Planned Parenthood KS & Mid-MO v. Brownback
747 F.3d 814
| 10th Cir. | 2014Background
- Title X is a federal Spending Clause program administered by HHS/OPA that authorizes HHS to make grants to public or nonprofit entities for family-planning services and contemplates centralized agency enforcement and review (including withholding/termination and APA review).
- Kansas (KDHE as the State grantee) historically flowed Title X funds to Planned Parenthood subgrantees for decades; Planned Parenthood did not apply for a direct HHS grant because it was included in KDHE’s application.
- In May 2011 Kansas enacted §107(l), prioritizing Title X subgrants to public entities, then hospitals and FQHCs providing comprehensive primary care — a scheme that excludes Planned Parenthood’s specialized clinics; KDHE told Planned Parenthood it would not receive FY2012 Title X subgrants.
- Planned Parenthood sued state officials seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging (1) §107(l) is preempted by Title X (Supremacy Clause), (2) it violates the First Amendment (speech/association), and (3) a Fourteenth Amendment claim (not at issue on appeal). The district court granted a preliminary injunction.
- On interlocutory appeal, the Tenth Circuit panel (majority) reversed: it held Planned Parenthood lacks a private cause of action to obtain an injunction under the Supremacy Clause in this Spending-Clause context and rejected the First Amendment challenge; a dissent argued the panel misapplied circuit precedent and would have affirmed the injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a private party may obtain injunctive relief against state action under the Supremacy Clause to enforce Title X (a Spending Clause statute) | Planned Parenthood: Supremacy Clause supplies a cause of action to enjoin state law that conflicts with Title X | Moser/Kansas: No private injunctive cause of action; HHS administrative enforcement and APA review are the proper means; courts should not imply an equitable remedy here | Held: No private cause of action for injunction under the Supremacy Clause in this Spending-Clause, non-enforcement-action context; vacated preliminary injunction |
| Whether Title X is preempted by §107(l) (merits) | Planned Parenthood: §107(l) adds eligibility restrictions that conflict with Title X and effectively excludes otherwise-eligible entities | Moser: State may impose priorities for state-distributed subgrants and can comply with Title X while applying §107(l) | Not reached on merits (court resolved case on lack of cause of action) |
| Whether Planned Parenthood’s First Amendment rights were violated by §107(l) (unconstitutional conditions / retaliation) | Planned Parenthood: §107(l) penalizes association with abortion providers and advocacy for abortion access; legislative motives show retaliation | Moser: §107(l) is facially neutral about speech/association; it conditions funding on provider-type, not viewpoint; motives are irrelevant | Held: First Amendment claim fails — statute does not condition funding on speech/association and legislative motive is irrelevant for facially neutral legislation |
| Whether an agency remedy (HHS enforcement / APA review) precludes private injunctions | Planned Parenthood: Agency remedy may exist but does not preclude private Supremacy Clause relief; private relief is appropriate to prevent irreparable harm | Moser: Availability of HHS enforcement and APA review counsels against implying private equitable remedies that would undermine uniform agency administration | Held: Availability of agency enforcement/APA review is a significant factor against implying a private injunctive remedy in Spending Clause programs |
Key Cases Cited
- Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001) (courts must interpret whether a statute displays intent to create a private remedy)
- Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273 (2002) (statutory-right analysis for implying private causes of action; Spending-Clause reluctance)
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) (equitable relief against state officers for ongoing violations of federal law)
- O’Brien v. United States, 391 U.S. 367 (1968) (courts generally will not inquire into legislative motives to invalidate otherwise constitutional statutes)
- Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman, 451 U.S. 1 (1981) (Spending Clause conditions treated in contract-like manner; notice requirement for states)
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (preliminary injunction standards)
- Qwest Corp. v. City of Santa Fe, 380 F.3d 1258 (10th Cir. 2004) (Tenth Circuit recognized direct Supremacy Clause preemption claims against local enactments)
- Chamber of Commerce v. Edmondson, 594 F.3d 742 (10th Cir. 2010) (applied Supremacy Clause injunctive relief in different preemption/enforcement-action contexts)