Court Refuses Stay Pending Appeal of Order That Attorneys Get Religious-Liberty Training

As previously reported, last month a Texas federal district court ordered sanctions against Southwest Airlines for its failing to comply with an earlier Order in the case that found the Airline had violated Title VII when it fired a flight attendant because of her social media messages about her religiously-motivated views on abortion. Southwest then filed a motion to stay the sanctions while the case is appealed. In Carter v. Transport Workers Union of America, Local 556, (ND TX, Aug. 31, 2023), the court denied the motion to stay the sanctions. Among other things, Southwest objected to the court's requirement that three of the Airline's attorneys who were responsible for non-compliance with the earlier Order attend at least 8 hours of religious liberty training conducted by the Christian legal non-profit Alliance Defending Freedom. The court said in part:

... Southwest complains that “[r]equiring religious-liberty training from an ideological organization with a particular viewpoint on what the law requires” is “unprecedented.” That appears to be more of a gripe than a legal objection, because Southwest doesn’t make any legal argument for why training with an “ideological organization” is unconstitutional or otherwise contrary to law.

In any event, the Court selected ADF for the following reason: Southwest does not appear to understand how federal law operates to protect its employees’ religious liberties. ADF has won multiple Supreme Court cases in recent years on the topic of religious liberties, evidencing an understanding of religious liberties.  And because ADF has agreed to conduct topical trainings in the past, ADF appears well-suited to train Southwest’s lawyers on a topic with which the lawyers evidently struggle.

In a footnote, the court added:

This doesn’t appear to be a First Amendment argument, as Southwest doesn’t cite the First Amendment or any First Amendment caselaw, so it appears that Southwest forfeited any First Amendment arguments concerning ADF’s viewpoint.

LawDork reports on the decision.

Reproductive Rights Proponents Sue Ohio Ballot Board Over Ballot Language

On Monday, a suit seeking a writ of mandamus was filed in the Ohio Supreme Court by backers of Issue 1, "Right to Reproductive Freedom with Protections for Health and Safety." The suit challenges the Ohio Ballot Board's revised language describing the state constitutional amendment that will be on the November ballot in the state. (See prior posting.) Instead of placing the text of the proposed Amendment on ballots, the Ballot Board drafted new language which plaintiffs say misrepresents the proposed amendment. The complaint (full text) in State of Ohio ex rel. Ohioans United for Reproductive Rights v. Ohio Ballot Board, (OH Sup. Ct. filed 8/28/2023), alleges in part:

Article XVI of the Ohio Constitution requires the Ohio Ballot Board to prescribe ballot language for the Amendment that “properly identif[ies] the substance of the proposal to be voted upon” and does not “mislead, deceive, or defraud” voters. The language the Ballot Board adopted at its August 24, 2023, meeting flouts those requirements and aims improperly to mislead Ohioans and persuade them to oppose the Amendment. Accordingly, Relators request that the Court issue a writ of mandamus directing the Ballot Board to reconvene and adopt the full text of the Amendment as the ballot language. That remedy is appropriate because the Ballot Board’s prescribed language is irreparably flawed. In the alternative, Relators request that the Court issue a writ of mandamus directing the Ballot Board to reconvene and adopt ballot language that properly and lawfully describes the Amendment, correcting the numerous defects in the existing language....

CBS News reports on the lawsuit.

Now Ohio Ballot Language On Abortion Rights Is The Issue

As reported by the Statehouse News Bureau, proponents of a reproductive rights amendment to the Ohio Constitution which will be voted on in November are considering a lawsuit against the Ohio Ballot Board which rejected the language proponents asked to be used on the ballot that voters will see. The Board replaced proponents' language with language drafted by Ohio's Secretary of State who is an abortion opponent. Proponents' Initiative Petition asked for the full 250-word text of the proposed Amendment to appear on the ballot.  Secretary of State Frank LaRose, saying that this was too long, instead drafted a 203-word Summary which uses the term "unborn child" four times in describing the effect of the proposed Amendment.

