EEOC Enjoined from Enforcing Pregnant Workers Fairness Act Against Christian Nonprofit Organization

In Stanley M. Herzog Foundation v. EEOC, (W.D. Mo. Oct 04, 2024), a Missouri federal district court issued a preliminary injunction barring the EEOC from enforcing the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act and rules implementing it against plaintiff, a nonprofit Christian educational organization, where enforcement would require plaintiff to accommodate abortions that are contrary to its sincere religious beliefs. The court said in part:

... [T]he EEOC has not established that it used the least restrictive means to advance its interests at this stage. The Final Rule’s approach requires employers to provide accommodations for employees who obtain abortions and permits a religious employer to assert a religious defense only after an employee brings a complaint against it for refusing to provide accommodations. There is no way for a religious employer to ensure it will not face investigation or prosecution ahead of time. The Foundation suggests a number of alternatives the EEOC could have taken, which are less restrictive of its free exercise rights....  The EEOC argues these alternatives are not feasible because the PWFA does not give it authority to predetermine religious exemptions or defenses. Ultimately, the burden is on the EEOC to “prove with evidence” that its policies are the least restrictive means “to achieve its compelling interest, including alternative forms of regulation.”

... [T]he Foundation is likely to succeed on the merits of its RFRA claim.....

The Heartlander reports on the decision.

Most Challenges to Law Protecting Access to Abortion Clinics Are Rejected; One Section Violates 1st and 14th Amendments

In Hulinsky v. County of Westchester, (SD NY, March 14,2025), two women who have engaged in sidewalk counseling at abortion clinics challenged a Westchester County, New York, law that was designed to assure safe access to reproductive health care facilities. The court described the challenged legislation:

Sections 425.31(a) prohibits forms of “physically obstructing or blocking” that amount to interfering with and/or intimidating persons obtaining access at a reproductive health care facility. Sections 425.31(e) and (f) prohibit interfering with and/or intimidating persons obtaining access at a reproductive health care facility “[b]y force or threat of force, or by physically obstructing or blocking[.]” Section 425.31(c) prohibits “knowingly follow[ing] and harass[ing] another person within twenty-five (25) feet of” a “reproductive health care facility.” Section 425.31(h) prohibits “knowingly interfer[ing] with the operation of a reproductive health care facility.”

A New York federal district court found that Sec. 425.31(h) "burden[s] substantially more speech than is necessary to further the government’s legitimate interests." It also concluded that the section "is vague because it fails to provide people of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to understand what conduct is prohibited." However, the court dismissed plaintiffs' free exercise challenge to the section as well as their free speech and free exercise challenges to other parts of the law. 

DOJ Dismisses Suit Claiming Idaho's Abortion Restrictions Conflict With EMTALA

On Wednesday, both parties filed a Stipulation of Dismissal (full text) in United States v. State of Idaho, (D ID, filed 3/5/2025). According to the Stipulation, filing of this with the federal district court in which the suit was brought automatically dissolves the preliminary injunction which the court issued in August 2022.  In the case, the district court had enjoined the state of Idaho from enforcing its nearly total abortion ban to the extent it conflicts with the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act.  The case then worked its way to the U.S. Supreme Court which initially granted review and then instead returned the case to the 9th Circuit, finding that certiorari had been improvidently granted. (See prior posting.)  Most recently, the parties argued the case before the 9th Circuit. Idaho's Attorney General Raúl Labrador announced this week's dismissal of the case, saying in part that: "It has been our position from the beginning that there is no conflict between EMTALA and Idaho’s Defense of Life Act." Liberty Counsel issued a press release discussing these developments and pointing out:

Idaho’s abortion law continues to face a separate legal challenge. In January 2025, St. Luke’s Hospital System in Idaho brought a nearly identical lawsuit as to Biden’s claiming the state’s abortion ban prevents women from getting abortions as part of emergency medical care. In St. Luke’s Health System v. Labrador, U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill, who had previously levied the injunction in Biden’s lawsuit, issued a temporary restraining order against Idaho’s attorney general’s office blocking it from enforcing the “Defense of Life Act” pending the results of a later proceedings.

