280 F. Supp. 3d 849
M.D. La.2017Background
- Plaintiffs (June Medical Services, LLC and three physician plaintiffs) challenge multiple 2016 Louisiana statutes that restrict abortion providers, patients, and related activities (H.B. 606, H.B. 1019, H.B. 488, S.B. 33, H.B. 815, H.B. 386, H.B. 1081).
- Plaintiffs allege the laws individually and collectively create undue burdens on pre-viability abortion access and impose stigma and unequal treatment.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim; the Court held hearings and considered standing, ripeness, and substantive due-process and equal-protection pleading requirements.
- The Court analyzed each statute’s alleged injury (direct, stigmatic, or procedural), ripeness where regulations or documents were pending, and whether a favorable ruling would redress the plaintiffs’ claimed harms.
- Result: Court granted parts of the motions and denied others — several claims dismissed without prejudice (notably challenges to third-party contractor effects of H.B. 606, the genetic‑abnormality‑based 20-week ban in H.B. 1019, doctor plaintiffs’ H.B. 488 claims, S.B. 33, and H.B. 815’s fetal‑tissue donation ban); many other claims survived the motions to dismiss.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| H.B. 606 — state contracting/ funding prohibition | Hargues statute bars clinics from obtaining government contracts/funds and coerces vendors to cut ties, causing closure and stigma | State says it only restricts funding/payments to certain entities and does not bar essential services; DHH interpretation limits scope | Clinic has standing to challenge conditioning of funds/services (unconstitutional‑conditions theory); claims about vendors are too speculative and dismissed without prejudice |
| H.B. 1019 — 20‑week ban when abortion sought for fetal genetic abnormality | Plaintiffs: criminalizes pre‑viability abortions based on reason (unconstitutional) | State: overlaps with existing 20‑week criminal statute; striking H.B. 1019 here wouldn’t redress injury | Claim dismissed without prejudice for lack of redressability |
| H.B. 1019 — mandatory informational document on fetal genetic abnormalities | Plaintiffs: blanket, irrelevant disclosure to all women seeking abortion; content requirement is legally invalid | State: document not yet promulgated; enforcement delayed 30 days after promulgation | Claim ripe and survives motion to dismiss (legal question of relevancy permissible to decide) |
| H.B. 488 — physician credentialing requirement | Plaintiffs/clinic: narrows pool of providers, worsening access and hiring/replacement (concrete plans to hire) | State: physician plaintiffs are already board‑certified so no injury; challenges speculative for clinics | Physician plaintiffs lack standing; clinic has standing based on imminent need to replace a doctor and may proceed |
| S.B. 33 — prohibition on buying/transferring fetal tissue | Plaintiffs: statute prevents donation and stigmatizes abortions vs. miscarriage | State: plaintiffs do not allege they engage in or plan such transfers now | Plaintiffs lack standing; claim dismissed without prejudice |
| H.B. 815 — required interment/cremation of fetal remains | Plaintiffs: effectively bans medication abortion and stigmatizes patients; treats miscarriage differently | State: emergency regulation exempts medication abortions where remains evacuated later; regulation limits scope | Claim that statute burdens abortion access and equal‑protection claim regarding differential treatment survive; medication‑abortion effect is a justiciable legal question |
| H.B. 815 — ban on donation/use of fetal tissue from induced abortion | Plaintiffs: denies ability to donate and stigmatizes | State: plaintiffs do not allege they donate or plan to donate fetal tissue | Plaintiffs lack standing; donation claim dismissed without prejudice |
| H.B. 386 — waiting period increased to 72 hours | Plaintiffs: increases delay, cost, health risks, and narrows access | State: waiting periods historically upheld; increased period is facially valid | Plaintiffs plausibly pleaded undue burden at this stage; claim survives |
| H.B. 1081 — ban on dismemberment (D&E) abortions | Plaintiffs: bans common second‑trimester method, imposing undue burden and unequal treatment | State: distinguishes from partial‑birth ban and offers alternatives | Plaintiffs plausibly pleaded undue burden and equal‑protection claims; survive motion to dismiss |
| Cumulative impact of statutes | Plaintiffs: combined restrictions produce greater constitutional harm than each law in isolation | State: each law assessed on its own legality | Court will consider cumulative effects for claims that survive; cumulative claim cannot create jurisdiction for otherwise non‑justiciable claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (right to choose pre‑viability abortion)
- Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (undue‑burden standard)
- Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (upholding some congressional restrictions; undue‑burden framework)
- Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, 579 U.S. 582 (requiring courts to weigh burdens against benefits and consider clinic impacts)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requirements)
- Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist., 570 U.S. 595 (unconstitutional‑conditions doctrine applicability beyond First Amendment)
- Maher v. Roe, 432 U.S. 464 (states need not fund abortions)
- Planned Parenthood of Gulf Coast, Inc. v. Gee, 862 F.3d 445 (5th Cir.) (standing/ripeness in abortion challenges)
- Roark & Hardee LP v. City of Austin, 522 F.3d 533 (5th Cir.) (injury‑in‑fact standard for future injuries)