Full Breakdown
25 States and D.C. Sue Over New Medicaid Work Requirements
7/2/2026, 6:55:53 AM
Lawsuit Over New Medicaid Work Rule
On July 1 2026, 25 states and the District of Columbia filed a suit in Massachusetts against HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and CMS Administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz. The plaintiffs contest a June 3 interim final rule (IFR) that tightens Medicaid work requirements, narrows exemptions for medically frail individuals, and seeks a temporary stay and preliminary injunction.
Background and State Coalition
Congress’s 2025 One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB) let Medicaid recipients keep coverage by completing 80 hours per month of work, training, or education and created exemptions for medically frail, blind, or disabled people. The June 3 IFR redefines “medically frail,” requiring proof that a condition “significantly impairs” work ability and limiting self-attestation to a single submission starting 2028. Attorney General Nick Brown leads the suit, joined by Kentucky and Pennsylvania governors. The coalition includes California, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Arizona, Colorado, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Kentucky.
Data & Statistics
CMS projects the rule could strip Medicaid from 2.3 million enrollees in its year and cause 7 % of working or exempt individuals to lose coverage due to paperwork errors, missed deadlines, or missing documentation. It would also force states to replace automated eligibility systems with manual reviews.
Official Statements & Responses
Administration says rule “provides guardrails” to curb fraud and requires able-bodied recipients to “contribute to society.” Plaintiffs argue the IFR “unlawfully narrows Congress’s protections,” violates Administrative Procedure Act, and coerces states after implementing the OBBB.
Criticism & Opposition
State attorneys general say the rule “disregards substantial evidence,” imposes “unworkable timelines,” and could raise uninsured rates, strain safety-net providers, and increase emergency-room costs. Governors have written to Secretary Kennedy requesting time, citing August 31 notice deadline and January 1, 2027 enforcement date.
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
The administration has not responded to media inquiries, leaving fraud savings unquantified; studies on fraud reduction under the rule are absent.
Verbatim Quotes
- “If you can work, you should get up and work,” — Dr. Mehmet Oz, CMS Administrator
- “We’re forgiving but we’re not foolish,” — Dr. Mehmet Oz, CMS Administrator
- “With this new rule, people struggling with serious health issues face an impossible choice — jeopardize their health by trying to meet new, stringent work requirements or lose health coverage entirely,” — Nick Brown, Washington Attorney General
- “The rule disregards substantial evidence that should have been considered, fails to adequately evaluate reasonable alternatives, and does not give states clear or workable guidance,” — Washington AG’s office
What’s Next
The plaintiffs seek a court order blocking the IFR while the case proceeds. An injunction could preserve Medicaid exemptions; denial would let the rule take effect on January 1, 2027, forcing states to redesign compliance systems under a timeline.
