Religion Clause

Monday, December 18, 2023

2nd Circuit En Banc: Athletes Have Standing To Sue Under Title IX Over Transgender Girls on Girls' Teams

In Soule v. Connecticut Association of Schools, Inc., (2d Cir., Dec. 15, 2023), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals sitting en banc held that four cisgender female track and field athletes (plus two intervenors) have standing to sue a Connecticut high school athletic conference under Title IX for allowing transgender girls to compete in girls' track and field meets. Plaintiffs claimed that this deprived them of equal athletic opportunity. the court summarized its holding as follows:

We do not consider whether Plaintiffs’ Title IX claims have any merit or whether they would be entitled to the relief that they seek as a matter of equity, but rather whether the district court has jurisdiction to hear their claims in the first instance. We conclude that it does.... Plaintiffs have established Article III standing at this stage in the litigation. They have pled a concrete, particularized, and actual injury in fact that is plausibly redressable by monetary damages and an injunction ordering Defendants to alter certain athletic records. Second, the district court was not required to determine whether Defendants had adequate notice of a Title IX violation to be liable for monetary damages before reaching the merits of Plaintiffs’ Title IX claims.

This majority arose from splintered views expressed in 8 separate opinions concurring in part and dissenting in part from each other and spanning 142 pages. NBC News reports on the decision.

Friday, December 15, 2023

European Court Advisory Opinion: Security Clearance May Be Withdrawn for Supporter of Religion That Is Threat to the State

In a Grand Chamber advisory opinion, the European Court of Human Rights has concluded that Belgium many deny a person the right to work as a security guard because he belongs to a religious movement that poses a threat to the state. In Requested by the Conseil d’État of Belgium, (ECHR, Dec. 14, 2023), the Belgian Ministry of Interior had withdrawn the identification card of a security guard who was a supporter of the scientific branch of Salafism. The Ministry gave the following justifications:

... [S]cientific Salafism represents a threat to our model of society and to our country. Any security guard or officer must display conduct that is respectful of the fundamental rights of his or her fellow citizens and must respect democratic values....

Even though you have stated that you reject any violence in the name of Islam, the State Security Service has nevertheless indicated that you are a supporter of an ideology which, in particular, questions the legitimacy of Belgian law, advocates community sectarianism, fosters a backward view of the role of women and takes positions which threaten the fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens by a reactionary vision seeking to rid Islam of all its non-Islamic evolutions and influences.

The Court in its Advisory Opinion concluded:

The established fact that an individual belongs to a religious movement that, in view of its characteristics, is considered by the competent administrative authority to represent a threat to the State may justify a refusal to authorise that individual to work as a security guard or officer, provided that the measure in question: (1) has an accessible and foreseeable legal basis; (2) is adopted in the light of the conduct or acts of the individual concerned; (3) is taken, having regard to the individual’s occupational activity, for the purpose of averting a real and serious risk for democratic society, and pursues one or more of the legitimate aims under Article 9 § 2 of the Convention; (4) is proportionate to the risk that it seeks to avert and to the legitimate aim or aims that it pursues; and (5) may be referred to a judicial authority for a review that is independent, effective and surrounded by appropriate procedural safeguards, such as to ensure compliance with the requirements listed above.

Virginia Supreme Court Rules For Teacher Who Refused To Use Student's Preferred Pronouns

In Vlaming v. West Point School Board, (VA Sup. Ct., Dec. 14, 2023), the Virginia Supreme Court, in a 4-3 decision, held that a teacher who was fired after refusing for religious reasons to use masculine pronouns in referring to a biologically female student has a claim for violation of the free exercise provisions of the Virginia state Constitution. The majority, in a 73-page opinion, held that the Virginia Constitution requires greater accommodation than does the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution when a neutral law of generally applicability conflicts with a religious belief. The majority said in part:

[W]e hold that in the Commonwealth of Virginia, the constitutional right to free exercise of religion is among the “natural and unalienable rights of mankind,” ... and that “overt acts against peace and good order,” correctly defines the limiting principle for this right and establishes the duty of government to accommodate religious liberties that do not transgress these limits.

