nondiscrimination notice.
Back to top