9th Circuit: Church Lacks Standing to Challenge Washington's Health Insurance Coverage Requirements

In Cedar Park Assembly of God of Kirkland, Washington v. Kreidler, (9th Cir., March 6, 2025), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision held that a church which opposes abortion and some forms of contraception lacks standing to challenge Washington's Reproductive Parity Act which requires health insurance carriers to provide coverage for contraceptives and abortions. A second state statute allows insurance companies to offer employee plans that accommodate a church's religious objections, so long as employees can separately access coverage for such services from the insurer. However, plaintiff church has been unable to find a plan that accommodates its objections. The court said in part: 

Nothing in the challenged law prevents any insurance company ... from offering Plaintiff a health plan that excludes direct coverage for abortion services. Therefore, an insurance company’s independent business decision not to offer such a plan is not traceable to the Parity Act....

Nothing in the record suggests that Plaintiff’s alleged injury would be redressed if we struck down the Parity Act....

Plaintiff contends, in the alternative, that an employer purchasing a no-abortion plan in Washington still “indirectly facilitates” the provision of abortion services to its employees.  Plaintiff relies on but-for reasoning.  As noted above, under the conscientious-objection statute, employees can obtain coverage for abortion services through their insurance carrier, whether or not the employer has a religious objection....  So, Plaintiff’s argument goes, employees receive coverage that they would not have but for the existence of the health plan provided by their employer, even if the employer’s plan does not itself provide that coverage.... We reject this theory as well.  The general disapproval of the actions that others might decide to take does not create standing, even when some tenuous connection may exist between the disapproving plaintiff and the offense-causing action.

Judge Callahan filed a dissenting opinion.  She agreed with plaintiff's "facilitation" argument. She added in part:

Cedar Park also has standing because the Parity Act caused Kaiser Permanente to stop providing a health plan that excludes abortion coverage and the church cannot procure a comparable replacement.

Certiorari Denied in Abortion Buffer Zone Challenge

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court denied review in Coalition Life v. City of Carbondale, Illinois, (Docket No. 24-57, certiorari denied 2/24/2025) (Order List.) In the case, the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a city ordinance creating a buffer zone around abortion clinics in which sidewalk counselors may not approach closer than 8 feet to those accessing the clinic. The 7th Circuit said it was bound by the Supreme Court's 2000 decision in Hill v. Colorado.  Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion saying in part:

Following our repudiation in Dobbs, I do not see what is left of Hill. Yet, lower courts continue to feel bound by it.  The Court today declines an invitation to set the record straight on Hill’s defunct status.  I respectfully dissent.

Anti-Abortion Pregnancy Centers Sue Challenging Delaware Disclaimer Requirements

Suit was filed this week in a Delaware federal district court challenging a new Delaware law that requires pro-life pregnancy centers to include in all advertising and to disseminate to clients onsite a disclaimer stating:  "This facility is not licensed as a medical facility by the state of Delaware and has no licensed medical provider who provides or directly supervises the provision of services." The complaint (full text) in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Jennings, (D DE, filed 2/12/2025) alleges that this requirement violates the free speech and free exercise rights of pregnancy care centers. The complaint alleges in part:

13. ... [The law] is a classic example of compelled speech in violation of the Free Speech Clause. The law is expressly content-based both because it compels the content of speech and because it regulates only speakers who wish to discuss the subject of pregnancy from a pro-life perspective rather than any other health topic.

14. The law is also viewpoint based, because it is designed to target pro-life pregnancy care centers and burdens, restricts, chills, or in some circumstances legally prohibits their message. It does not similarly impact pro-abortion advocacy groups, individuals, or facilities. 