The majority also held that plaintiff had adequately stated a claim under the Virginia Religious Freedom Restoration Act as well as a claim for violation of the free speech and due process provisions of the Virginia Constitution. The majority said in part:

Because the gravamen of Vlaming’s free-speech claims involves an allegation of compelled speech on an ideological subject, we hold that the circuit court erred when it dismissed Vlaming’s free-speech claims....

At the time that the School Board fired Vlaming, no clearly established law — whether constitutional, statutory, or regulatory — put a teacher on notice that not using third-person pronouns in addition to preferred names constituted an unlawful act of discrimination against transgender students. If the government truly means to compel speech, the compulsion must be clear and direct.

Finally the majority concluded that plaintiff adequately alleged that the School Board had breached his contract.

Justice Powell, joined by Chief Justice Goodwyn concurred in part, saying in part:

I write separately to clarify that, in my opinion, the proper test to evaluate a free exercise claim under Article I, Section 16 of the Virginia Constitution is traditional strict scrutiny as expressed in Sherbert v. Verner.... I disagree with the majority’s conclusion “that ‘overt acts against peace and good order,’ ... correctly defines the limiting principle for this right [in Article I, Section 16] and establishes the duty of the government to accommodate religious liberties that do not transgress these limits.”

Justice Mann filed a 64-page opinion dissenting in part. He said in part:

I dissent from the majority’s analysis and interpretation of Article I, Section 16.... The majority’s proposed limiting principle for the free exercise provision ... is not supported by the plain words of our Constitution, its history, our legal precedent, or legislative action of the General Assembly. I also dissent with respect to the majority’s rulings on Vlaming’s free speech and due process claims. Regarding Vlaming’s free-exercise claim, the majority establishes a sweeping super scrutiny standard with the potential to shield any person’s objection to practically any policy or law by claiming a religious justification for their failure to follow either.,,,

Where a claimant alleges that the government was hostile towards his religious free exercise or that the government did not neutrally apply the law, the reviewing court should apply strict scrutiny to determine whether the government’s enforcement was narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling state interest....

As for Vlaming’s free speech and due process claims, the facts speak for themselves. Under well-established federal precedent, Vlaming’s allegations as pleaded establish that Vlaming was (1) a public employee engaged in curricular speech pursuant to his official job duties, (2) not speaking as a private citizen on a matter of public concern; and (3) had ample notice that his refusal to use Doe’s preferred pronouns was a violation of the School Board’s policies, and the School Board provided him an opportunity to be heard on his discipline....

Justice Powell and Chief Justice Goodwyn joined the portions of Justice Mann's opinion that relate to the Virginia Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the free speech and due process provisions of the Virginia Constitution.

Florida Transgender Teachers Challenge Law That Bars Them from Using Their Preferred Pronouns

Suit was filed this week in a Florida federal district court by three current and former Florida public-school teachers who identify as transgender or non-binary. They challenge a provision of Florida law that bars K-12 teachers from providing students with the teacher's preferred title or pronouns if they do not reflect the teacher's biological sex. The 61-page complaint (full text) in Wood v. Florida Department of Education, (ND FL, filed 12/13/2023) alleges in part:

[The statute] unlawfully discriminates against Plaintiffs on the basis of sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 because whether Plaintiffs may provide to students a particular title or pronoun depends entirely on Plaintiffs’ sex, and Florida has only an invidious basis—not an exceedingly persuasive or even a rational one—for discriminating in this harmful way. It also unconstitutionally restrains Plaintiffs’ speech in violation of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution because it prohibits Plaintiffs from using the titles and pronouns that express who they are, the same way that their colleagues do.

The Hill reports on the lawsuit.

Thursday, December 14, 2023

Ohio Legislature Passes Bill on Transgender Treatment of Minors and Transgender Participation on Sports Teams

Yesterday, the Ohio legislature gave final approval to House Bill 68 (full text) which enacts the Saving Ohio Adolescents from Experimentation (SAFE) Act and the Save Women's Sports Act. The bill prohibits physicians from performing gender reassignment surgery or prescribing cross-sex hormones or puberty blockers to minors. It requires mental health professionals to obtain parental consent before diagnosing or treating a minor for a gender-related condition. The bill also prohibits transgender women from participating on women's athletic teams in schools that participate in interscholastic athletics and in public and private colleges. The bill additionally prohibits courts from denying or limiting parental rights because of a parent's decision to raise a child according to his or her biological sex or because the parent declines to consent to the child receiving gender transition services or counseling. The bill now goes to Governor Mike DeWine for his signature. The Cincinnati Enquirer, reporting on the bill, says it is unclear whether the governor will sign the legislation.

