Planned Parenthood v. Phillips
5f4th568
| 5th Cir. | 2021Background
- Plaintiffs: Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast and Planned Parenthood Center for Choice (plus three Jane Does) sought a Louisiana license to provide abortions at a New Orleans clinic; application review was delayed and the Department of Health issued a letter deferring action pending investigations.
- Investigations prompting delay: congressional Select Committee findings (and Texas referral) about Gulf Coast and a confidential Louisiana complaint; Louisiana Dept. said it could deny a license if an investigation found violations of federal or state law.
- Plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging constructive denial of the license and violations of procedural due process, substantive due process, and equal protection; they sought a declaratory judgment and three injunctions (not withhold approval; promptly rule according to constitutional standards; grant the license) and also challenged Louisiana HB 606 (Medicaid funding restrictions).
- Defendant (LDH Secretary) moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), asserting sovereign immunity (Pennhurst), Burford abstention, and that funding claims were unripe/contingent. District court denied the motion without prejudice; Department appealed interlocutorily.
- Fifth Circuit found interlocutory jurisdiction because the State asserted sovereign immunity from the suit, held Ex parte Young permits the plaintiffs’ prospective procedural-due-process/equal-protection claim seeking an order to "promptly rule," but held that requests to order issuance or non-withholding of a license are barred by Pennhurst as purely state-law relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appellate jurisdiction over interlocutory denial of 12(b)(1) motion | Plaintiffs: appeal is not immediately appealable; lack of jurisdiction | Dept.: asserted sovereign immunity from the entire suit so Metcalf & Eddy collateral-order rule allows interlocutory appeal | Court: jurisdiction exists — State asserted immunity from the suit under Metcalf & Eddy |
| Applicability of Ex parte Young (federal-question vs. state-law challenge) | Plaintiffs: Department’s delays amount to ongoing violations of federal due process and equal protection rights | Dept.: claims are really state-law challenges (interpretation/application of licensing statute); Pennhurst bars federal-court instruction on state-law duties | Court: Ex parte Young applies to plaintiffs’ procedural-due-process and equal-protection claims insofar as they seek prospective relief to "promptly rule" |
| Scope of permissible relief regarding license | Plaintiffs: seek injunctions to (a) not withhold approval, (b) promptly rule consistent with constitution, (c) grant license; plus declaratory relief | Dept.: all forms of relief would require the court to command compliance with state law or change Dept.’s interpretation — barred by Pennhurst | Court: injunction to "promptly rule" allowed (federal prospective relief); injunctions to "grant" or "not withhold approval" and any declaratory relief forcing issuance/denial of license are barred |
| Funding claims, ripeness, standing, and Burford abstention | Plaintiffs: HB 606 creates present injury or imminent injury if license were granted; equal-protection/undue-burden claims support federal jurisdiction | Dept.: funding claims are unripe and contingent on a future license; some plaintiffs lack standing; state administrative remedies exist so Burford abstention may apply | Court: declined to resolve on appeal; remanded for district court to address ripeness, standing, and abstention individually on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (origin of collateral-order doctrine permitting certain interlocutory appeals)
- Puerto Rico Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139 (interlocutory appeal allowed for denial of state sovereign immunity)
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (creates exception to state sovereign immunity for prospective relief to end ongoing federal-law violations)
- Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (federal courts may not order state officials to conform their conduct to state law)
- Verizon Md., Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n of Md., 535 U.S. 635 (limiting Ex parte Young inquiry to whether complaint alleges ongoing federal violation seeking prospective relief)
- McCarthy ex rel. Travis v. Hawkins, 381 F.3d 407 (5th Cir. discussion of sovereign-immunity appeals and Ex parte Young principles)