31n tYje 6uprerrYe Court of ®Yjio STATE ex rel. CLEVELAND RIGHT TO Case No. 2013-1668 LIFE, INC., et al., Original Action in Mandamus Relators, and Prohibition V. STATE OF OHIO CONTROLLING BOARD, et al., Respondents. RESPONDENTS' MERIT BRIEF MAURICE A. THOMPSON* (0078548) MICHAEL DEWINE (0009181) *Counsel ofRecord Attorney General of Ohio 1851 Center for Constitutional Law 208 E. State Street ERIC E.IVIURPHY* (0083284) Columbus, Ohio 43215 State Solicitor 614-340-9817 *Counsel ofRecord [email protected] RYAN L. RICHARDSON (0090382) CHARITY S. ROBL (0075123) CHRISTOPHER B. BURCH (0087852) Assistant Attorneys General Callender Law Group LLC 30 East Broad Street, 17th Floor 20 S. Third Street, Suite 210 Columbus, Ohio 43215 Columbus, Ohio 43215 614-466-8980 614-300-5300 [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Respondents Counsel for Relators ; % %; ;;;,:°, ;; ! • ,;;^;,;,:;, 's^,;,,`;'•;,.,< TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................. i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................................... iv INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS .........:......................................................................5 A. In 2010, Congress passed legislation that ultimately gave States the flexibility to provide Medicaid coverage to additional low-income adults ..............................................5 B. Ohio's 2014-2015 appropriation act gave the Ohio Medicaid Director flexibility in determining whether to provide the new Group VIII coverage .. .........................................6 C. The Medicaid Director exercised his discretionary authority to cover Group VIII .............8 D. The Controlling Board approved the Medicaid Director's request to spend the federal funds that Medicaid will receive as a result of covering Group VIII ..................................9 1. The General Assembly has long recognized the need for a Controlling Board to make necessary adjustments within the biennium state budget ...........................9 2. Consistent with traditional practice, the Controlling Board approved the Medicaid Director's request to spend additional federal funds .............................10 E. Relators filed a complaint seeking writs of mandamus and prohibition ............................11 ARGUMENT .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ....12 Respondents' Proposition of Law No. I: The Court should not review Relators' claims on their merits because Relators lack standing and their mandamus claim improperly seeks declaratory and injunctive relie, f ...................................................................................................................................12 A. The Court should dismiss Relators' suit because they lack standing ................................12 1. Relators do not satisfy the standards for traditional private-right standing ...........13 2. Relators cannot prove the "rare and extraordinary" public-right standing ............15 B. The Court should dismiss Relators' request for a writ of mandamus because the Complaint asserts thinly veiled claims for declaratory and injunctive relief .....................17 1. Relators improperly seek declaratory and injunctive relief ...................................17 2. Relators' contrary arguments lack merit ................................................................20 Respondents' Proposition of Law No. II: Relators have not satisfied the elements for mandamus relief because the Controlling Board complied with R.C. 127.17 when it approved the Medicaid Director's request to spend additional federal funds and because Relators have an adequate remedy at law ......................................................................................................................................22 A. Relators fail to establish a clear legal right to their requested actions or a clear legal duty on Respondents' part to undertake those actions .......................................................23 1. This Court should interpret R.C. 127.17 to direct the Controlling Board only to enacted laws when considering the permissible scope of its actions .................24 a. R.C. 127.17's plain text requires the Controlling Board to undertake actions consistent only with actually enacted appropriation laws .............24 b. The canon of constitutional avoidance compels this interpretation...........26 c. Several other textual canons of construction support this reading ............28 d. This interpretation comports with the underlying purposes behind the legislation that established R.C. 127.17 .....................................................30 2. The Controlling Board's approval of the Medicaid Director's request to spend the additional federal funds for Group VIII comported with the legislative intent expressed in the prevailing appropriation act .............................31 3. Relators' contrary arguments conflict with R.C. 127.17 and consider extraneous sources that the Controlling Board rightfully disregarded ..................33 a. Relators' "unique" interpretation of R.C. 127.17 cannot stand .................34 b. Relators' application of R.C. 127.17 to the Controlling Board's action at issue in this case is equally wrong .........................................................37 B. Relators have an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law ......................................41 Respondents' Proposition of Law No. III: Relators' request for a writ of prohibition fails for all of the same reasons, as well as because they have waived that type of relief and do not challenge quasi-judicial action ..................................................................................................................................43 CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................45 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ii APPENDIX OF EXHIBITS: Medicaid Eligibility State Plan Amendment (Sept. 26, 2013) ............................... Exhibit A Letter from CMS (Oct. 10, 2013) .......................................................................... Exhibit B Legislative Service Commission Staff, The Controlling Board, Members Only Brief, Vol. 130, Issue 3 (May 22, 2013) .................................................. Exhibit C Controlling Board Manual (Feb. 2012) .............:................................................... Exhibit D Controlling Board, October 21, 2013, Agenda ...................................................... Exhibit E Controlling Board Transcript, excerpt ....................................................................Exhibit F Department of Job and Family Services, Fund/Appropriation Request (Apr. 19, 2010) ..........................................................................................:.......Exhibit G Department of Education, Fund/Appropriation Request (Nov. 22, 2010) .............Exhibit H Department of Education, Fund/Appropriation Request (Sept. 27, 2010) ............. Exhibit I Department of Education, Fund/Appropriation Request (Nov. 28, 2011) .............. Exhibit J iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES PAGE(S) Anderson v. Barclay's Real Estate, Inc., 136 Ohio St. 3d 31, 2013-Ohio-1933 .......................................................................................24 Bartlett v. State, 2873 Ohio St. 54 (1905) .......................................................................................................3, 28 Blue Cross of Ne. Ohio v. Ratchford, 64 Ohio St. 2d 256 ( 1980) ........................................................................................................35 Brookbank v. Gray, 74 Ohio St. 3d 279 (1996) ..............................................................................................4, 26, 28 Bruesewitz v. Wyeth LLC, 131 S. Ct. 1068 (2011) .............................................................................................................39 City ofAkron v. Mingo, 169 Ohio St. 511 (1959) ...........................................................................................................29 Clifton v. Blanchester, 131 Ohio St. 3d 287, 2012-Ohio-780 .......................................................................................13 Cuyahoga Cnty. Bd ofComm 'rs v. State, 112 Ohio St. 3d 59, 2006-Ohio-6499 .............................................................................4, 12, 13 Evans v. Lawyer, 123 Ohio St. 62 (1930) .............................................................................................................29 Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546 (2005) .................................................................................................................35 Fortner v. Thomas, 22 Ohio St. 2d 13 (1970) ..........................................................................................................13 Graham Cnty. Soil & Water Conservation Dist. v. United States ex rel. Wilson, 559 U.S. 280 (2010) .................................................................................................................39 Heintz v. Jenkins, 514 U.S. 291 (1995) .................................................................................................................39