Choice Inc. of Texas v. Bruce Greenstein
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 17355
5th Cir.2012Background
- Choice and affiliated OAFs challenge Louisiana Act 490, which broadens license-denial grounds and adds immediate suspensions and post-licensure prohibitions.
- Act 490 allows denial, non-renewal, or revocation for violations of any state/federal law or regulation, not just health-related ones.
- Act 490 creates an immediate suspension option with a heightened evidentiary standard for injunctive relief (clear and convincing) and limits review path to devolutive appeals or district court injunctions.
- Choice pre-enforcement sues in federal court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing four constitutional challenges (due process, equal protection, and abortion-right implications).
- District court dismissed for lack of ripeness, holding Choice would not suffer hardship and issues not fit for decision at this time.
- The appellate panel affirms dismissal, concluding Choice failed to show hardship from withholding court consideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Choice satisfied the ripeness hardship prong | Choice argues Act 490 imposes legal and practical harms requiring immediate review | Secretary contends no hardship because violations must occur before review and Choice can await later relief | Choice failed to show hardship; not ripe |
Key Cases Cited
- Ohio Forestry Ass’n, Inc. v. Sierra Club, 523 F.3d 683 (5th Cir. 2008) (hardship can arise from legal harms and need for urgent review)
- Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (3d Cir. 1967) (pre-enforcement challenges can be ripe when immediate compliance pressures exist)
- Texas v. United States, 497 F.3d 491 (5th Cir. 2007) (ripe review when substantial imminent enforcement risks exist)
- Roark & Hardee LP v. City of Austin, 522 F.3d 533 (5th Cir. 2008) (purely legal questions can be ripe where no further factual development is needed)
- Life Partners, Inc. v. United States, 650 F.3d 1026 (5th Cir. 2011) (jurisdictional inquiry requires considering whether claims can be adjudicated now)