814 F.3d 319
5th Cir.2016Background
- Louisiana enacted Act 620 (admitting-privileges requirement): physicians performing outpatient abortions must have active admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles. Plaintiffs (abortion providers and physicians) sued, seeking a facial injunction under the Fourteenth Amendment.
- The district court held a bench trial, found the statute had a rational basis but concluded it would place an undue burden on a large fraction of Louisiana women, and enjoined enforcement as to Plaintiffs.
- Louisiana appealed and sought a stay of the district court’s injunction pending appeal; the district court denied a stay and Louisiana moved this court for an emergency stay.
- The Fifth Circuit panel considered the standard for stays pending appeal (Nken factors) and assessed likelihood of success on the merits primarily under Casey’s undue-burden/"large-fraction" test and precedent upholding similar admitting-privileges laws in Texas and Mississippi.
- The Fifth Circuit concluded Louisiana showed a strong likelihood of success because the district court’s statistical methodology (sua sponte calculations) was unreliable and flawed, the district court miscounted providers with qualifying privileges, and plaintiffs failed to present adequate evidence that a large fraction of women would be blocked from access.
- The Fifth Circuit granted Louisiana’s emergency motion and stayed the injunction pending final disposition of the appeal, while leaving open as-applied challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether physicians/clinics have standing to sue on behalf of patients | Physicians share close relationship with patients and may be subject to prosecution (third-party standing) | State did not dispute third-party standing for at least one physician | Panel found at least one physician has third-party standing; standing satisfied |
| Whether statute is facially invalid under Casey ("undue burden"/large-fraction test) | Act will, in effect, close clinics and leave a large fraction of Louisiana women without abortion access | Plaintiffs failed to prove a large fraction would be blocked; district court’s statistics and assumptions were unreliable and excluded providers with qualifying privileges | Louisiana likely to succeed on merits; plaintiffs did not carry heavy burden for facial invalidation |
| Proper methodology for measuring "large fraction" injured | District court used raw statewide population and clinic-closure assumptions to calculate large-fraction percentages | That methodology is legally and factually flawed (incorrect numerator/assumptions); must consider actual access and providers with qualifying privileges | District court’s calculations were unreliable; cannot attribute preexisting limited capacity to the Act |
| Whether stay pending appeal should be granted (Nken factors) | Staying would irreparably harm plaintiffs and impede access | State suffers irreparable harm when an enacted law is enjoined; Louisiana showed likelihood of success and public interest favors enforcement | Stay granted pending appeal; factors (likelihood of success, irreparable harm to state, public interest) support stay |
Key Cases Cited
- Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (recognition of constitutional right to abortion)
- Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (undue-burden standard; "large fraction" framing)
- Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (state may regulate if rational basis and no undue burden)
- Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (stay pending appeal factors)
- United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (standard for facial challenges)
- Planned Parenthood of Greater Tex. Surgical Health Servs. v. Abbott, 748 F.3d 583 (5th Cir.) (upholding similar admitting-privileges law and discussing large-fraction analysis)