Jennie McCormack v. Mark Hiedeman
694 F.3d 1004
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- McCormack, Idaho resident, faced felony Unlawful Abortion charge under Idaho Code § 18-606(2) (pregnant woman prohibited from terminating pregnancy outside statute) based on alleged December 24, 2010 abortion.
- Prosecuting attorney Hiedeman filed Idaho state criminal complaint May 18, 2011; district court dismissed without prejudice September 7, 2011; no decision to re-file yet.
- McCormack filed a federal class action (Sept 24, 2011) seeking to enjoin enforcement of §§ 18-606 and 18-608(1); district court issued preliminary injunction.
- Statutes at issue: § 18-606 (criminalizes pregnant-woman conduct), § 18-608 (conditions for first/second trimester abortions), and PUCPA (Chapter 5, §§ 18-505–18-507) restricting abortions after 20 weeks.
- District court held McCormack likely to succeed on facial constitutional challenges to § 18-606 and § 18-608(1), and granted a preliminary injunction only against enforcement of those provisions; district court also addressed standing to challenge PUCPA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court used correct legal standard and McCormack likely to succeed on merits | McCormack | Hiedeman | Yes; statute places undue burden on pre-viability abortion |
| Whether injunction should extend to § 18-608(2) | McCormack seeks protection against both § 18-608(1) and § 18-608(2) | Hiedeman contested broader scope | Injunction extended to 18-608(2) in conjunction with 18-606 |
| Standing to challenge PUCPA pre-enforcement | McCormack argues standing to challenge PUCPA based on threat of prosecution | No standing because PUCPA excludes women and no concrete threat | McCormack lacks standing to challenge PUCPA pre-enforcement |
| Standing based on possible future pregnancy or chilling effect on providers | McCormack could be injured by PUCPA’s effect on providers | No concrete injury | No standing for chilling effect claims |
| Scope of relief and status quo preservation | Relief should align with McCormack’s specific injury | Broader relief permissible under constitutional challenge | Remanded to narrow injunction to McCormack only |
Key Cases Cited
- Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (U.S. 1973) (right to abortion balanced with state interests; limits of state regulation)
- Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52 (U.S. 1976) (viability and state interest guidance)
- Casey v. Planned Parenthood, 505 U.S. 833 (U.S. 1992) (undue burden test for pre-viability abortions)
- Connecticut v. Menillo, 423 U.S. 9 (U.S. 1975) (continued enforceability of criminal abortion statutes against nonphysicians; not about women's liability)
- Mazur ek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968 (U.S. 1997) (physician- and nonphysician-providers prohibition context; not directly pre-viability female liability)
- Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 2009) (overbroad injunctions and tailoring of relief in injunctions)
- Alliance for Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2011) (sliding-scale standard for preliminary injunctions; serious questions and balance of hardships)
- Winter v. NRDC, 555 U.S. 7 (U.S. 2008) (four-factor test for preliminary injunctions; likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of equities, public interest)
- Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682 (U.S. 1979) (injunctions must be no more burdensome than necessary to provide complete relief)