Case: Ramon v. Charron
1:25-cv-00676 | U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho
Filed Date: Nov. 26, 2025
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
In this case, five plaintiffs and a putative class of Idaho residents with disabilities brought a class-action suit against the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare’s (IDHW) Director, Deputy Director, and Division of Behavioral Health Administrator (defendants). On November 26, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a class-action complaint against the defendants in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho. The case was assigned to Magistrate Judge Debora K. Graham. The plaintiffs were represented by Givens Pursley, LLP, a private Idaho law firm.
The State of Idaho, specifically the Idaho Behavioral Health Plan, provides for the care and treatment of hundreds of residents with severe mental illnesses through services called the Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) services. ACT services are services designed to help patients with severe mental illnesses avoid prolonged hospitalizations and institutionalizations through establishing mobile, multidisciplinary teams of providers in community settings. Magellan Healthcare is the company that contracts with Idaho healthcare providers and reimburses them for the Medicaid services they provide. On October 31, 2025, Magellan Healthcare sent a notice to mental health service providers that it would no longer reimburse “bundled ACT services” after December 1, 2025. Before the announcement, Magellan would reimburse packages of mental health services, but with this change, Magellan would only reimburse individual ACT services. The plaintiffs are individual Idaho residents with mental health disabilities who received bundled ACT services before the December 1, 2025 notice from Magellan. The putative class includes all Medicaid-eligible patients in Idaho with serious mental illnesses who have been recommended for, provided with, or reimbursed by ACT services from July 1, 2024, to November 26, 2025.
In their complaint, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants either directed or authorized Magellan’s unbundling of the ACT services. The plaintiffs argued that the failure to provide timely, comprehensive access to ACT services would deteriorate the mental health of the plaintiffs and their families. They brought two causes of action. First, they alleged that under 42 U.S.C. §1983 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the defendants acted under the color of state law by authorizing or directing Magellan to change its reimbursement policies for ACT services under the Idaho Behavioral Health Plan. Second, they alleged that under 42 U.S.C. §1983 and the Rehabilitation Act, the defendants acted under the color of state law by authorizing or directing Magellan to change its reimbursement plan, and that the plaintiffs were entitled to relief as qualified individuals with disabilities.
The plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that the defendants had violated the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act with respect to their failure to provide ACT services to eligible Medicaid patients seeking to treat their serious mental illnesses. The plaintiffs sought a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining the defendants from subjecting the plaintiffs to practices violating their rights under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act. The plaintiffs also sought a preliminary and permanent injunction requiring the defendants to continue providing ACT services in accordance with the Idaho Behavioral Health Plan. Lastly, the plaintiffs sought attorney’s fees and any other appropriate relief.
On November 28, 2025, the plaintiffs filed for a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the defendants. The case was then reassigned to District Judge Amanda K. Brailsford.
On December 1, 2025, the court denied the TRO motion without prejudice. The court held that the plaintiffs’ complaint was not likely to be successful on the merits because it lacked factual support that the defendants were actually involved in ceasing the ACT services and that the ACT services would actually end on December 1, 2025. The court held that the plaintiffs incorrectly equated the ACT services no longer being bundled with ceasing entirely. Moreover, the court held that the plaintiffs had not sufficiently established that there would be irreparable harm without the TRO.
Also on December 1, 2025, the plaintiffs amended their complaint, including substantiating their claim against the defendants by citing that only IDHW had the authority to direct Magellan to change its reimbursement plans.
On December 2, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for a TRO. On December 21, 2025, the plaintiffs moved to certify the putative class of Medicaid-eligible Idaho residents with serious mental illnesses.
On January 5, 2026, the court denied the plaintiffs’ renewed motion for a TRO, and the court denied the motion for class certification without prejudice. For the TRO, the court held that the plaintiffs lacked individualized evidence that they had been denied ACT benefits entirely. The court held that the plaintiffs failed to show how the unbundled services denied them their benefits. The court also held that because it denied the TRO motion, it did not need to immediately address the motion for class certification. Yet, the court raised some concerns about certifying the putative class, specifically a concern of whether the five plaintiffs could adequately represent all Medicaid-eligible patients in Idaho who are qualified to receive ACT services. Because each plaintiff’s disability was unique, with different diagnoses and treatment plans, the court argued that a class action may be inappropriate.
On January 12, 2026, the plaintiffs appealed the denials of their TRO motion and their motion for class certification to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
On January 27, 2026, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss in the district court.
As of March 22, 2026, the case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Ameya Kamani (3/22/2026)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71970651/parties/ramon-v-charron/
Beelaert, Jeffrey S. (Idaho)
Carter, Preston N (Idaho)
Gray, Donald Z. (Idaho)
Church, Brian V (Idaho)
Craig, James Edward (Idaho)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71970651/ramon-v-charron/
Last updated March 22, 2026, 5:06 p.m.
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Healthcare Access and Reproductive Issues
Public Benefits/Government Services
Key Dates
Filing Date: Nov. 26, 2025
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Five Idaho residents with mental disabilities, along with a putative class of Medicaid-eligible Idaho residents with mental disabilities
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Denied
Defendants
State
Idaho Department of Health and Welfare
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq.
Section 504 (Rehabilitation Act), 29 U.S.C. § 701
Other Dockets:
District of Idaho 1:25-cv-00676
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Issues
Benefits (Source):
Disability and Disability Rights:
Discrimination Area:
Discrimination Basis:
Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)
Medical/Mental Health Care:
Mental health care, unspecified
Case Summary of Ramon v. Charron, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, http://www.dev.clearinghouse.net/case/47933/ (last updated 3/22/2026).