15. The law also infringes upon the free exercise rights of the pregnancy care centers which are founded with a religious mission to engage and support women, but will be forced to drown out their religiously motivated messages (including ones with primarily or exclusively religious content) and present misleading information to undercut the opportunities the pregnancy care centers have to engage pregnant women in unplanned or unsupported pregnancies.

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Military Ends Travel Reimbursements to Service Members and Dependents for Out-of-State Abortions

In a January 29 Memorandum (full text), the Department of Defense removed the section of the military's Joint Travel Regulations that permit travel and transportation allowances for service members and their dependents to obtain abortions and other reproductive health care when it is not lawfully available in the local area where they are stationed. The travel allowance policy was announced in 2023. (See prior posting.) The policy was removed in accordance with President Trump's Executive Order, Enforcing the Hyde Amendment. (See prior posting.) The Hill reports on these developments.

Louisiana Grand Jury Indicts NY Doctor For Sending Abortion Medication to Purchaser in Lousiana

Louisiana Illuminator reports that last Friday a Baton Rouge, Louisiana grand jury indicted a New York doctor and her New York clinic for sending abortion pills into Louisiana in violation of a Louisiana statute enacted in 2022. This is the first criminal indictment of this kind since the overruling of Roe v. Wade. The abortion medication was ordered by a pregnant minor's mother who allegedly coerced her daughter into taking the pills. The mother has also been indicted in Louisiana. New York has a shield law designed to protect New York physicians from prosecution by other states for violation of their abortion laws.

Trump Takes Actions to Limit Federal Funding of Abortions

On January 24, President Trump issued an Executive Order (full text) titled Enforcing the Hyde Amendment. The Hyde Amendment bars federal funding of elective abortions. The Executive Order revokes two Executive Orders issued by President Biden: Executive Order 14076:  Protecting Access to Reproductive Health Care Services and Executive Order 14079:  Securing Access to Reproductive and Other Healthcare Services. (See prior posting.) President Trump also signed a Presidential Memorandum (full text) reinstating a 2017 Memorandum which enforced the Mexico City Policy -- a policy that has been enforced by Republican Administrations since 1985 and suspended by Democratic Administrations since then. The Policy is described by Wikipedia as follows:

The policy requires non-governmental organizations to "agree as a condition of their receipt of [U.S.] federal funds" that they would "neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations". The policy has exceptions for abortions performed in response to rape, incest, or life-threatening conditions.

The Memorandum also directs the State Department to ensure that federal funds do not go to organizations or programs that support coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.

The Trump White House issued a Fact Sheet titled President Donald J. Trump Enforces Overwhelmingly Popular Demand to Stop Taxpayer Funding of Abortion describing the President's actions.

Pardons and Policy Changes Limit Use of FACE Act Against Abortion Protesters

On Thursday, President Trump granted full and unconditional pardons to 23 defendants who were convicted of violations of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act. (Full text of Pardon document.) The pardons which were issued a day before the annual January 24 March for Life in Washington D.C. cover defendants in five separate cases: United States v. Handy (blockade of a Washington, D.C. abortion clinic); United States v. Gallagher (barricading of a clinic in Mt. Juliet, Tennessee); United States v. Zastrow, (blockading of abortion clinics in Sterling Heights and Saginaw, Michigan); United States v. Williams (Blocking entrance to Manhattan Planned Parenthood Clinic); United States v. Moscinski (blocking access to Hempstead, N.Y. Planned Parenthood Clinic). AP reports on the pardons.

The Trump Administration also took steps to limit future prosecutions under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act.  AP reports that a memo sent by the Attorney General's Chief of Staff, Chad Mizelle, to the head of the Civil Rights Division orders dismissal of three pending cases growing out of 2021 clinic blockades in Tennessee, Pennsylvania and Ohio. The memo also says that future prosecutions or civil actions under FACE Act will only be permitted in extraordinary circumstances or in cases presenting significant aggravating factors. Mizelle called prosecutions against anti-abortion protesters a weaponization of law enforcement because few prosecutions were brought against attacks on crisis pregnancy centers and other pro-life organizations.

