Jackson Women's Health Organization v. Currier
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 14591
| 5th Cir. | 2014Background
- Mississippi HB1390 mandated admitting privileges for all physicians at abortion facilities, removing prior Level I clinic exemption.
- JWHO operates Mississippi's only licensed abortion clinic; doctors Parker, Doe, and Roe are affiliated, with Parker and Doe lacking admitting privileges and Roe possessing them.
- Hospitals denied Parker and Doe admitting privileges, spurring enforcement actions and a hearing to revoke JWHO's license.
- District court issued a TRO and a partial preliminary injunction, allowing enforcement of the Act but barring penalties while litigation continued.
- Plaintiffs argued the Act would cause the Clinic to close, imposing an undue burden on Mississippi women seeking abortions, while the State argued travel to neighboring states mitigated any burden.
- On appeal, the Fifth Circuit held the Act rationally related to a legitimate interest and unconstitutional as applied, modifying the injunction to cover only the plaintiffs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rational basis review viability | JWHO contends rational basis applies; Act lacks legitimate rational basis. | Mississippi argues HB1390 has a rational basis tied to health regulation and professional standards. | HB1390 satisfies rational basis review. |
| Undue burden as applied | Closing the only clinic imposes an undue burden on Mississippi women’s abortion rights. | Travel to nearby states could mitigate burden and uphold the law’s legitimate aims. | H.B.1390 is unconstitutional as applied to the plaintiffs. |
| Scope of undue-burden analysis | Analysis should consider availability of out-of-state clinics to assess burden. | Undue-burden analysis should focus on effects within Mississippi per Gaines. | Proper analysis focuses within Mississippi; travel to out-of-state clinics not controlling here. |
| Injunction scope | Preliminary injunction should extend beyond the named plaintiffs to enjoin wider enforcement. | Injunction should be limited to the case's parties. | Modify injunction to apply only to the plaintiffs. |
Key Cases Cited
- Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (U.S. 1973) (establishes constitutional right to abortion with limits)
- Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (U.S. 1992) (undue-burden framework for abortion regulations)
- Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (U.S. 2007) (upholds rational basis related to health and regulation of medical practice)
- Planned Parenthood of Greater Tex. Surgical Health Servs. v. Abbott, 748 F.3d 583 (5th Cir. 2014) (affirms rational-basis review for admitting-privileges rule)
- Gaines v. Canada, 305 U.S. 337 (U.S. 1938) (state cannot shift its constitutional duties to another state)
- Jane L. v. Bangerter, 102 F.3d 1112 (10th Cir. 1996) (out-of-state availability considered in undue-burden analysis (cited))