415 F.Supp.3d 1053
M.D. Ala.2019Background
- Alabama enacted Ala. Act No. 2019-189, a near-total criminal ban on abortion that imposes criminal liability on anyone who "intentionally performs or attempts to perform an abortion," without regard to fetal viability; limited narrow health exceptions are included.
- The law was scheduled to take effect November 15, 2019.
- Plaintiffs are abortion providers (physician and clinics) suing on behalf of themselves and their patients under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the Act violates patients' substantive-due-process (privacy/liberty) rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.
- Defendant is the Alabama Attorney General, sued in his official capacity; he conceded plaintiffs are likely to prevail as to pre-viability abortions and that the balance of equities favors an injunction on that application.
- The court applied the four-factor preliminary-injunction test (likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of hardships, public interest) and recognized providers’ third-party standing to assert patients’ abortion rights.
- The court held the Act likely violates Supreme Court precedent forbidding bans on pre-viability abortion and granted a preliminary injunction as to all applications of the Act to pre-viability abortions, waiving the Rule 65(c) bond.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing / Justiciability | Providers may assert patients' Fourteenth Amendment rights and sue on their behalf. | AG conceded providers have standing to challenge pre-viability restrictions. | Providers have third-party standing to assert patients' abortion rights; suit is justiciable. |
| Substantive due process / Pre-viability ban | The Act is a ban on pre-viability abortion and therefore unconstitutional under Roe/Casey/Whole Woman’s Health. | Largely conceded as to pre-viability abortions; defended statute generally. | The Act, as applied to pre-viability abortions, likely violates substantive-due-process rights; plaintiffs likely to prevail. |
| Irreparable harm | Enforcement would cause irreparable constitutional and health harms by denying the right to choose and forcing unsafe measures. | Did not contest irreparable harm as to pre-viability abortions. | Ongoing enforcement would cause irreparable injury; this factor favors an injunction. |
| Equities & public interest | Balance favors plaintiffs because the law would irreparably harm patients and the State has no interest in enforcing an unconstitutional statute. | AG conceded the balance of equities supports an injunction for pre-viability abortions. | Equities and public interest favor preserving the status quo with a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement as to pre-viability abortions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (U.S. 1992) (establishes undue-burden standard and forbids states from prohibiting pre-viability abortion)
- Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (U.S. 1973) (recognizes constitutional right to choose abortion)
- Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, 136 S. Ct. 2292 (U.S. 2016) (requires courts to weigh burdens on abortion access against stated benefits)
- Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (U.S. 2000) (protects pre-viability abortion and warns against laws that unduly burden access)
- Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (U.S. 2007) (distinguishes regulation types but reaffirms limits on pre-viability bans)
- Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379 (U.S. 1979) (recognizes central role of physicians in abortion decisions relevant to standing and challenges)
- KH Outdoor, LLC v. City of Trussville, 458 F.3d 1261 (11th Cir. 2006) (public has no interest in enforcing an unconstitutional statute; relevant to balance of equities)