Christian Employers Sue EEOC Over Transgender Rights and Abortion Mandate

Suit was filed yesterday in a North Dakota federal district court challenging two EEOC actions. The complaint (full text) in Christian Employers Alliance v. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, (D ND, filed 1/15/2025) alleges in part:

First, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has improperly applied Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to force employers to affirm and accommodate employees’ gender-transition efforts.... This mandate, published in agency “guidance” and on its website, threatens employers with large penalties if they do not use employees’ self-selected pronouns based on gender identity, and if they do not allow males to access female single-sex restrooms, locker rooms, and lactation rooms.

Second, EEOC issued a final rule that twists the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA).... , a statute intended to protect pregnant mothers in the workplace, to impose a nationwide abortion mandate forcing employers to promote and facilitate elective abortion....

The suit alleges that these mandates from the EEOC violate the free exercise and free speech rights of members of the Christian Employers Alliance.

Catholic Doctors Sue HHS Over Interpretation of EMTALA's Impact on State Abortion Bans

Suit was filed last week in a Tennessee federal district court by an organization of Catholic physicians challenging a July 2022 Memorandum and accompanying Letter from the Department of Health and Human Services that stated that the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act pre-empts state abortion bans when an abortion is needed for emergency care. The complaint (full text) in Catholic Medical Association v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, (MD TN, filed 1/10/2025) alleges in part:

2. The Memorandum and Letter ... exceed Defendants’ statutory authority, were promulgated without procedure required by law, and are arbitrary and capricious, all in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The Mandate also violates the rights of doctors under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and the First Amendment....

169. CMA’s members exercise their religious beliefs in practicing medicine by caring for patients generally, and in caring for patients in situations subject to EMTALA. CMA’s members exercise their religious beliefs in treating pregnant women and their unborn children with respect and dignity, and in opposing involvement in the direct and intentional killing of unborn children in abortion. 

170. The Mandate substantially burdens the exercise of CMA’s members’ sincerely held religious beliefs. 

171. The Mandate imposes significant pressure on CMA’s members to practice medicine in way that would violate their beliefs because of the threat of investigations, fines, and other punishments and impairments.

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. 

New Mexico Supreme Court: Local Anti-Abortion Ordinances Pre-empted by State Law

In State ex rel. Torrez v. Board of County Commissioners for Lea County, (NM Sup. Ct., Jan. 9, 2025), the New Mexico Supreme Court, in a case brought by the state Attorney General, held that municipal and county ordinances restricting local access to abortions and regulating local abortion clinics are pre-empted by state laws. The local ordinances which the court invalidated purported to require compliance with the federal Comstock Act that prohibits the mailing or receipt of abortion inducing instruments or drugs. The Court concluded that these local provisions are pre-empted by the New Mexico Reproductive and Gender-Affirming Health Care Act enacted by the state legislature in 2023. The court also concluded that other provisions in the local ordinances that purported to require local licensing of abortion clinics are pre-empted by several state medical practice and licensing laws. Newsbreak reports on the decision. [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

South Carolina Doctors Challenge Abortion Ban on Free Exercise Grounds

Suit was filed last week in a South Carolina federal district court by five physicians who contend that South Carolina's abortion ban violates their religious and conscientious beliefs in violation of the First Amendment's free exercise clause. The complaint (full text) in Bingham v. Wilson, (D SC, filed 1/8/2025), alleges in part:

137. Plaintiffs hold sincere religious and conscientious beliefs that they have unwavering duties to respect the dignity of every person, help people in critical need, and place others before themselves. For Plaintiffs, that includes using their medical training to honor a patient’s request to end a pregnancy that threatens to deeply harm her.

The complaint focuses on the narrow exceptions from the abortion ban in South Carolina law for health of the mother, rape or incest, and fatal fetal anomaly and contends:

168. It is neither religiously neutral nor generally applicable for South Carolina to allow abortion under the Abortion Ban’s secular Exceptions while criminalizing abortion when Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs compel it in substantially similar circumstances. 

