Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, Inc. v. Van Hollen
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 25460
| 7th Cir. | 2013Background
- Wisconsin enacted a law requiring abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic where abortion is performed. Wis. Stat. § 253.095(2).
- The deadline to comply was July 8, 2013, two days after signing, creating an impracticable compliance window.
- Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin and Milwaukee Women’s Medical Services sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging the law as infringing federal abortion rights and health interests.
- The district court granted a TRO and then a preliminary injunction pending merits trial; discovery and trial were stayed pending appeal.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the preliminary injunction, finding the district court’s analysis appropriate given the likelihood of irreparable harm and the infeasibility of timely compliance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the district court properly grant a preliminary injunction? | Injury from abrupt enforcement and impossibility of compliance. | Statute serves health interests and may be enforced with reasonable time. | Yes; injunction affirmed due to impossibility of timely compliance and potential harm. |
| Should clinics have third-party standing to challenge the law? | Clinics can vindicate patients’ rights to abortion. | Heterogeneous class and third-party standing are inappropriate. | Yes; clinics have standing to challenge under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and related doctrine. |
| Does the admitting-privileges requirement impose an undue burden on abortion access? | Requirement creates substantial access barriers without medical justification. | Rational basis supports regulation; any burden is incidental. | No at meris; but injunction warranted due to lack of reasonable time for compliance. |
| Is the law rationally related to Wisconsin’s health interests under rational-basis review? | No demonstrable medical benefit shown. | Law is rationally related to protecting maternal health and standards. | Yes; rational basis found, but time for compliance remains a problem. |
Key Cases Cited
- Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (U.S. 1992) (undue burden framework for abortion regulations)
- Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (U.S. 2007) (rational basis and undue burden considerations in abortion regulation)
- Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (U.S. 1973) (doctors have standing to challenge abortion restrictions under 1983)