West Virginia's Ban on Prescribing Mifepristone By Telemedicine Is Pre-Empted By FDA Rules

In GenBioPro, Inc. v. Sorsaia,, (D WV, Aug. 24, 2023), a West Virginia federal district court dismissed a challenge to West Virginia abortion restrictions that are no longer in effect. The restrictions will go back into effect only if provisions of the more recent Unborn Child Protection Act (UCPA) are held unconstitutional. The court held that neither federal statutes nor FDA rules pre-empt state restrictions on when abortions may be performed. However, the court refused to rule further on the UCPA provisions, saying in part:

[T]he Court has not found that the UCPA is unconstitutional. As none of these prior restrictions are currently in effect, this Court may not issue an advisory opinion as to the constitutionality of a law not presently operative.

The court also rejected arguments that state restrictions on the sale of mifepristone violate the Commerce Clause, saying in part:

[T]he Supreme Court and Courts of Appeals have repeatedly affirmed that morality-based product bans do not intrinsically offend the dormant Commerce Clause. 

However the court did find that West Virginia's ban on prescribing mifepristone by telemedicine, which is still in effect, is pre-empted by FDA rules allowing telemedicine prescriptions for the drug. The Hill reports on the decision.

South Carolina Supreme Court Upholds Heartbeat Abortion Ban

In Planned Parenthood South Atlantic v. State of South Carolina, (SC Sup. Ct., Aug. 23, 2023), the South Carolina Supreme Court upheld the 2023 version of South Carolina's heartbeat abortion ban enacted in response to an earlier decision by the same court striking down an earlier version of the law. The court said in part:

[T]he legislature has found that the State has a compelling interest in protecting the lives of unborn children. That finding is indisputable and one we must respect. The legislature has further determined, after vigorous debate and compromise, that its interest in protecting the unborn becomes actionable upon the detection of a fetal heartbeat via ultrasound by qualified medical personnel. It would be a rogue imposition of will by the judiciary for us to say that the legislature's determination is unreasonable as a matter of law—particularly on the record before us and in the specific context of a claim arising under the privacy provision in article I, section 10 of our state constitution.

As a result, our judicial role in this facial challenge to the 2023 Act has come to an end. The judiciary's role is to exercise our judgment as to whether the legislative weighing of competing interests was within the range of possible, reasonable choices rationally related to promoting the legislature's legitimate interests. Having concluded that it was, we consequently defer to the legislature's gauging of the profound, competing interests at stake. Accordingly, we vacate the preliminary injunction and hold the 2023 Act is constitutional.

Justice Few filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

Ultimately, the General Assembly did not attempt to simply re-enact the same legislation, as Planned Parenthood argues. Rather, it amended the 2021 Act in what appears to be a sincere attempt to comply with the narrowest reading of this Court's ruling in Planned Parenthood I. The question now before the Court, therefore, is whether the attempt was successful; do the changes the General Assembly made from the 2021 Act to the 2023 Act make it possible for this Court to find the 2023 Act constitutional under article I, section 10, despite the fact the threshold for banning most abortions did not change....

When this Court evaluated the constitutionality of the 2021 Act, we balanced the State's interest in protecting unborn life against the statutory countervailing interest of "informed choice" and the privacy interests arising from article I, section 10. As there is no "informed choice" provision in the 2023 Act, the State's interest in protecting unborn life is now balanced against only the constitutional privacy interests.

Chief Justice Beatty filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

In my view, because the material terms of the 2023 Act have not changed from the 2021 Act, logic and respect for the doctrine of stare decisis dictate that the 2023 Act should likewise be declared unconstitutional.

 AP reports on the decision.

Illinois Regulation of Limited Purpose Pregnancy Centers Violates 1st Amendment

In National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Raoul, (ND IL, Aug. 4, 2023), an Illinois federal district court issued a preliminary injunction against enforcement of Illinois SB 1909 which amends the state Consumer Fraud Act to prohibit limited purpose pregnancy centers from using misrepresentations or concealment to interfere with a person's access to abortion or emergency contraception. the court said in part:

SB 1909 is content based discrimination. The subject of the prohibited speech is not just abortion but speech that emphasizes the negative effects of abortion. What's more, there is ample evidence in the record before the Court at this time that SB 1909 was adopted because of Defendant Raoul's disagreement about the content of Plaintiffs' speech. The message of Plaintiffs' speech is subject to prohibition under SB 1909 but abortion providers' speech is specifically excluded from being sanctioned under the Consumer Fraud Act.

