No. 24-3521 ___________________________ State of Kansas; State of North Dakota; State of Alabama; State of Idaho; State of Indiana; State of Iowa; State of Missouri; State of Montana; State of Nebraska; State of New Hampshire; State of Ohio; State of South Carolina; State of South Dakota; State of Tennessee; Commonwealth of Virginia; Commonwealth of Kentucky; State of Texas; State of Florida; State of Arkansas

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiffs - Appellees

v.

United States of America; Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellants

------------------------------

CASA; Hyun Kim; Claudia Moya Lopez; Dania Quezada Torres

lllllllllllllllllllllAmici on Behalf of Appellant(s) ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the District of North Dakota - Western ____________

Submitted: December 19, 2024 Filed: December 23, 2024 [Published] ____________ Before SMITH, KELLY, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM.

On May 8, 2024, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (agency) promulgated a final rule that, in effect, now allows Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients to enroll in health insurance plans through the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) exchanges. See 89 Fed. Reg. 39,392, 39,415 (May 8, 2024); 45 C.F.R. § 155.410(e)(4). Nineteen states1 filed a civil suit in the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota (district court)2 seeking a declaration that the new rule violates the Administrative Procedure Act and an injunction preventing the rule from going into effect. On December 9, over the agency’s opposition, the district court granted a preliminary injunction and stay, preventing the agency from enforcing the rule as to the 19 plaintiff-states.

On December 11, 2024, the agency filed a notice of appeal. On December 13, the agency filed a motion seeking a stay of the district court’s December 9 order, pending resolution of this appeal. Alternatively, the agency sought a temporary administrative stay of the December 9 order pending a ruling on its request for a stay pending resolution of the appeal. The agency argued that the district court’s injunction requires it to make significant changes to its ACA health-related exchanges on December 22, 2024.

1 The plaintiff-states are Ohio, Idaho, Nebraska, South Carolina, Kansas, Alabama, Virginia, Tennessee, Indiana, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, New Hampshire, Kentucky, Texas, Florida, and Arkansas. 2 The Honorable Daniel M. Traynor, United States District Judge for the District of North Dakota

-2- On December 16, 2024, we granted the agency’s request for a temporary administrative stay of the district court’s December 9 order, pending our consideration of the agency’s motion to stay the district court’s order pending appeal. Having now considered the motion for stay pending appeal, we vacate the administrative stay, deny the agency’s motion for stay pending appeal, and direct the Clerk of Court to expedite the merits briefing schedule for review of the district court’s grant of the plaintiff-states’ motion for preliminary injunction.

“Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 8(a) governs the power of a court of appeals to stay an order of a district court pending appeal.” Brady v. Nat’l Football League, 640 F.3d 785, 789 (8th Cir. 2011). “A stay pending appeal . . . has functional overlap wit