UPDATE: On Dec. 29, Governor DeWine vetoed the bill, but offered administrative alternatives. (See subsequent posting for details.)

4th Circuit: Nation of Gods and Earths May Qualify as a Religion

In Greene v. Lassiter, (4th Cir., Dec.13, 2023), the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in a pro se suit by a prisoner held that the district court should not have dismissed plaintiff's RLUIPA and the 1st Amendment claims. At issue is whether Nation of Gods and Earths ("NGE") qualifies as a "religion" for purposes of those provision. The court held that even though plaintiff's complaint said that NGE is a God-centered culture that should not be misconstrued as a religion, this should not be treated as a binding admission. The court said in part:

Greene’s statement wasn’t an “intentional and unambiguous waiver[] that release[d] the opposing party from its burden to prove the facts necessary to establish the waived conclusion of law.”... To the contrary, Greene has consistently maintained that he asserts rights under RLUIPA and the First Amendment for being denied the ability to practice his faith or belief system, even if NGE eschews the label of “religion.” And in RLUIPA, Congress “defined ‘religious exercise’ capaciously” and “mandated that this concept ‘shall be construed in favor of a broad protection of religious exercise....

Our review of the record shows that there may be at least an open factual question about whether NGE qualifies as a religion for RLUIPA and First Amendment purposes, making summary judgment inappropriate.

Wednesday, December 13, 2023

Supreme Court Grants Review of FDA's Rules on Prescribing and Distributing Abortion Pill

The U.S. Supreme Court today granted certiorari in two related cases, FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, (Docket No. 23-235, cert. granted 12/13/2023) and Danco Laboratories, LLC v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, (Docket No. 23-236, cert. granted, 12/13/2023). (Order List.) (SCOTUSblog case pages 23-235, 23-236) In the single opinion applying to both cases, the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld 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 and 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. (See prior posting.)

The Supreme Court denied review in Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA, (Docket No. 23-395, cert. denied, 12/13/2023) which sought review of the FDA's original approval of mifepristone in 2000. (SCOTUSblog case page.)

The district court's orders are not currently in effect because in April, the U.S. Supreme Court stayed the orders while appeals work their way through the courts. (See prior posting.)

SCOTUSblog reports on the Supreme Court's grants of review.

President Hosts White House Hanukkah Reception

On Monday evening, President Biden hosted a Hanukkah reception in the East Room of the White House. AP reports on the reception. The President spoke for ten minutes at the reception (full text of remarks), focusing in large part on the ongoing battle between Israel and Hamas. He said in part:

Most of you know someone directly or indirectly — a family, a friend — that was stolen from you or wounded, traumatized, or called up in the reserves in this last attack in Israel.

As I said after the attack, my commitment to the safety of the Jewish people, the security of Israel, and its right to exist ... as an independent Jewish state is ... just unshakeable.

Folks, were there no Israel, there wouldn’t be a Jew in the world who was safe....

And I make no bones about it. I’ve had my differences with some Israeli leadership. I’ve known Bibi for now 51 years. He has a picture on his desk of he and I when he was a young member of the Israeli ... foreign service, and I was a 32-year-old senator. And I wrote on the top of it, “Bibi, I love you, but I don’t agree with a damn thing you have to say.” (Laughter.)

