Cert. Filed In Abortion Sidewalk Counseling Dispute

 A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed yesterday with the U.S. Supreme Court in Reilly v. City of Harrisburg, (Sup. Ct., filed 10/10/2023).  In the case, the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a suit brought by anti-abortion sidewalk counselors challenging Harrisburg's ordinance creating a 20-foot buffer zone designed to exclude protesters around health-care facilities, including abortion clinics. In its opinion, the 3rd Circuit agreed that the city did not have a policy or custom prohibiting one-on-one sidewalk counseling. Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the filing of the petition for review.

9th Circuit Stays Pending Appeal Feds' Partial Injunction Against Idaho Abortion Ban

In United States v. State of Idaho, (9th Cir., Sept. 28, 2023), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals stayed, pending appeal, a district court's injunction barring enforcement of Idaho's abortion ban ("section 622") to the extent it conflicts with the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA). (See prior posting.) The appeals court said in part:

The Legislature has made a strong showing that EMTALA does not preempt section 622. EMTALA does not require abortions, and even if it did in some circumstances, that requirement would not directly conflict with section 622. The federal government will not be injured by the stay of an order preliminarily enjoining enforcement of a state law that does not conflict with its own. Idaho, on the other hand, will be irreparably injured absent a stay because the preliminary injunction directly harms its sovereignty.

Politico reports on the decision. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Supreme Court Opens Fall Term

The U.S. Supreme Court today opened its Fall 2023 Term today by issuing the typically long first-day-of-term Order List. The Court denied review in hundreds of cases.  Among the interesting cases were Truong v. Stitt, (Docket No. 22-7743) and Truong v. Dewine, (Docket No. 22-7800), in which a pro se plaintiff sued a lengthy list of defendants-- including five U.S. Supreme Court Justices-- challenging, among other things, Oklahoma's (10th Circuit opinion) and Ohio's (district court opinion) laws restricting abortions. In disposing of the cases, the Supreme Court said:

Because the Court lacks a quorum, 28 U. S. C. §1, and since the qualified Justices are of the opinion that the case cannot be heard and determined at the next Term of the Court, the judgment is affirmed under 28 U. S. C. §2109, which provides that under these circumstances "the court shall enter its order affirming the judgment of the court from which the case was brought for review with the same effect as upon affirmance by an equally divided court." Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, Justice Gorsuch, Justice Kavanaugh, and Justice Barrett took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Yesterday, before the start of the new term, the traditional Red Mass was held at the Cathedral of St. Matthew the Apostle in Washington, D.C.  Catholic Standard, reporting on the Mass, said that Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Barrett; and retired Justice Kennedy were in attendance.

Texas AG Sues Yelp for $1M for Mislabeling Pregnancy Resource Centers

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton last week filed a civil lawsuit against Yelp contending that it violated the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices- Consumer Protection Act by posting a "consumer notice" on the Yelp listings of anti-abortion Crisis Pregnancy Centers. The complaint (full text) in State of Texas v. Yelp, Inc., (TX Dist. Ct., filed 9/28/2023), alleges in part:

Yelp has engaged in deceptive trade practices, including disparagement of the goods, services, or business of another by false or misleading representation of facts.... Specifically, Yelp posted a “consumer notice” on the Yelp business pages of every pregnancy resource center across the nation, misleadingly stating that these centers “typically provide limited medical services and may not have licensed medical professionals onsite.” That was false. Pregnancy resource centers provide significant care and counseling to pregnant women. And they commonly provide significant medical services, and have licensed medical professionals onsite....

In or around February 2023, after approximately six months of displaying false and misleading disclaimers on the business pages of pregnancy resource centers, Yelp finally removed the misleading disclaimer regarding the alleged lack of medical professionals and medical services onsite, replacing it with a new disclaimer that stated: “This is a Crisis Pregnancy Center. Crisis Pregnancy Centers do not offer abortions or referrals to abortion providers.”

In addition to injunctive relief, the suit asks for civil penalties, attorneys' fees, restitution and costs that total at least $1 million. Paxton's office issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Ohio Supreme Court Upholds Most of Ballot Board's Description of Reproductive Rights Initiative

In State ex. rel. Ohioans United for Reproductive Rights v. Ohio Ballot Board, (OH Sup. Ct., Sept. 19, 2023), the Ohio Supreme Court, in a per curiam opinion concurred in fully by Justice Fischer and (with a short opinion) by Donnelly, upheld most of the ballot language drafted by the Ohio Ballot Board to describe a Reproductive Freedom initiative that will be on the November ballot.  The Board substituted its description for the proponent's request that the full text of the amendment appear on the ballot. (See prior related posting.) The majority of the Court disapproved only the Ballot Board's substitution of "citizens of the State of Ohio" for the term "State" used in the proposed amendment.  One of the Ballot Board's changes approved by the majority was its substitution of the term "unborn child" for the term "fetus" in the text of the proposed amendment.  The majority said in part:

According to relators, “[o]ne’s judgment about the developmental stage at which the ethical status of ‘unborn child’ attaches has obvious implications for whether and how one believes abortion should be regulated.” Relators argue that the terms “fetus” or “fetal viability,” which appear in the proposed amendment’s text, are scientifically accurate and do not carry the same moral judgment as “unborn child.”

We reject relators’ argument. Importantly, relators do not argue that the term “unborn child” is factually inaccurate. To the contrary, their argument asserts that “unborn child” is a divisive term that elicits a moral judgment whereas the terms “fetus” and “fetal viability” are more neutral and scientific. But this argument does not establish that the ballot board’s language constitutes improper persuasion.

Justice Stewart and Justice Brunner each filed an opinion finding all of the Ballot Board's language unacceptable. Justice Brunner said in part:

A majority of respondent Ohio Ballot Board’s members ... obfuscated the actual language of the proposed state constitutional amendment by substituting their own language and creating out of whole cloth a veil of deceit and bias in their desire to impose their views on Ohio voters about what they think is the substance of the proposed amendment. And they did this by completely recrafting simple and straightforward amendment language into a version that contains more words than the amendment itself. The evidence in the record makes clear that it was their intent to use their positions on the board to influence the outcome of the election with the ballot language the board certified for the proposed amendment.

Justice Deters, in an opinion concurred in by Chief Justice Kennedy and Justice DeWine, concluded that they would have upheld all of the Ballot Board's language, saying that it "does not mislead, deceive, or defraud voters."

NBC News reports on the decision.

Florida Supreme Court Hears Arguments On 15-Week Abortion Ban

On Friday the Florida Supreme Court heard oral arguments (video of full oral arguments) in Planned Parenthood of Southwest and Central Florida v. State of Florida, (FL Sup. Ct., 9/8/2-23). At issue in the case is a state constitutional challenge to Florida's 15-week abortion ban.  The Florida Supreme Court has links to all the pleadings and briefs in the case.

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.]