169. In sum, South Carolina has criminalized religious conduct while allowing secular conduct that undermines its purported state interest in similar ways. In doing so, the State has made a value judgment that secular motivations for abortion care are important enough to overcome this interest, but that religious motivations are not. South Carolina has thus singled out religious conduct for unfavorable treatment.

Plaintiffs also allege that the health and fetal anomaly exceptions in the law are unconstitutionally vague.

Washington Examiner reports on the lawsuit.  [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

Ban on Firing Employee Because of Reproductive Health Decision May Violate Religious Employer's Expressive Association Rights

In CompassCare v. Hochul, (2nd Cir., Jan. 2, 2025), anti-abortion pregnancy centers and a Baptist Church challenge a New York statute which prohibits employers from discriminating against an employee based on any reproductive health care decision made by the employee or a dependent. Reviewing plaintiffs' expressive association claim, the court said in part:

[A]n entity like CompassCare, or another mission-based organization that advocates for a particular cause or set of beliefs, could plausibly allege that the compelled retention of a specific employee would impair its ability to express its message....

To sustain their challenge to the Act, each Plaintiff must adequately allege (and eventually prove) that the Act threatens “the very mission of its organization.”

However, the court rejected the claim that this provision violates free speech and free exercise rights.

The court also concluded that the law's notice provision which requires employee handbooks to include information on employees' rights under the New York labor law is subject only to rational basis review. The court said in part:

Requiring Plaintiffs to include among these wide-ranging provisions a notice informing employees of their available rights and remedies under a valid statute is not akin to requiring a crisis pregnancy center to distribute a notice about state-sponsored reproductive health services “at the same time [the centers] try to dissuade women from choosing that option.”... 

We conclude that the required notification does not interfere with Plaintiffs’ greater message and mission.

ADF issued a press release announcing the decision.

HIPPA Rule Barring Reporting of Legal Abortions to Out-of-State Enforcement Authorities Is Preliminarily Enjoined

In April of this year, the Department of Health and Human Services adopted new privacy rules under HIPPA designed to protect women (and those who assist them) who travel out of state for an abortion that is not legal in their state of residence. The rules prohibit doctors, clinics and insurance companies from disclosing information about patients' reproductive health care that is lawful where provided when the information is sought by the patient's home state for the purpose of an investigation that may lead to civil or criminal liability there. (See prior posting.) In Purl v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, (ND TX, Dec. 22, 2024), a Texas federal district court issued a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the rule against the physician and the clinic that are plaintiffs in the suit. The court held that the HHS rule violates a provision of HIPPA protecting state rules requiring reporting of child abuse. The court said in part:

Congress mandated that HIPPA cannot be "construed to invalidate or limit the authority, power, or procedures established under any law providing for the reporting of disease or injury, child abuse, birth, or death, public health surveillance, or public health investigation or intervention." ...

Plaintiffs argue that the 2024 Rule "unlawfully limits disclosures about child abuse" to states like Texas..... They aver HHS limits such disclosures by curtailing doctors' ability to freely report suspected "child abuse" and instead forces them into a "labyrinth of criteria" to determine what can and cannot be disclosed....

The 2024 Rule "limits" practitioners from reporting "child abuse" in several ways. It requires "covered entities" to determine whether the relevant "reproductive healthcare" was "lawful" under the circumstances it was acquired.... 

But, of course, many "covered entities" are not prepared or equipped to make nuanced legal judgments....

Again, even if a more nuanced reading of the 2024 Rule allowed child-abuse reporting to Texas CPS, a nonlawyer licensed physician is not equipped to navigate these intersecting legal labyrinths. And it is precisely such restraints and impediments that Congress forbade when it comes to child-abuse reporting.

