Jackson Women's Health Org. v. Currier
349 F. Supp. 3d 536
S.D. Miss.2018Background
- In March 2018 Mississippi enacted H.B. 1510, banning abortions after 15 weeks LMP except for narrow medical-emergency and ‘‘severe fetal abnormality’’ exceptions; penalties include license suspension and fines.
- Jackson Women’s Health Organization (JWHO), the state's sole abortion clinic, and a physician sued the state on Fourteenth Amendment due-process grounds and obtained a TRO the day the law was signed; plaintiffs later sought summary judgment on the 15-week ban (Part I).
- Medical consensus — and the parties’ undisputed evidence — is that viability typically begins at about 23–24 weeks LMP; the State conceded no evidence shows viability at 15 weeks.
- JWHO provides abortions up to 16 weeks LMP; the law would force patients after 14w6d–16w to travel out of state or continue pregnancy, and would place providers at risk of license loss and penalties.
- The court concluded H.B. 1510 is a pre-viability ban inconsistent with Roe/Casey and related precedent, granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, and entered a permanent, statewide injunction against enforcement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether H.B. 1510 violates Fourteenth Amendment due process by banning pre-viability abortions | H.B. 1510 is a facial pre-viability ban; viability (≈23–24 wks) is the constitutional cutoff under Roe/Casey, so the statute is unconstitutional | The Act is a permissible regulation with exceptions aimed at protecting women’s health; does not impose an undue burden | The ban is a facially unconstitutional prohibition of pre-viability abortions and violates Casey/Roe; summary judgment for plaintiffs granted |
| Whether Gonzales or fetal-pain arguments displace Casey’s viability rule | Gonzales did not overturn Casey; it upheld a procedure-specific ban while leaving pre-viability choice intact | State urged a fetal-pain or other alternate framework to justify the ban | Court rejected State’s attempt to replace viability with fetal-pain or other standards; Casey remains controlling |
| Scope of remedy: facial challenge and breadth of injunction | Plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction barring enforcement of H.B. 1510 as to pre-viability abortions statewide | State argued remedy should be limited (e.g., end at 16w0d since clinic stops at 16w) or only as-applied to JWHO | Court found plaintiffs met facial-challenge burden (statute bans pre-viability abortions in all circumstances) and entered a permanent statewide injunction narrowly tailored to the constitutional violation |
| Standing / remedial limits tied to clinic’s service window | Plaintiffs argued standing and relief need not be limited by JWHO’s self-imposed service cutoff; facial invalidation appropriate | State argued JWHO doesn’t provide services beyond 16w so relief should be temporally or as-applied limited | Court rejected limiting remedy by clinic practice; granted broad permanent injunction against enforcement of H.B. 1510 |
Key Cases Cited
- Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (controlling recognition of constitutional right to pre-viability abortion)
- Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (viability marks the earliest point a State may bar abortions; undue-burden standard)
- Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (upheld certain procedure-specific bans but did not displace viability rule)
- Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, 136 S.Ct. 2292 (undue-burden analysis and respect for women’s dignity/autonomy)
- Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379 (defining viability as a physician judgment on sustained survival outside the womb)
- Edwards v. Beck, 786 F.3d 1113 (Eighth Circuit: pre-viability bans unconstitutional)
- Isaacson v. Horne, 716 F.3d 1213 (Ninth Circuit: viability is the critical point; invalidating later-term bans)