Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, Inc. v. Van Hollen
23 F. Supp. 3d 956
W.D. Wis.2014Background
- Plaintiffs (Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, two Planned Parenthood physicians, Planned Parenthood’s Medical Director, and a Milwaukee abortion clinic) challenge Wis. Stat. § 253.095 (2013 Wis. Act 37 §1), which requires physicians who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic.
- The Act delegates the practical gatekeeping power to hospitals; it contains no state-administered waiver procedure and does not set detailed standards governing hospitals’ privilege decisions.
- Wisconsin statutes and DHS regulations require hospitals to adopt written credentialing procedures, set criteria (e.g., competence, training), and provide a mechanism for appeal, and DHS has inspection/enforcement authority under Wis. Stat. § 50.36(4).
- Hospital bylaws produced in discovery show substantial variation in criteria and procedures (threshold qualifications, patient-contact or hospital-usage requirements, ability to deny for hospital needs), and many hospitals have religious affiliations that may influence privilege decisions.
- Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on a nondelegation (due process) challenge; the court denied summary judgment because genuine factual disputes exist about whether hospitals actually deny admitting privileges arbitrarily and whether state oversight is an adequate remedy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Act impermissibly delegates state power to private hospitals (nondelegation / substantive due process) | Act vests hospitals with uncontrolled discretion to bar abortion providers, depriving plaintiffs of liberty/property without standards or state check | Hospitals’ credentialing is governed by DHS rules and hospital bylaws; DHS may inspect/enforce; no evidence of systemic arbitrary denials | Denied summary judgment: factual disputes whether delegations are arbitrary or subject to adequate state oversight make premature a decision for plaintiffs |
| Whether lack of state waiver or review renders the statute facially invalid | Absence of state waiver or clear review route makes the statute vulnerable to facial nondelegation challenge | Defendants point to statutory/regulatory regime and existing administrative/judicial avenues; analogous upheld laws | Court: statute arguably vulnerable but record uncertain; cannot resolve on summary judgment |
| Whether hospital criteria (e.g., patient-contact minima, business-need denials, religious objections) are rationally related to state interest in patient safety | Such criteria are unrelated to quality outpatient abortion care and can effectively veto providers for illegitimate reasons | Hospitals may legitimately consider competence, training, and institutional needs; federal law forbids discrimination against abortion providers | Court: some criteria (business needs, religious objections) may not further state interests, but factual dispute exists whether hospitals apply such improper reasons in practice |
| Whether plaintiffs must show actual arbitrary denials to prevail now | Delegation itself and requirement to submit to hospitals is ripe for facial relief without showing specific denials | Defendants: plaintiffs must show actual arbitrary denials; facial relief is inappropriate absent concrete record evidence | Court: because record lacks adequate evidence of actual arbitrary denials and state oversight, plaintiffs cannot win on summary judgment now |
Key Cases Cited
- Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361 (recognizing separation-of-powers roots of nondelegation doctrine)
- Washington v. Roberge, 278 U.S. 116 (invalidating delegation to private neighbors that could act arbitrarily)
- Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238 (rejecting delegation to private consortium over others’ interests)
- Greenville Women’s Clinic v. Comm’r, S.C. Dep’t of Health & Envtl. Control, 317 F.3d 357 (4th Cir.) (upholding admitting-arrangement requirement where waiver or state control minimizes third-party veto risk)
- Tucson Woman’s Clinic v. Eden, 379 F.3d 531 (9th Cir.) (upholding regulation where state law constrains hospital discretion and allows review)
- Women’s Med. Prof’l Corp. v. Baird, 438 F.3d 595 (6th Cir.) (upholding clinic licensing requirement in part because state could grant waivers)
- Planned Parenthood of Greater Tex. Surgical Health Servs. v. Abbott, 748 F.3d 583 (5th Cir.) (rejecting nondelegation challenge to Texas admitting-privileges requirement)
- Beary Landscaping, Inc. v. Costigan, 667 F.3d 947 (7th Cir.) (state-level nondelegation principle forbidding private persons from depriving others of life, liberty, or property without due process)
- United States v. Goodwin, 717 F.3d 511 (7th Cir.) (discussing need for guidance when delegating decision-making authority)
- Hallmark Clinic v. N.C. Dep’t of Human Res., 380 F. Supp. 1153 (E.D.N.C.) (district court invalidating admitting-privileges/transfer-agreement requirement for lack of standards)
- Birth Control Ctrs., Inc. v. Reizen, 508 F. Supp. 1366 (E.D. Mich.) (district court invalidating delegation of licensing conditions to hospitals)