MKB Management Corp. v. Burdick
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102620
D.N.D.2013Background
- Plaintiffs move for a preliminary injunction to enjoin North Dakota HB 1456, which bans abortions after a heartbeat is detected (as early as six weeks).
- Red River Women’s Clinic is the state’s only abortion provider; plaintiff Eggleston is the Clinic’s medical director and a ND-licensed physician.
- HB 1456 imposes criminal penalties and disciplinary actions on providers who perform abortions after a heartbeat is detected; effective August 1, 2013.
- ND law previously allowed abortions until viability, with limited health exceptions; viability is not a fixed point and is medically determined.
- Court applies Dataphase factors to assess likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of harms, and public interest; viability doctrine remains central to the constitutional analysis.
- Court concludes HB 1456 is unconstitutional under Supreme Court precedent (Roe, Casey) and grants preliminary relief to block enforcement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether HB 1456 violates the right to abortion before viability under the Fourteenth Amendment. | Eggleston argues HB 1456 bans pre-viability abortions in violation of Roe/Casey. | Burdick et al. argue the law regulates pre-viability abortion consistent with Casey/Gonzales and advances fetal life interests. | Plaintiffs likely prevail; statute unconstitutional pre-viability. Read as jeopardizing right to choose. |
| Whether the plaintiffs show likelihood of success on the merits under Dataphase for a state statute. | Plaintiffs show strong likelihood based on Roe/Casey line of cases. | State argues regulation serves legitimate interests and is not undue burden. | Court finds strong likelihood of success on merits for plaintiffs. |
| Whether there is irreparable harm without an injunction. | Enforcement would close the Clinic and deny constitutional rights to patients. | Harm is speculative and could be avoided by compliance or change in practices. | Irreparable harm established; denial of rights and clinic closure constitute irreparable injury. |
| Whether the balance of harms favors the plaintiffs. | State interest insufficient to outweigh harms to patients and clinic viability. | State would lose enforcement of a duly enacted law. | Balance weighs in favor of injunction. |
| Whether the public interest supports issuing an injunction. | Protecting constitutional rights serves public interest; likely success supports injunction. | Public interest in enforcing laws that protect potential life. | Public interest weighed in favor of injunction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (U.S. 1973) (foundation for abortion right before viability)
- Planned Parenthood of S.E. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (U.S. 1992) (undue burden standard; viability framework abandoned)
- Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (U.S. 2007) (upholding regulation with consideration of state interests within pre-viability context)
- Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379 (U.S. 1979) (viability determination must be physician judgment; state cannot fix viability at a specific point)
- Okpalobi v. Foster, 190 F.3d 337 (5th Cir. 1999) (evidence of substantial impossibility of access can show undue burden)
- Edwards v. Beck, 946 F.Supp.2d 843 (E.D. Ark. 2013) (preliminary injunction against heartbeat/12-week ban (12 weeks) based on undue burden)
- Isaacson v. Horne, 716 F.3d 1213 (9th Cir. 2013) (Arizona 20-week ban unconstitutional before viability)
- Planned Parenthood Sioux Falls Clinic v. Miller, 63 F.3d 1452 (8th Cir. 1995) (undue burden doctrine in abortion regulation)