Court Enjoins Most of Missouri's Abortion Restrictions, But Clinics Still Impeded from Reopening

In Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood Great Plains v. State of Missouri, (Cir. Ct., Dec. 20, 2024), a Missouri state trial court issued a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of many of Missouri's abortion restrictions. The court found that many of the state's restrictive laws, including the state's total ban, gestational age ban and reasons ban, to be unenforceable under the Right to Reproductive Freedom constitutional amendment approved by Missouri voters in November. However, the court refused to enjoin certain existing abortion regulations, finding that plaintiffs had not shown a likelihood of success in challenging these. Among the provisions that remain in effect are the abortion facility licensing requirements, the requirement for in-person appointments and the requirement that only physicians perform abortions. In a press release, Planned Parenthood said that some of the restrictions that remain in effect preclude it from beginning to again offer abortion services, saying in part:

... [T]he practical effect of the decision is that no health center in the state can restart abortion services because none has an abortion license, or can get one under the state’s draconian requirements. The vast majority of Planned Parenthood health centers cannot comply with the medically irrelevant size requirements for hallways, rooms, and doors—and no health centers are able to comply with an equally irrelevant, invasive vaginal exam for patients seeking medication abortion. Plaintiffs will continue to fight to see that these restrictions are enjoined.

[Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

House Committee Holds Hearing on Biden Administration's Use of the FACE Act

On Wednesday, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government held a hearing titled Revisiting the Implications of the FACE Act: Part II.  The hearing focused largely on whether the current administration has applied the Freedom of Access to Clinics Act unequally, and on the impact of the Dobbs decision on FACE. A video of the hearing and links to witnesses' prepared statements are available at the Judiciary Committee's website.

Indiana Supreme Court Lets Preliminary Injunction Against Abortion Ban When It Violates Religious Beliefs Stand

Last week, the Indiana Supreme Court, by a vote of 3-2, refused to review at this stage in the litigation a preliminary injunction entered by lower courts in a suit claiming that the state's Religious Freedom Restoration Act is violated when plaintiffs are prohibited by Indiana's abortion law from obtaining an abortion that their religious beliefs direct them to obtain. (See prior posting.) In Individual Members of the Medical Licensing Board of Indiana v. Anonymous Plaintiff 1, (IN Sup. Ct., Dec. 10, 2024), the Order denying the petition to transfer the case to the Supreme Court was not accompanied by a majority opinion. However, Justice Molter joined by Justice Rush filed a concurring opinion saying in part:

This case involves an unusual preliminary injunction—the trial court temporarily enjoined state officials from enforcing the State’s abortion law, but only for a particular group of women who are not pregnant and therefore are not seeking an abortion. The Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court didn’t exceed its discretion by entering a preliminary injunction while the case continues to be litigated. But the panel also directed the trial court to narrow the preliminary injunction on remand. So thus far, this case is not stopping the defendants from doing anything. And we don’t yet know if it ever will, including because the defendants may ultimately prevail in the lawsuit....

I conclude the more prudent course is for the Court to review the case after a final judgment rather than following a preliminary injunction, which remains a work in progress and subject to more deferential appellate review. In essence, it is better that we review the trial court’s final answer rather than its first guess....

Justice Slaughter, joined by Justice Massa, filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

Our denial of transfer means the trial court’s “final answer” will lack the benefit of our current thinking. By saying nothing, we may leave the misimpression that the injunction’s only vulnerability is its scope. As my colleagues acknowledge, this case “presents transfer-worthy issues with previously undecided questions of statewide importance”.

Indiana ACLU issued a press release announcing the decision.

Cert Granted on Whether Medicaid Beneficiary Can Challenge Cutoff of Funds to Planned Parenthood

The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday granted review in Kerr v. Planned Parenthood, (Docket No. 23-1275, certiorari granted 12/18/2024) on the question of whether individual Medicaid beneficiaries have a private right of action to enforce the Medicaid Act’s any-qualified provider provision. The case arises from a challenge to South Carolina's termination of Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood. This was Question 1 presented by the petition for certiorari, the issue on which the Supreme Court granted review. Here is the SCOTUSblog case page with links to pleadings and briefs in the case.