Planned Parenthood Great Northwest, Hawaii, Alaska v. Raul Labrador
122 F.4th 825
9th Cir.2024Background
- Idaho Code § 18-622 criminalizes performing or attempting to perform an abortion, also imposing licensing penalties on health care professionals who "assist" in an abortion.
- In March 2023, Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador sent an opinion letter interpreting "assists" as prohibiting Idaho providers from referring patients across state lines for abortions.
- After the letter was publicized, Planned Parenthood and two physicians sued, alleging this violated the First Amendment (free speech), Due Process, and Commerce Clause.
- The Attorney General withdrew the letter as "void" for procedural reasons but did not repudiate its reasoning; a second official opinion limited his enforcement role but did not change the prior interpretation.
- The district court found the case justiciable and issued a preliminary injunction barring enforcement based on the Attorney General’s interpretation; the Attorney General appealed on jurisdictional grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III Standing (Injury-in-fact, Causation, Redress) | Letter chilled protected referrals, causing a concrete injury. | No real threat of prosecution; insufficient connection for injury. | Plaintiffs have standing; they suffered a cognizable injury. |
| Ripeness | Case challenges an active state threat to free speech; harm is direct and ongoing. | Case is abstract, speculative, and depends on hypothetical enforcement; not ripe. | Claim is ripe; issues are concrete, not abstract. |
| Mootness (withdrawal of AG letter) | Withdrawal was on a technicality, with no repudiation—threat remains. | Issue is moot since the letter was voided and AG lacks direct prosecutorial authority. | Case not moot; AG remains free to enforce interpretation. |
| Eleventh Amendment—Proper Defendant | AG’s authority to assist county prosecutors suffices for Ex parte Young exception. | Only county prosecutors are proper defendants; AG cannot directly enforce law. | AG is proper defendant; has relevant enforcement authority. |
| First Amendment (Merits of preliminary injunction) | Referrals are protected speech; interpreting statute as prohibiting referrals is content-based. | (No substantive argument on appeal; AG only appeals jurisdiction.) | Prohibition on referrals is content-based, likely unconstitutional. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) (permits suits against state officials for prospective relief for constitutional violations)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (sets the basic framework for Article III standing)
- Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. 149 (2014) (plaintiffs have standing in pre-enforcement First Amendment challenges if there’s a credible threat of enforcement)
- Nat’l Inst. of Fam. & Life Advocs. v. Becerra, 585 U.S. 755 (2018) (professional speech is entitled to First Amendment protection)
- Conant v. Walters, 309 F.3d 629 (9th Cir. 2002) (imposing penalties for medical speech is content- and viewpoint-based discrimination)
- Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. 85 (2013) (discusses mootness and voluntary cessation by defendant)
- United States v. W.T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629 (1953) (voluntary cessation of challenged action does not moot a case unless recurrence is impossible)
- Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (sets standard for preliminary injunctions)
- All. for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2011) (Ninth Circuit’s sliding scale for preliminary injunctions)