FemHealth USA, Inc. v. Mount Juliet, City of
3:19-cv-01141
M.D. Tenn.May 1, 2020Background:
- Carafem (FemHealth USA) opened an Mt. Juliet clinic in March 2019 providing medication abortions and planned to add first‑trimester aspiration (surgical) abortions.
- Mt. Juliet commissioners publicly opposed the clinic; shortly after opening the City passed Ordinance 2019‑16 restricting “Surgical Abortion Clinics” to I‑G/I‑S industrial zones and imposing a 1,000‑foot buffer from churches, schools, parks, libraries, childcare, and residential lots—effectively banning surgical abortions because no compliant sites existed.
- After Carafem sued, the City adopted Amendment 2020‑8 (reduced buffer to 200 ft, changed measurement method, and added stated rationales: health/safety, economic growth, and shifting protests).
- Carafem continued offering medication abortions but could not perform surgical abortions at its current site; relocation to permitted I‑G areas was practically and financially unlikely.
- Carafem moved for a preliminary injunction to bar enforcement of the Ordinance and Amendment; the Court decided the motion on the papers and granted the injunction.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Ordinance/Amendment were enacted with the purpose or have the effect of imposing an undue burden on pre‑viability abortions | City officials’ contemporaneous statements show an anti‑abortion purpose; the laws block in‑city surgical abortions and force long travel/delays for those ineligible for medication abortion | The rules serve legitimate zoning/public‑safety/economic interests, protect patients from protesters, and medication abortions remain available | Court: Officials’ statements and record show pretext; benefits speculative; likely purpose/effect to impose an undue burden under Casey/Hellerstedt → preliminary injunction granted |
| Whether the Ordinance/Amendment violate Equal Protection by singling out surgical abortion clinics | Ordinance treats surgical abortion clinics differently from comparable medical outpatient surgical facilities without rational basis | City asserts rational basis (zoning, economic development, protest mitigation) | Court: Likely no rational basis; the distinction is arbitrary → strong likelihood of success on equal protection claim |
| Whether enforcement would cause irreparable harm warranting preliminary relief | Denial of constitutional rights (access to pre‑viability abortion) inflicts irreparable injury on patients and provider | City points to speculative economic/disruption harms | Court: Constitutional injury established; irreparable harm shown |
| Whether balance of harms and public interest favor injunction | Protecting constitutional rights and preventing burdens on patients serves public interest; City gains no valid benefit from an unconstitutional ordinance | City claims harm to economic growth, property owners, and public order | Court: City’s asserted harms are speculative and outweighed by constitutional interests; balance favors Carafem |
Key Cases Cited
- Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (establishes constitutional right to choose abortion)
- Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (undue‑burden standard for pre‑viability abortion restrictions)
- Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, 136 S. Ct. 2292 (courts must weigh asserted benefits against burdens and scrutinize pretextual justifications)
- Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968 (on inquiry into legislative purpose; caution against assuming improper intent absent evidence)
- City of Richmond v. United States, 422 U.S. 358 (official action taken to accomplish an unlawful end lacks legitimacy)
- Bays v. City of Fairborn, 668 F.3d 814 (Sixth Circuit articulation of preliminary injunction factors)