Planned Parenthood Ass'n of Hidalgo County Texas, Inc. v. Suehs
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 17661
| 5th Cir. | 2012Background
- Texas WHP provides subsidized health services to women; WHP funded by Texas and federal waiver under Medicaid.
- Texas statute and later THHSC regulations bar funding to entities that perform or promote elective abortions or affiliate with such entities.
- Regulations define 'promote' and 'affiliate' (including identifying marks) and require WHP recipients to certify compliance.
- Appellees (nine Planned Parenthood entities) had been funded under WHP but challenged the new regulations as violating free speech, association, and equal protection.
- District court granted a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement; court later vacated injunction and remanded for further consideration.
- Opinion splits on whether the restrictions are valid direct regulations of a state program or unconstitutional conditions; remand ordered on affiliation prongs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the promote restriction is a valid direct regulation of the state program. | Planned Parenthood argues the rule violates free speech/association by conditioning funds on abstaining from abortion advocacy. | Texas may disfavor abortion within its subsidized program and regulate program content. | Restriction on promoting abortions upheld as direct regulation; not analyzed under unconstitutional conditions. |
| Whether the identifying marks affiliation restriction is a valid direct regulation. | Affiliation limitations chill speech by tying funding to abstention from pro-abortion messaging. | Texas may control messages conveyed through WHP by restricting identifying marks that promote abortion. | Restriction on identifying marks upheld as direct regulation; appropriate to regulate program content. |
| Whether equal protection analysis was correctly applied or should be reconsidered. | Disparate treatment of abortion-promoting clinics vs. hospitals injures equal protection. | Equal protection scrutiny cannot be assumed without a proper free-speech analysis. | Equal protection analysis not decided; remanded for reconsideration consistent with the opinion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1991) (government may disfavor abortion within its subsidized program)
- Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic & Institutional Rights, 547 U.S. 47 (2006) (funding conditions may not penalize protected speech)
- Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593 (1972) (unconstitutional conditions doctrine foundation)
- Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513 (1958) (funding conditions can't force surrender of constitutional rights)
- Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 829 (1995) (government disbursing funds may ensure its message isn't garbled)
- Lakey v. Texas Med. Providers Performing Abortion Servs., 667 F.3d 570 (5th Cir. 2012) (unconstitutional conditions doctrine threshold for preliminary relief)
- La Union Del Pueblo Entero v. Fed. Emergency Mgmt. Agency, 608 F.3d 217 (5th Cir. 2010) (standards for preliminary injunctions and irreparable harm guidance)