Daniel Haller et al. v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services et al.

Why this Matters
The plaintiffs argue that regulations to impose guardrails on the No Surprises Act’s arbitration process—a process used to resolve payment disputes for surprise out-of-network bills between payers and out-of-network health care providers—are invalid under the Administrative Procedure Act. In addition, the plaintiffs argue that major provisions of the No Surprises Act establishing the arbitration process and banning providers from sending balance bills to patients violate the Seventh Amendment, due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, and the Takings Clause. Setting aside these major provisions of the No Surprises Act would expose consumers to surprise out-of-network bills and higher costs.

Potential Impact
Overturning major provisions of the landmark bipartisan No Surprises Act would jeopardize critical consumer protections and millions of patients would no longer be protected from surprise out-of-network bills.