Planned Parenthood v. Cansler
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90303
M.D.N.C.2012Background
- PPCNC operates three NC clinics and provides non-abortion services funded by DHHS, including Title X and Teen Pregnancy Prevention grants; Section 10.19 of Session Law 2011-145 bars DHHS funds to Planned Parenthood and affiliates; prior funding approvals existed for PPCNC’s non-abortion programs; a Preliminary Injunction barred enforcement of 10.19 during the suit; after injunction, contracts were executed for Title X, Teen Pregnancy Prevention, and Women’s Health funds; the suit seeks to declare 10.19 unconstitutional and permanently enjoin enforcement; court proceeds to summary judgment on constitutional claims; there is no funding for abortion services under the challenged statute
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eleventh Amendment applicability | Plaintiff argues Ex parte Young allows prospective relief against state officials | Defendant contends Eleventh Amendment bars all claims seeking retroactive relief | Eleventh Amendment does not bar prospective relief; claims proceed |
| First Amendment and Due Process | Section 10.19 targets Planned Parenthood for constitutionally protected activities | State may choose funding recipients; no right to Title X funds; no direct link to protected activity | Section 10.19 violates First Amendment and Due Process; PLAINTIFF entitled to judgment on this claim |
| Bills of Attainder | 10.19 singles out Planned Parenthood for punishment without trial | Not punitive; merely policy choice to favor childbirth | Section 10.19 is an unconstitutional Bill of Attainder; PLAINTIFF entitled to judgment |
| Equal Protection | Excluding PPCNC from non-abortion DHHS funds lacks rational basis | Section 10.19 furthers legitimate interest in favoring childbirth; no similarly situated treatment shown | Section 10.19 violates Equal Protection; PLAINTIFF entitled to judgment |
| Supremacy Clause/Preemption | Section 10.19 conflicts with Title X and is preempted | Plaintiff can apply directly to federal government; no direct conflict | Section 10.19 preempts Title X; PLAINTIFF entitled to judgment; Section 10.19 violates Supremacy Clause |
Key Cases Cited
- Rust v. Sullivan, 503 U.S. 173 (1991) (unconstitutional conditions doctrine; funding decisions tied to program, not recipient)
- Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593 (1972) (unconstitutional conditions; speech rights protections)
- Antrican v. Odom, 290 F.3d 178 (4th Cir.2002) (Ex parte Young exception to Eleventh Amendment applies to prospective relief)
- O’Hare Truck Serv., Inc. v. City of Northlake, 518 U.S. 712 (1996) (First Amendment protections for entities seeking government contracts)
- Bd. of County Comm’rs v. Umbehr, 518 U.S. 668 (1996) (First Amendment protections for independent contractors seeking government contracts)
- Nixon v. Admin. of Gen. Servs., 433 U.S. 425 (1977) (punishment concept under Bill of Attainder; requirement of nonpunitive purpose)
- Dempsey v. Planned Parenthood of the State of Mo., 167 F.3d 458 (1999) (Eighth Circuit: funding exclusion not Bill of Attainder if affiliate model allows funding without abortions)
- Planned Parenthood of Kansas, Inc. v. City of Wichita, 729 F. Supp. 1282 (D. Kan. 1990) (Equal protection concerns when funding excludes Planned Parenthood absent rational basis)
- Romero v. Moreno, 413 U.S. 528 (1973) (equal protection considerations in governmental funding)
- Maher v. Roe, 432 U.S. 464 (1977) (legitimate government interest in funding childbirth over abortion)
- Planned Parenthood of Houston and Southeast Texas v. Sanchez, 403 F.3d 324 (5th Cir.2005) (Title X funding and abortion providers; preemption implications)
- Planned Parenthood of Kansas v. Brownback, 799 F. Supp. 2d 1218 (D. Kan. 2011) (Supremacy Clause preemption with Title X funding)