Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Legal Implications topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lead attorney in KW case tells Senate cuts may conflict with federal court order
Summary
Richie Epnick, who says he has represented plaintiffs in KW v. Armstrong, told the committee that a federal court order and a prior contempt finding constrain the department and that cutting funding may not reduce individual budgets and could prompt enforcement action or fresh litigation.
Richie Epnick, who identified himself as a lead attorney in the KW v. Armstrong litigation, told the Senate Health and Welfare Committee that the bill’s legislative findings are based on incorrect premises and warned of legal risk if the legislature reduces funding without regard to current court orders.
Epnick said the court ordered the Department of Health and Welfare to complete implementation by June 2022, that the department missed that deadline and has been held in contempt, and that a federal court order "prohibits the department from reducing individual budgets because of the litigation." He told senators that if the legislature fails to provide adequate funding to meet implementation obligations, plaintiffs can choose to enforce the settlement or return the state to litigation.
