940 F. Supp. 2d 416
S.D. Miss.2013Background
- Mississippi HB 1390 requires admitting and staff privileges for abortion-clinic physicians; JWHO is the sole Mississippi clinic and has few privileges.
- Two physicians provide most abortions; they lack admitting or staff privileges at local hospitals when the Act passed.
- State indicated it would revoke JWHO's license after a hearing on April 18, 2013; plaintiffs sought to enjoin license revocation.
- Court previously issued a TRO and then partial injunction; Plaintiffs exhausted avenues to obtain privileges but hospitals rejected.
- Plaintiffs filed a Second Motion for Preliminary Injunction seeking to enjoin enforcement of the admitting-privileges requirement during litigation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Act imposes an undue burden as applied | JWHO argues the Act creates a substantial obstacle by closing the Clinic. | State contends rational-basis/health-safety regulation; undue-burden analysis not applicable. | Undue-burden analysis applies; unlikely to withstand as-applied challenge. |
| Whether closure of the Clinic constitutes a substantial obstacle | Closing forces travel to other states; increases obstacles to abortion access. | Some travel is incidental; other providers exist nearby. | Closure would create a substantial obstacle to pre-viability abortion access. |
| Whether irreparable injury supports a preliminary injunction | Close-of-Clinic harms patients' rights, business viability, and privacy; irreparable harm imminent. | Irreparable injury not shown until closure occurs and appeals are exhausted. | Imminent irreparable injuries are shown; injunction granted. |
| Whether the balance of harms and public interest favor relief | Preserve access and constitutional rights; status quo preservation favors injunction. | Harm to public safety/regulation and state interest in regulating medical practice. | Benefits of injunction exceed potential harms; public interest served. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007) (undue-burden framework governs abortion regulations)
- Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) (undue-burden standard; viability-focused framework)
- Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000) (undue-burden standard applies to abortion regulations)
- Mazuek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968 (1997) (travel implications considered in burden analysis)
- Okpalobi v. Foster, 190 F.3d 337 (5th Cir.1999) (measures forcing providers to stop create substantial obstacle)
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (preliminary injunctions are extraordinary relief)