Gainesville Woman Care, LLC v. State of Florida
210 So. 3d 1243
| Fla. | 2017Background
- Florida enacted the "Mandatory Delay Law" (2015 amendment to § 390.0111(3)), requiring physicians to provide statutorily specified information at least 24 hours before a termination of pregnancy, and creating a required second visit (with limited exceptions for medical emergency and certain victims).
- Gainesville Woman Care, LLC and Medical Students for Choice (GWC) sued, alleging the law violates the Florida Constitution’s express right of privacy (art. I, § 23) and sought a temporary injunction. The trial court granted the injunction after an evidentiary hearing in which petitioners submitted an affidavit from Dr. Christine Curry; the State presented no rebuttal evidence.
- The First District reversed the temporary injunction, criticizing the trial court for failing to make factually supported findings that the law imposed a "significant restriction," and for not addressing asserted state interests or facial-challenge standards.
- The Florida Supreme Court granted review, held that any law implicating Florida’s fundamental right of privacy is subject to strict scrutiny without a separate threshold showing of a "significant restriction," and quashed the First District.
- The Supreme Court found the State presented no evidence of a compelling interest or that the law was the least restrictive means, and sustained the trial court’s injunction pending further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether laws implicating Florida’s express right of privacy require strict scrutiny | Any statute implicating the right of privacy is presumptively unconstitutional and triggers strict scrutiny | The court should require a threshold showing that the law imposes a "significant restriction" before applying strict scrutiny | Held: Any law implicating the Florida right of privacy is subject to strict scrutiny; no separate "significant restriction" evidentiary threshold is required |
| Whether the Mandatory Delay Law infringes the privacy right | The law imposes an additional, state-mandated 24-hour delay and second visit that burdens effectuating the decision to terminate pregnancy and imposes costs/delays | The law is a neutral enhancement of informed consent and furthers legitimate state interests (reflection, medical integrity, protecting potential life) | Held: Trial court properly found the law implicates privacy; State presented no evidence of a compelling interest or least-restrictive means, so likelihood of success on merits favors petitioners |
| Burden of proof at preliminary-injunction stage | Once privacy implicated, burden shifts to State to prove compelling interest and least-restrictive means; petitioners need not prove magnitude beyond facial showing | State/First DCA: trial court must make detailed, factually supported findings on whether the law imposes a "significant restriction" and on the State's interests | Held: Burden shifts to State after privacy is implicated; trial court’s reliance on petitioners’ evidence and absence of State rebuttal was appropriate for injunction purposes |
| Facial challenge / remedy scope | Plaintiffs sought injunction barring enforcement of the law as facially unconstitutional because it, by its terms, prevents effectuating choice for at least 24 hours | State argued plaintiffs must satisfy the stricter "no set of circumstances" facial-test and show unconstitutionality in a large fraction of cases | Held: Trial court’s conclusion that the statute, by its plain terms, imposes unconstitutional burdens on all women was sufficient to support the temporary injunction; court did not definitively adopt a specific facial-test here |
Key Cases Cited
- Winfield v. Div. of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, 477 So.2d 544 (Fla. 1985) (Florida recognizes an explicit, broad constitutional right of privacy and applies strict scrutiny to intrusions)
- In re T.W., 551 So.2d 1186 (Fla. 1989) (applied strict scrutiny to parental-consent abortion law and discussed "significant restriction" concept)
- North Fla. Women's Health & Counseling Servs., Inc. v. State, 866 So.2d 612 (Fla. 2003) (reaffirmed strict-scrutiny approach under Florida privacy clause and rejected the federal "undue burden" standard)
- State v. Presidential Women's Ctr., 937 So.2d 114 (Fla. 2006) (construed Florida’s informed-consent abortion statute narrowly as patient-driven medical-risk disclosure)
- Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (U.S. 1992) (federal undue-burden framework for abortion regulation discussed and distinguished)
- City of Akron v. Akron Ctr. for Reprod. Health, 462 U.S. 416 (U.S. 1983) (federal precedents on waiting periods and informed-consent regulations referenced in background)