5th Circuit Says FDA Improperly Reduced Abortion Pill Restrictions, But Prior Supreme Court Order Keeps FDA Rules In Effect During Appeals

In Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. U.S. Food & Drug Administration, (5th Cir., Aug. 16, 2023), the U.S. 5th circuit Court of Appeals upheld the portions of a Texas federal district court's orders that stayed actions taken by the FDA in 2016 and 2021 regarding the administration and distribution of the abortion pill mifepristone. The 2016 action increased the gestational age when the drug can be used from 49 to 70 days. It also lightened certain other dosage and prescribing restrictions. In 2021, in connection with the Covid epidemic, the FDA removed the in-person prescribing requirement for mifepristone, allowing it to be sent by mail. The court found that doctors have standing to challenge these actions, among other things citing conscience injuries to objecting doctors.  Challenges to two other FDA actions on mifepristone were rejected on standing and statute of limitations grounds.

The court concluded that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their Administrative Procedure Act challenges that the FDA's actions were arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law. This was the case as to the 2016 action because the FDA did not consider the cumulative effect of the changes it was proposing. They were likely to succeed on their challenge to the 2021 action because the FDA did not adequately study adverse event data.

However, as the court recognized, the U.S. Supreme Court has already ordered a stay of all the district court's orders until federal appeals are completed. Thus the 5th Circuit's action does not reinstate the district court's bans. 

Judge Ho concurred in part and dissented in part, saying tht he would also hold that the initial approval of mifepristone in 2000 should be set aside.

NPR reports on the decision.

Pro-Life Protesters Can Continue Viewpoint Discrimination Suit Over D.C. Defacement Ordinance

 In Frederick Douglas Foundation, Inc. v. District of Columbia, (DC Cir., Aug.15, 2023), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that a pro-life group can move ahead with its viewpoint discrimination claim against the D.C. government, but not its equal protection claim.  Plaintiffs alleged that D.C. did not enforce its defacement ordinance against "Black Lives Matter" protesters who chalked or painted protest signs on public and private property. However it did enforce the ordinance against pro-life protesters who wished to paint or chalk "Black Pre-Born Lives Matter" on sidewalks or streets. The court said in part:

... [T]o make out a First Amendment selective enforcement claim, the Foundation is not required to allege discriminatory intent. Viewpoint discrimination violates the First Amendment, “regardless of the government’s benign motive … or lack of animus toward the ideas contained in the regulated speech.”... “Innocent motives do not eliminate the danger of censorship.”...

The Foundation, in the alternative, frames its selective enforcement claim in terms of equal protection. To the extent a separate equal protection claim for viewpoint discrimination arises under the Fifth Amendment, the Foundation has failed to allege an essential element—purposeful discrimination. Even taking the facts in the light most favorable to the Foundation, we find it has not put forward plausible evidence of the District’s animus....

The First Amendment prohibits the government from favoring some speakers over others. Access to public fora must be open to everyone and to every message on the same terms. The District may act to prevent the defacement of public property, but it cannot open up its streets and sidewalks to some viewpoints and not others.... The Foundation has plausibly alleged that its members were similarly situated to individuals against whom the defacement ordinance was not enforced, and that the District discriminated on the basis of viewpoint when enforcing the ordinance. Because the Foundation has failed to adequately allege animus on the part of the District, however, its equal protection challenge fails.

Judge Wilkins filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

In my view, even though the Foundation must meet the high bar of pleading purposeful discrimination to prevail on its First Amendment claim,.. the high standard is met here.

ADF issued a press release announcing the decision.

 

Near-Final Tally of Ohio Issue 1

With over 99% of the votes now counted, Ohio's Issue 1 failed on Tuesday by a vote of 57.01% against and 42.99% in favor. (Results from Secretary of State.) Issue 1 would have made it more difficult for voters to amend the Ohio Constitution, among other things by raising the required popular vote to 60% instead of the current majority.  The immediate aim of proponents of Issue 1 was to make it more difficult to pass a Reproductive Rights amendment that will be on the November ballot.

