EMW Women's Surgical Center, P.S.C. v. Meier, 591 F.Supp.3d 205

Plaintiffs EMW Women’s Surgical Center and Dr. Ernest Marshall challenged two 2019 Kentucky laws: HB 5 (a "Reason Ban" forbidding abortions performed with knowledge the woman seeks aborting for reasons including fetal sex, race, Down syndrome or other disability) and SB 9 (a fetal-heartbeat ban).
Plaintiffs filed in March 2019 and obtained temporary restraining orders (TROs) enjoining enforcement of both laws; the TROs were later extended.
Commonwealth of Kentucky (AG Daniel Cameron) intervened; litigation was paused at points pending related Sixth Circuit decisions (Preterm-Cleveland / McCloud) and developments in other appellate cases.
Plaintiffs moved to stay this case while Dobbs, Rutledge (cert. petition), and Slatery (Sixth Circuit en banc) were resolved; defendants split—Secretary Friedlander consented to a stay, the Commonwealth opposed staying challenges to HB 5.
Magistrate judge applied Landis factors and denied a stay as to HB 5 (finding plaintiffs failed to show irreparable injury and that the balance of hardships weighed against a stay) but granted a stay as to SB 9 pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs.
Court also granted Plaintiffs a 30-day extension to respond to the Commonwealth’s Motion to Dissolve the TRO.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Stay of claims against SB 9	Stay until Dobbs because Dobbs will control pre-viability rules and may decide SB 9’s fate	Secretary consents; Commonwealth accepts stay limited to SB 9 until Dobbs	Granted — claims against SB 9 stayed pending Dobbs
Stay of claims against HB 5	Stay until Dobbs, Rutledge, and Slatery to avoid costly discovery and possibly moot issues	Commonwealth: plaintiffs cannot show pressing need or irreparable harm; state has sovereign enforcement interests; legal landscape changed	Denied — plaintiffs failed to carry burden; indefinite delay prejudicial
Governing standard for a stay	Plaintiffs: must show pressing need, irreparable harm, and no harm to others	Commonwealth: Landis factors applied; state/public harm and judicial economy weigh against stay	Court applied Landis and related Sixth Circuit guidance and found plaintiffs did not meet the burden
Extension to respond to Motion to Dissolve TRO	Request 30 days if stay denied	Commonwealth opposed delay and urged immediate ruling	Granted — 30 days to respond

Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248 (1936) (framework and discretion for district courts to stay proceedings pending resolution of independent proceedings).
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) (foundational substantive-due-process abortion right relied on in evaluating pre-viability restrictions).
Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) (modern test for undue burden on pre-viability abortion regulation).
Preterm-Cleveland v. McCloud, 994 F.3d 512 (6th Cir. 2021) (en banc Sixth Circuit decision reversing a preliminary injunction against an Ohio Down-syndrome ban).
Memphis Ctr. for Reproductive Health v. Slatery, 14 F.4th 409 (6th Cir. 2021) (Sixth Circuit panel opinion enjoining Tennessee reason and some pre-viability bans; later matters taken en banc).
Jackson Women’s Health Org. v. Dobbs, 945 F.3d 265 (5th Cir. 2019) (Fifth Circuit decision invalidating Mississippi 15-week ban; the Supreme Court granted review in Dobbs).
Little Rock Family Planning Servs. v. Rutledge, 984 F.3d 682 (8th Cir. 2021) (Eighth Circuit upholding preliminary injunction against an Arkansas Down-syndrome ban; cert. petition pending).
Planned Parenthood of Indiana & Kentucky v. Commissioner, 888 F.3d 300 (7th Cir. 2018) (Seventh Circuit decision addressing non-discrimination/reason-based abortion restrictions cited by the court when issuing the TRO).