“Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.
What’s at stake in this case?
An elderly woman sued a long-term care insurance company for refusing to cover the cost of home health care that her doctor said was necessary after surgery.
What happened in this case?
Larrayne Hartnett purchased a long-term health care insurance policy from a predecessor to Jackson National Life Insurance Co. (Jackson). At age 94, she broke her hip and had surgery. Her doctor prescribed post-surgical care at home, but Jackson refused to pay for the cost of her care. Hartnett filed suit, but a lower court ruled in favor of the insurance company. She appealed to the Seventh Circuit.
Two Trump judges, Robert Kirsch and Michael Scudder, ruled in favor of Jackson and affirmed the decision against Ms. Hartnett. Reagan Judge Kenneth Ripple dissented in the March 2026 decision in Hartnett v Jackson National Life Ins. Co.
What was the rationale of Trump judges Kirsch and Scudder?
In the opinion written by Kirsch, the two Trump judges agreed with the lower court that the insurance policy “did not provide home health care benefits” They specifically rejected the contention that the case should be referred to the state supreme court because of a recent state statute that arguably calls for home care by insurance companies. They maintained that the state law simply “doesn’t apply” in this case.
Why did Judge Ripple dissent?
Judge Ripple maintained that the court should have deferred the case to the Illinois Supreme Court to decide whether Illinois law should be interpreted to require Jackson to provide home health care services to Ms. Hartnett under her policy. As Ripple explained, the question was ‘genuinely uncertain,” had not previously been resolved by a state or federal court, and was “likely to recur” again. The court should “respect the prerogative and obligation” of Illinois and other states, Ripple concluded, to “take the lead in regulating” the insurance industry.
Why is the decision harmful?
The ruling by Trump judges Kirsch and Scudder obviously harms Larrayne Hartnett and her family in their quest for justice and affordability in dealing with their insurance company. It also sets a bad precedent that will harm other consumers dealing with insurance companies, particularly in the Seventh Circuit, which includes Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin. The case also illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.