Suit By Christian Ministry Says Quebec Wrongly Cancelled Its Use of Convention Center

In Canada, suit was filed last week in a Quebec trial court by the Christian organization Harvest Ministries International challenging the province's cancellation of the organization's contract reserving the Quebec City Convention Centre for its Faith, Fire and Freedom Rally.  According to the Motion to Institute Proceedings (full text) in Harvest Ministries International v. Proulx, (Quebec Dist. Ct., filed 8/2/2023), the reservation was cancelled because Harvest Ministries anti-abortion views contradict Quebec's fundamental principles, even though the Rally itself was not an anti-abortion event.  The suit alleges that the cancellation violates Harvest Ministries' freedom of religion, expression and assembly and its right equality protected by Quebec's Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It seeks damages of $212,000. The Justice Centre For Constitutional Freedoms issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

In Contempt Sanction, Court Orders Attorneys To Attend Religious Liberty Training

In Carter v. Transport Workers of America, Local 556, (ND TX, Aug.7, 2023), a Texas federal district court ordered sanctions against Southwest Airlines for its failing to comply with an earlier Order in the case that found the Airline had violated Title VII when it fired a flight attendant because of  her social media messages about her religiously-motivated views on abortion. Southwest claimed that the flight attendant had violated the company's social media policy regarding civility. In its current Order, The court set out a specifically worded communication that the Airline is required to send to its flight attendants regarding its obligation under Title VII not to engage in religious discrimination. The court also ordered that three of the Airline's attorneys who were responsible for non-compliance with the earlier Order attend at least 8 hours of religious liberty training conducted by the Christian legal non-profit Alliance Defending Freedom. The court explained, in part:

When a litigant “does not appear to comprehend” a legal concept, training in “the relevant subject area” constitutes a “particularly apropos” sanction.

[Thanks to Joel Taubman for the lead.]

Proposed Regulations Under Pregnant Workers Fairness Act Include Abortion as Pregnancy Related Condition

Yesterday the EEOC filed for publication in the Federal Register Proposed Rules (full text) under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. The Act requires employers with 15 or more employees to provide reasonable accommodations for employees and applicants arising out of pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions, absent undue hardship on the operation of the business. "Related medical conditions" are defined by the proposed regulations as including "termination of pregnancy, including via miscarriage, stillbirth, or abortion." Anti-abortion advocacy organizations say the proposed regulations will force employers to violate their religious beliefs. (See ADF press release.)

Trial Court Expands Exemptions in Texas Abortion Law; Appeal Suspends Ruling

In Zurawski v. State of Texas, (TX Dist. Ct., Aug. 4, 2023), a Texas state trial court issued a temporary injunction barring enforcement of Texas' abortion ban in more situations than the limited exceptions in the statute.  The court restrained enforcement against any physician who provides abortions where the pregnant person has a complication that poses a risk of infection or makes continuing a pregnancy unsafe, has a condition exacerbated by pregnancy that cannot be effectively treated during pregnancy or where the fetus is unlikely to survive the pregnancy.

The court said in part:

The Court further finds that any official’s enforcement of Texas’s abortion bans as applied to a pregnant person with an emergent medical condition for whom an abortion would prevent or alleviate a risk of death or risk to their health (including their fertility) would be inconsistent with the rights afforded to pregnant people under Article I, §§ 3, 3a, and/or 19 of the Texas Constitution and therefore would be ultra vires.

The state immediately filed a Notice of Accelerated Interlocutory Appeal which apparently has the effect under Texas law of suspending the trial court's temporary injunction pending action by the state Supreme Court. (Attorney General's press release.)  NPR reports on the decision. [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

Idaho AG's Interpretation of Anti-Abortion Law Is Enjoined

In Planned Parenthood Greater Northwest v. Labrador, (D ID, July 31, 2023), an Idaho federal district court granted a preliminary injunction barring the state attorney general from enforcing an interpretation of a law barring healthcare professionals from assisting in performing an abortion that would cover professionals who merely provide information about or refer patients for legal out-of-state abortions. The court said in part:

... [T]he Medical Providers allege that the Crane Letter interpretation violates the First Amendment, the dormant commerce clause, and the due process clause. The Medical Providers claim they are “overwhelmingly” likely to succeed on the merits of all three claims.... Interestingly, the State did not engage this argument in any way, relying instead entirely on its jurisdictional challenges.... As discussed below, the Court finds that the Medical Providers are likely to succeed on their First Amendment cause of action.

