AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSE ANESTHESIOLOGY v. ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR., Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES - Articles

All Content

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSE ANESTHESIOLOGY v. ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR., Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Posted by: Azya Thornton on Jul 21, 2026

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Mark J. Silberman, BENESCH, FRIEDLANDER, COPLAN & ARONOFF LLP, Chicago, Illinois, for Appellant.

Attorneys 2: ARGUED: Lisa Hammond Johnson, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellees.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: Mark J. Silberman, Christopher T. Grohman, David M. Hopkins, Michael B. Silverstein, BENESCH, FRIEDLANDER, COPLAN & ARONOFF LLP, Chicago, Illinois, for Appellant.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: Lisa Hammond Johnson, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellees.

Judge(s): WHITE, THAPAR, and MATHIS, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland

THAPAR, Circuit Judge. Over fifteen years ago, Congress enacted the Affordable Care Act, intending to dramatically restructure the American health-insurance market. But some of its provisions appear to have gone unimplemented and unenforced. In 2024, the American Association of Nurse Anesthesiology sued the Secretary and Department of Health and Human Services to compel them to enforce one such provision that prohibits insurers from discriminating against healthcare providers. The Association alleged that private insurers were violating the Act by paying nurse anesthetists less than physician anesthesiologists who provide the same services. And it sought extraordinary relief: a judicial order requiring an executive- branch agency to take unspecified enforcement actions that the Association speculated would remedy the alleged discrimination. Because the Association lacks standing, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of its claims.

Attachments: