Planned Parenthood of Wiscons v. Brad D. Schimel, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 20369

Wisconsin enacted a law requiring physicians who perform abortions to have hospital admitting privileges within 30 miles of each clinic where they practice; the provision took effect (by statute) immediately.
Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, Affiliated Medical Services (AMS), and two abortion physicians sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and obtained a TRO, a preliminary injunction (affirmed by this Court), and later a permanent injunction against enforcement of the admitting-privileges provision.
District court found (and the majority here credits) that complications from abortion are rare, hospitals must treat emergency patients regardless of admitting privileges, clinics must maintain transfer agreements with hospitals, and the statute produced no demonstrated medical benefit.
The record showed immediate-effect timing would have forced closure or severe capacity reductions at several clinics (including AMS, the sole late-term provider) and produced increased delays and travel burdens for many patients.
The State defended the law as advancing women’s health and safety; plaintiffs argued the law imposed an undue burden on abortion access without medical justification.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing	Clinics/doctors may sue on behalf of patients; doctors face criminal penalties so they have first‑party standing	State contested nothing dispositive on standing here	Standing recognized for clinics and doctors to bring the challenge (authorities cited)
Medical necessity / evidentiary showing	No credible evidence the admitting‑privileges rule improves patient outcomes; transfer agreements and ER care suffice	Rule is rationally related to patient safety; admitting privileges promote continuity, credentialing, peer review	Court: record shows no medical benefit sufficient to justify the burden; transfer agreements and emergency care mitigate need for privileges
Undue burden / access impact	Law would close/curtail multiple clinics (including sole late‑term provider), causing delays, travel, and increased second‑trimester abortions — an undue burden	State: regulation rationally furthers safety; alternative clinics (including out‑of‑state) or remaining in‑state clinics mitigate burden	Court: statute imposed substantial obstacles disproportionate to nonexistent health benefits; permanent injunction affirmed
Remedy / scope	Plaintiffs sought injunction of admitting‑privileges provision	State sought reversal and enforcement	Permanent injunction against enforcing the admitting‑privileges requirement affirmed

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) (constitutional right to choose abortion and state interest in maternal health)
Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973) (standing of abortion providers to challenge abortion restrictions affecting them)
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) (undue‑burden standard for pre‑viability abortion regulations)
Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007) (state may regulate abortion when there is a rational basis and no undue burden)
Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000) (invalidating abortion regulation that lacked adequate health exception/created substantial health risks)
Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52 (1976) (provider standing and abortion jurisprudence)
Planned Parenthood of Wis., Inc. v. Van Hollen, 738 F.3d 786 (7th Cir. 2013) (panel decision affirming preliminary injunction)
Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Surgical Health Servs. v. Abbott, 748 F.3d 583 (5th Cir. 2014) (upholding a similar admitting‑privileges requirement under rational‑basis analysis)
Jackson Women’s Health Org. v. Currier, 760 F.3d 448 (5th Cir. 2014) (consideration of intrastate effects and rational‑basis treatment of similar statutes)
Karlin v. Foust, 188 F.3d 446 (7th Cir. 1999) (standing and undue‑burden application in circuit precedent)