In particular, the Medical Providers contend that the Crane Letter interpretation violates the First Amendment because it impermissibly regulates speech based on content and viewpoint.... because health care providers are silenced on a single topic—abortion—and is viewpoint discretionary because health care providers can provide information and referrals about out-of-state resources like anti-abortion counseling centers or prenatal care....

... Because the State has not opposed the First Amendment claim, and because the Court finds the Medical Providers’ argument persuasive, the Court finds that the Medical Providers have shown that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their First Amendment challenge.

Reuters reports on the decision. [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

Suit Challenges Illinois Deceptive Practices Law Aimed At Anti-Abortion Pregnancy Centers

Suit was filed last week in an Illinois federal district court challenging Illinois SB 1909 which prohibits limited purpose pregnancy centers from using misrepresentations or concealment to interfere with a person's access to abortion or emergency contraception. The 55-page complaint (full text) in National Institute of Family & Life Advocates v. Raoul, (ND IL, filed 7/27/2023), attacks the legislation on free expression, free exercise, and various 14th Amendment grounds. The complaint alleges in part:

... [S]peaking common pro-life views as part of a pregnancy help ministry, or failing to speak the State’s pro-abortion views on hotly disputed issues, is illegal under state law, on pain of crippling fines, injunctions,  and attorney fees. Meanwhile, abortion facilities (as well as expressly exempted licensed healthcare providers and hospitals) remain free to engage in their own controversial speech about abortion, as they wish.

Thomas More Society issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. 

Suit Challenges Ohio Reproductive Freedom Amendment Ballot Issue

 A legal action was filed Friday in the Ohio Supreme Court seeking to disqualify from the November ballot a proposed Reproductive Freedom amendment to the state constitution which has been certified for inclusion on the ballot by the state Secretary of State. The complaint (full text) in Giroux v. Committee Representing Petitioners, (OH Sup. Ct., filed 7/28/2023) contends that the initiative petitions failed to comply with the legal requirement to include the text of existing statutes that would be implicitly repealed by the amendment if it is adopted. Cincinnati Enquirer reports on the lawsuit. [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

Conscience Clause in Health Insurance Mandate Does Not Violate Church's Free Exercise

In Cedar Park Assembly of God of Kirkland, Washington v. Kreidler, (WD WA, July 25, 2023), a Washington federal district court dismissed a free exercise challenge by a church to a Washington law requiring all health insurance plans that provide maternity coverage to also provide substantially equivalent abortion coverage. Under the law, employers with religious or moral objections to specific services do not have to purchase coverage for those services, but enrollees must still be able to access coverage for the services. The court said in part:

None of the State’s arguments seem to fully address the crux of Cedar Park’s facilitation complaint: that its employees would not have access to covered abortion services absent Cedar Park’s post-SB 6219 plan. This fact is undisputed and undoubtedly true. Because of SB 6219, Cedar Park’s employees gained coverage for abortion services under their employer-sponsored health insurance plan that they would not otherwise have. Even if the “facilitation” is somewhat minimal, SB 6219 requires Cedar Park to facilitate access to covered abortion services contrary to Cedar Park’s religious beliefs....

Because the Court concludes that SB 6219 is neutral and generally applicable, the law is valid if it is rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose....

The Washington legislature identified multiple legitimate governmental purposes for enacting SB 6219, including promoting gender equity, promoting economic success of women, improving women’s health, and protecting privacy.

Vermont Pregnancy Counseling Centers Sue Over New Restrictions

Suit was filed yesterday in a Vermont federal district court attacking Vermont's recently-enacted SB 37 which, among other things, imposes new regulation on anti-abortion pregnancy counseling centers. The law prohibits advertising of services that is "untrue or clearly designed to mislead the public about the nature of the services provided." It also provides that licensed health care professionals who provide services at such centers are responsible for ensuring that services, information and counseling at the center complies with these requirements. The complaint (full text) in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Clark, (D VT, filed 7/25/2023) contends that these provisions are unconstitutionally vague and also violate the free speech rights of clinics, alleging in part:

111. The Advertising Prohibition provides no guidance as to how it should be applied to advertisements including medical information on which there is no medical consensus.

112. The Advertising Prohibition is also unclear as to whether it requires a disclosure in all advertisements that the pregnancy center does not provide abortions or "emergency contraception."

113. Requiring such a disclosure would compel the centers' speech.

114. The Advertising Prohibition has chilled Plaintiffs' speech.

115. For example, Aspire's medical director created a video about abortion pill reversal that Aspire would like to post on its website....

