120 F. Supp. 3d 1296
M.D. Ala.2015Background
- West Alabama Women’s Center (Tuscaloosa) closed after its longtime physician retired; replacement Dr. William J. Parker (board‑certified OB/GYN with abortion experience) cannot obtain local hospital admitting privileges and no local physicians will serve as a contracted covering physician. The State denied a waiver.
- Alabama regulation (Ala. Admin. Code § 420‑5‑1‑.03(6)(b)) requires either that the abortion provider have local admitting privileges or that the clinic contract with a covering physician who has such privileges. A related statute requiring admitting privileges for all abortionists is enjoined in Strange litigation.
- The Center historically provided ~40% of Alabama abortions, including most mid‑second‑trimester procedures and Saturday services; its closure substantially increases travel distances and worsens capacity constraints statewide.
- Plaintiffs (Center and Dr. Parker) brought an as‑applied § 1983 due‑process challenge arguing the regulation imposes an undue burden on patients’ right to abortion and on the plaintiffs’ right to pursue their profession; they sought a temporary restraining order to allow reopening.
- The court concluded (on the limited record) plaintiffs showed a substantial likelihood of success on the undue‑burden claim as applied, irreparable harm, favorable balance of hardships, and public‑interest justification for a temporary restraining order limited in time and scope.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Administrative exhaustion | No exhaustion required for § 1983; waiver application suffices | Plaintiffs should have petitioned to amend/repeal the rule before suing | Court: No exhaustion requirement for § 1983; waiver met notice purposes; TRO not barred by petition process |
| Undue‑burden (as‑applied) | Regulation forces Center closed, imposing substantial obstacles (travel, delay, capacity, risk of self‑induced abortions) that outweigh any safety benefit | Requirement is a reasonable health regulation (continuity of care); falls within state discretion amid medical uncertainty | Court: Plaintiffs likely to succeed — as applied, regulation imposes a substantial obstacle not justified by state interests; covering‑physician benefit marginal here |
| Irreparable harm | Closure deprives patients of constitutional rights; Center will likely shut permanently without immediate relief | Harms speculative; delay in filing shows lack of urgency; other clinics can absorb patients | Court: Constitutional harms presumed irreparable; imminent risk of permanent closure; TRO warranted to prevent meaningless relief later |
| Balance of hardships & public interest | Plaintiffs will lose clinic and patients lose access; limited, temporary, as‑applied relief preserves ability to decide merits | TRO undermines regulation and purported patient safety; defendant harmed by lack of enforcement | Court: Harms to plaintiffs and patients outweigh speculative state health benefits; public interest supports preserving court's ability to provide meaningful relief; TRO granted (narrow, time‑limited, conditioned on continued good‑faith efforts to comply) |
Key Cases Cited
- Planned Parenthood of Se. Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) (establishes undue‑burden standard for abortion regulations)
- Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007) (discusses deference where medical uncertainty exists; distinguished here)
- Patsy v. Board of Regents of State of Fla., 457 U.S. 496 (1982) (§ 1983 federal‑court review without administrative exhaustion)
- Beaulieu v. City of Alabaster, 454 F.3d 1219 (11th Cir. 2006) (no general administrative‑exhaustion rule for § 1983 suits)
- Planned Parenthood Se., Inc. v. Strange (Strange I), 951 F. Supp. 2d 1280 (M.D. Ala. 2013) (preliminary injunction in related Alabama admitting‑privileges litigation)
- Planned Parenthood Se., Inc. v. Strange (Strange III), 33 F. Supp. 3d 1330 (M.D. Ala. 2014) (earlier merits analysis finding admitting‑privileges statute created undue burden as applied)
- Van Hollen (Planned Parenthood of Wis., Inc. v. Van Hollen), 738 F.3d 786 (7th Cir. 2013) (context‑specific undue‑burden analysis comparing burden to medical justification)
- Alabama v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 424 F.3d 1117 (11th Cir. 2005) (injunction purpose: preserve court's ability to render meaningful decision)