Stuart v. Huff
834 F. Supp. 2d 424
M.D.N.C.2011Background
- North Carolina enacted the Woman’s Right to Know Act, effective Oct 26, 2011, addressing informed consent for abortion.
- Plaintiffs, NC physicians and health-care providers, challenge parts of the Act on constitutional grounds.
- Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction to enjoin enforcement before the Act’s effective date and through resolution.
- The contested provisions primarily concern the Act’s speech-and-display requirements under N.C. Gen.Stat. § 90-21.85.
- The Act also includes other consent provisions, but the motion centers on compelled speech and display, not on all provisions.
- The court grants in part and denies in part, enjoining § 90-21.85 pending further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 90-21.85 compel speech violate the First Amendment? | Plaintiffs contend compelled speech burdens protected speech by providers. | Defendants argue strict scrutiny or alternate standards apply; state interests justify disclosure and display. | Likely to prevail on merits; § 90-21.85 enjoined on First Amendment grounds. |
| Are the vagueness challenges against the Act likely to succeed? | Plaintiffs claim ambiguities threaten enforcement and penal consequences. | Defendants contend some provisions are clear enough and penalties are civil rather than criminal. | Plaintiffs not likely to succeed on most vagueness claims; some issues avoided due to injunction. |
| If portions are unconstitutional, should the Act be severed and enforced partially? | Plaintiffs seek broader injunction; severability preserves rest of Act. | Defendants rely on severability clause but argue broader relief may be warranted. | Severability clause supports enjoining only § 90-21.85; rest of Act may take effect. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc., 515 U.S. 557 (1995) (right to refrain from speaking; government cannot compel belief)
- Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 (1977) (states cannot compel private display of ideological messages)
- Riley v. National Federation of the Blind of N.C., Inc., 487 U.S. 781 (1988) (content-based speech scrutiny; compelled information triggers strict scrutiny)
- Planned Parenthood of Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) (undue burden framework for abortion-related regulations; informs, but does not control, First Amendment analysis)
- National Association v. Musgrave, 553 F.3d 292 (4th Cir. 2009) (preliminary injunction standards and public-interest considerations in Fourth Circuit)
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (plaintiff must show likelihood of irreparable harm and merits on injunction)
- Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976) (irreparable harm and right to avoid unconstitutional actions)