PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF KS & MID-MO v. Brownback
799 F. Supp. 2d 1218
D. Kan.2011Background
- Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri sues to stop enforcement of Kansas HB2014 Section 107(l) which prioritizes Title X funds to public entities and hospitals/FQHCs, effectively excluding PP as a private entity.
- Title X funds are federal, administered by HHS, subgranted by KDHE to providers including Planned Parenthood; eligibility broad: any public or nonprofit entity in a state may apply.
- Section 107(l) took effect July 1, 2011; KDHE informed PP that Wichita and Hays clinics would not receive 2012 Title X funds, cancelling PP's Universal Contract.
- Plaintiff asserts federal supremacy and constitutional claims (Supremacy Clause, First and Fourteenth Amendments) alleging improper state eligibility criteria and punishment for protected activity.
- Court applies standard for preliminary injunctive relief, finding likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable injury to PP, and public interest in administering funds under federal law.
- Court grants a preliminary injunction, enjoining enforcement of Section 107(l) and directing continuation of Title X funding for PP for State Fiscal Year 2012.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Section 107(l) conflict with federal Title X law? | PP argues Section 107(l) creates extra eligibility criteria. | Brownback seeks to prioritize funding for public entities and FQHCs. | Yes; Section 107(l) preempts state law under Supremacy Clause. |
| Does Eleventh Amendment bar relief or allow Ex Parte Young relief here? | Relief is prospective to correct ongoing federal-law violation. | State sovereign immunity bars relief even prospectively. | Not barred; Ex Parte Young authority permits prospective relief against ongoing violations. |
| Is Section 107(l) unconstitutional as a First Amendment violation (discrimination based on association with abortion services)? | Punitive restriction targets PP for protected activity; violates First/Fourteenth Amendments. | Statute merely sets priorities, not targeting abortion speech or association. | Likely to succeed; discriminatory purpose evidenced; unconstitutional association restriction. |
| Do the equities support a preliminary injunction? | PP faces irreparable injury from loss of Title X funding and service disruption. | Other providers could substitute for services. | Irreparable injury shown; public interest favors maintaining Title X funding consistent with federal law. |
| Are the heightened standards for disfavored injunctions applicable? | Not necessary here; standard likelihood of success suffices. | O Centro heightened standard applies to disfavored injunctions. | Normal standard applicable; PP meets likelihood-of-success and balance-of-harms. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sanchez v. Planned Parenthood of Houston & S.E. Tex., 403 F.3d 324 (5th Cir. 2005) (state eligibility limitations conflicting with Title X invalid under Supremacy Clause)
- Planned Parenthood of Billings v. Montana, 648 F. Supp. 47 (D. Mont. 1986) (invalid state eligibility restrictions for Title X funding)
- O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao Do Vegetal v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 973 (10th Cir. 2004) (disfavored injunctions require strong showing of need and harms)
- Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (U.S. 1991) (unconstitutional conditions vs. keeping activities separate from federally funded program)
- Planned Parenthood Ass'n of Utah v. Schweiker, 700 F.2d 710 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (Title X applicants not guaranteed funds; focus on eligibility to apply)
- Planned Parenthood of Indiana v. Indiana State Dept. of Health, 794 F. Supp. 2d 892 (S.D. Ind. 2011) (Ex Parte Young appropriate to correct ongoing federal-law violations)