Case 1:23-cv-03026-TOR ECF No. 80 filed 04/07/23 PageID.2171 Page 10 of 31
conflicting requests, the Court will apply the prohibitory injunction standard to the extent Plaintiffs seek to maintain the status quo.
- A. Likelihood of Success on the Merits
Plaintiffs assert they are likely to succeed on the success of the merits of the claim that the 2023 REMS violated the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”). ECF No. 3 at 16–19. Defendants disagree and also contend that Plaintiffs lack standing and have not exhausted their administrative remedies. ECF No. 51.
- 1. Standing
Plaintiffs brings suit on behalf of themselves and as parens patriae in protecting the health and well-being of its residents. See ECF No. 35. Defendants argue Plaintiffs lack standing where the federal government is the ultimate parens patriae and the alleged economic interests are insufficient to establish standing. ECF No. 51.
The APA provides a cause of action to any “person … adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action.” 5 U.S.C. § 702. A state qualifies as a “person” within the meaning of the APA. See Maryland Dep’t of Human Res. v. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 763 F.2d 1441, 1445 n.1 (D.C. Cir. 1985). The APA allows a person to challenge agency action under various statutes. See Block v. Cmty. Nutrition Inst., 467 U.S. 340, 345 (1984).
ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ~ 10