168. Because Plaintiffs do not charge for their services, the Provider Restriction, 9 V.S.A. § 2493(b), regulates Plaintiffs' non-commercial speech.

169. The Provider Restriction is a viewpoint- and content-based regulation of pure speech because it directly regulates speech about health-care-related" information" and "counseling" by "limited-services pregnancy centers," even when no medical treatment or procedure is involved. 9 V.S.A. § 2493(b).

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

Missouri Supreme Court Orders Steps to Allow Reproductive Rights Initiative Petitions to Be Circulated

In State of Missouri ex rel. Dr. Anna Fitz-James v. Bailey, (MO Sup. Ct., July 20, 2023), the Missouri Supreme Court affirmed a trial court's issuance of a writ of mandamus requiring the state Attorney General to approve the State Auditor's fiscal note summaries to eleven Reproductive Rights initiative petitions. That approval is necessary so that the Secretary of State can certify the ballot language and proponents can begin to circulate the petitions for signatures. (Full text of petitions [scroll to No. 2024-77 through 2024-87]). AP reports on the case. State Attorney General Andrew Bailey-- a gubernatorial appointee in Missouri-- contended that the Auditor's conclusion that the proposed constitutional amendments would have no fiscal impact were inaccurate.  Bailey, an abortion opponent, contended that. if approved by voters, the state could lose $12.5 billion in Medicaid funds and $51 billion in future tax revenues because of fewer births. This earlier report by the Missouri Independent has additional background.

 In its opinion, the Missouri Supreme Court said in part:

The Attorney General’s narrow authority to approve the “legal content and form” of the fiscal note summaries cannot be used as a means of usurping the Auditor’s broader authority to assess the fiscal impact of the proposals and report that impact in a fiscal note and fiscal note summary....

The Attorney General, nevertheless, characterizes his claim as challenging the “legal content and form” of the fiscal notes and their summaries because he contends they use language that is argumentative or likely to prejudice readers in favor of the proposed measure.... [H]e claims the content of the notes is likely to prejudice voters in favor of the proposals by underestimating the fiscal impact. And, because he believes the fiscal notes understate the costs to state and local governments, the Attorney General claims the summaries inevitably do so as well. The Attorney General has no authority under section 116.175 to refuse to approve fiscal note summaries on such grounds....

For more than 40 years, this Court has noted “that procedures designed to effectuate [the rights of initiative and referendum] should be liberally construed to avail voters with every opportunity to exercise these rights” and that “[t]he ability of voters to get before their fellow voters issues they deem significant should not be thwarted in preference for technical formalities.”... If the Attorney General had complied with his duty ..., the Secretary would have certified the official ballot titles for Fitz-James’s initiative petitions nearly 100 days ago.

Iowa Trial Court Temporarily Enjoins State's New Heartbeat Abortion Ban

In Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, Inc. v. Reynolds, (IA Dist. Ct., July 17, 2023), an Iowa state trial court issued a temporary injunction barring enforcement of Iowa's new heartbeat abortion ban. The court held that a decision of the Iowa Supreme Court in 2022 left the federal undue burden test as the controlling test in Iowa abortion cases. The trial court said in part:

When the undue burden standard is applied, it is readily apparent that the Petitioners are likely to succeed on their claim that H.F.732 violates the Due Process clause, article I, section 9 of the Iowa Constitution.

The court's decision was complicated by the fact that in 2018, Iowa passed a similar heartbeat law which was enjoined by a trial court. That injunction remained in place when last month the Iowa Supreme Court deadlocked 3-3 in an appeal of that decision. In yesterday's decision by the trial court, the temporary injunction had one exception. The court said:

The court believes it must follow current Iowa Supreme Court precedent and preserve the status quo ante while this litigation and adversarial presentation which our Supreme Court has invited moves forward. 

However, as the Governor has now signed H.F. 732 into law, the court should except from that status quo, section 2, paragraph 5 of H.F. 732, directing the Iowa Board of Medicine to adopt rules pursuant to Chapter 17A. Should the injunction entered today ultimately be dissolved, it would only benefit all involved, patients and providers alike, to have rules in place to administer the law.

Iowa ACLU issued a press release announcing the decision.