978 F.3d 418
6th Cir.2020Background
- Kentucky law (KRS § 216B.0435) requires abortion facilities to have written transfer agreements with a local acute-care hospital and transport agreements with a local ambulance service; 2017 regulations tightened those standards and added successive 90‑day waivers (902 KAR 20:360 § 10).
- EMW (Kentucky’s only licensed abortion clinic at trial) and Planned Parenthood (seeking licensure) sued state officials alleging the transfer/transport requirements impose an undue burden on abortion access; the district court permanently enjoined the statute and regulation after a bench trial.
- The district court found the agreements confer little medical benefit but impose severe burdens that could close Kentucky’s abortion facilities; the court issued a permanent injunction.
- On appeal, Kentucky argued plaintiffs lacked standing (an argument foreclosed by Supreme Court precedent), that the waiver process could prevent clinic closures, and challenged discovery sanctions imposed for a missed deposition.
- The Sixth Circuit panel affirmed the sanctions award but reversed the permanent injunction, holding the district court erred by: (1) applying a balancing test instead of the controlling June Medical concurrence framework and (2) failing to credit the 90‑day waiver process and the presumption that officials will act in good faith; the case was vacated and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge abortion regulation | Providers can sue on behalf of patients (interference with patients’ rights) | Kentucky argued providers lack standing to assert patients’ rights | Standing argument foreclosed by Supreme Court; court proceeds to merits |
| Constitutionality under undue‑burden test | Transfer/transport requirements impose a substantial obstacle (would close clinics) and confer negligible health benefits | Requirements are reasonably related to health/safety and do not impose a substantial obstacle; waivers mitigate any burden | On remand: district court erred—appellate court reversed judgment for plaintiffs and vacated injunction because plaintiffs failed to show clinics would close after good‑faith use of 90‑day waivers |
| Proper legal standard post‑June Medical Services | Plaintiffs relied on Whole Woman’s Health balancing of benefits vs. burdens | Kentucky relied on Chief Justice Roberts’ concurrence (Marks analysis): apply rational‑basis for legitimate purpose then ask whether law creates a substantial obstacle | Court treated Chief Justice Roberts’ concurrence as the controlling narrowest rationale under Marks; held district court erred by conducting the balancing test instead of applying that two‑step framework |
| Discovery sanctions for missed deposition | Plaintiffs sought fees/costs for governor’s office failure to produce a designee | Kentucky argued failure excused by last‑minute protective order and notice issues; disputed amount | Sixth Circuit affirmed district court’s sanctions award under Rule 37(d) and found fee amount was not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, 136 S. Ct. 2292 (2016) (courts must weigh burdens and benefits under the undue‑burden test)
- June Medical Services L.L.C. v. Russo, 140 S. Ct. 2103 (2020) (fractured decision; concurrence of Roberts, C.J., treated as controlling narrow rationale under Marks for this court)
- Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) (articulated the undue‑burden standard)
- Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188 (1977) (when no majority rationale, the narrowest concurrence controls lower courts)
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (standard for injunctive relief: plaintiffs must make a clear showing of entitlement)
- Women’s Med. Pro. Corp. v. Baird, 438 F.3d 595 (6th Cir. 2006) (upheld a transfer‑agreement requirement under deferential review)