804 F. Supp. 2d 482
M.D.N.C.2011Background
- PPCNC operates three NC clinics and provides non-abortion family planning services funded by DHHS, including Title X funds and Teen Pregnancy Prevention funds.
- Section 10.19 of North Carolina Session Law 2011-145 prohibits DHHS from providing funds to Planned Parenthood and its affiliates for programs administered by DHHS.
- Prior to §10.19, DHHS preliminarily approved funding for PPCNC's Title X ($125,000), Women's Health Grant ($12,000), and Teen Pregnancy Prevention ($75,000).
- The funding was withheld due to §10.19, potentially forcing PPCNC to cease non-abortion services, lay off staff, and close the Durham clinic.
- PPCNC filed suit seeking to enjoin §10.19 as unconstitutional; the court held a hearing on August 10, 2011 and granted a preliminary injunction.
- The court emphasized the action targets non-abortion funding and that there would be irreparable harm if the injunction were not entered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Supremacy Clause preemption of §10.19 | §10.19 preempts Title X funding criteria. | No preemption; remedies lie in funding withdrawal by federal government. | §10.19 preempted; likelihood of success on Supremacy Clause claim. |
| Eleventh Amendment and Ex Parte Young | Injunctive relief against state official is permitted under Ex Parte Young. | Eleventh Amendment bars claims for damages; injunctions barred or limited. | Ex Parte Young applies; prospective injunctive relief permissible. |
| First Amendment and Due Process (unconstitutional conditions) | §10.19 punishes Grantees for constitutionally protected conduct; violates First/DP rights. | Funding limitations permissible as non-coercive regulatory choice. | §10.19 violates First and Fourteenth Amendments as an unconstitutional condition. |
| Equal Protection and Bill of Attainder | §10.19 singles out Planned Parenthood for punishment without rational basis. | Rationale exists; policy favoring childbirth over abortion payments. | §10.19 likely violates Equal Protection and is an unconstitutional Bill of Attainder. |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. NRDC, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (Supreme Court, 2008) (four-part injunction standard and public-interest considerations)
- Real Truth About Obama, Inc. v. FEC, 575 F.3d 342 (4th Cir. 2009) (irreparable harm and likelihood of success in preliminary injunctions)
- In re Microsoft Corp. Antitrust Litig., 333 F.3d 517 (4th Cir. 2003) (preliminary injunction standards and status quo concepts)
- Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U.S. 85 (Supreme Court, 1983) (federal-question jurisdiction for preemption and declaratory relief)
- Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273 (Supreme Court, 2002) (federal rights and §1983 standing requirements)
- Antrican v. Odom, 290 F.3d 178 (4th Cir. 2002) (Ex parte Young and preemption considerations in FPCA context)
- Sanchez v. Planned Parenthood, 403 F.3d 336 (5th Cir. 2005) (Title X preemption and eligibility criteria constraints)
- Planned Parenthood of Kansas v. Wichita, 729 F. Supp. 1282 (D. Kan. 1990) (viewpoint-based discrimination in funding decisions under EP)
- Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (Supreme Court, 1996) (equal protection rational relation necessity; heightened scrutiny framework)
- Maher v. Roe, 432 U.S. 464 (Supreme Court, 1977) (funding constraints and non-coercive distinctions for abortion-related services)
- Regan v. Taxation with Representation of Washington, 461 U.S. 540 (Supreme Court, 1983) (limits on government funding for advocacy organizations)
- Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297 (Supreme Court, 1980) (distinction between funding for a service vs. funding for a recipient)
- O'Hare Truck Serv., Inc. v. City of Northlake, 518 U.S. 712 (Supreme Court, 1996) (First Amendment interpretation in government contracting)