Suit Challenges D.C. Bus Advertising Restrictions

Suit was filed yesterday in a D.C. federal district court against the Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority challenging its guidelines on permissible bus advertising. Plaintiff is an organization seeking to educate about the religious faith of the founders of America and the role of their religion in the drafting of the Constitution. Its ads violate two WMTA guidelines: one which prohibits advertising "intended to influence members of the public regarding an issue on which there are varying opinions" and the other which bars ads "that promote or oppose any religion, religious practice or belief." The complaint (full text) in WallBuilder Presentations v. Clarke, (D DC, filed 12/12/2023) alleges in part:

8. First, Guideline 9’s “issue” advertising ban, applied by WMATA to prohibit the advertisements, violates the First Amendment in a number of ways. It is unconstitutionally vague, announces an unworkable standard that grants unfettered discretion to the decisionmakers, and, consequently, unlawfully discriminates against WallBuilders’ religious viewpoint. While it rejected WallBuilders’ advertisements, WMATA permits a wide array of advertising relating to issues involving “varying opinions” on its public buses and other advertising venues subject to its Advertising Guidelines. WMATA also permits advertisements for other mission-oriented organizations, even advertisements that relate to the faith-based missions of other organizations.

9. Second, Guideline 12’s ban on religious advertising also infringes WallBuilders’ right to speak on otherwise permissible topics because of the religious viewpoint WallBuilders seeks to express in its advertisements. By refusing to accept advertisements that “promote or oppose any religion, religious practice or belief,” Guideline 12 necessarily results in discrimination against religious viewpoints on a range of otherwise permissible topics.

Daily Caller reports on the lawsuit which was brought on behalf of plaintiffs by the ACLU and First Liberty Institute, as well as the law firm Steptoe, LLP.

Menorah Lighting Triggers Debate Over Secularism In France

The Forward (Dec. 11) reports that a new controversy over the meaning of secularism is raging since last week in France:

The scene of the figurative bonfire was, remarkably, the official home of the president, the Elysée Palace.... [Emmanuel] Macron was awarded the Lord Jacobovits Prize, an award ... to honor individuals who have distinguished themselves in the combat against antisemitism and the defense of the freedom to practice the Jewish faith.

Thursday also happened to be the first night of Hanukkah.... Haim Korsia, the chief rabbi of France, decided to mark the holiday. While Macron, hands clasped in front, stood to one side, Korsia lit both the shamash and first candle while intoning the blessings. Macron also lit a candle, though not for festival of light but instead for the memory of the millions who died in the Shoah.

... [L]ater that evening, Mendel Samama, one of the rabbis who attended the ceremony, released a video of the lighting, which he hailed as “Historique!”

... For the first time since 1905 and the promulgation of the law separating the French state and church — one that affirmed the strict neutrality of the former in religions affairs and relegated the latter to the private sphere — a religious ceremony was held inside the presidential palace. As a result, what was kept alive on that first night was not the miracle of the Jewish holiday, but the meaning of French laicity. The event was, as one commentator declared, “without precedent.”

Almost immediately, the festival of lights was overtaken by critics lighting into Macron for desecrating the secular purity of the French republic.

Tuesday, December 12, 2023

Texas Supreme Court Reverses Trial Court Order That Allowed an Abortion

In In re State of Texas, (TX Sup. Ct., Dec. 11, 2023), the Texas Supreme Court directed a trial court to vacate a temporary restraining order that it issued on Dec. 7. The trial court's order (see prior posting) allowed plaintiff Kate Cox who is carrying a fetus diagnosed with a fatal chromosomal condition to obtain an abortion. The Supreme Court said in part:

In this case, the pleadings state that Ms. Cox’s doctor—Dr. Damla Karsan—believes Ms. Cox qualifies for an abortion based on the medical-necessity exception. But when she sued seeking a court’s pre-authorization, Dr. Karsan did not assert that Ms. Cox has a “life-threatening physical condition” or that, in Dr. Karsan’s reasonable medical judgment, an abortion is necessary because Ms. Cox has the type of condition the exception requires....

A woman who meets the medical-necessity exception need not seek a court order to obtain an abortion. Under the law, it is a doctor who must decide that a woman is suffering from a life-threatening condition during a pregnancy, raising the necessity for an abortion to save her life or to prevent impairment of a major bodily function. The law leaves to physicians—not judges—both the discretion and the responsibility to exercise their reasonable medical judgment, given the unique facts and circumstances of each patient....

Dr. Karsan asserted that she has a “good faith belief” that Ms. Cox meets the exception’s requirements. Certainly, a doctor cannot exercise “reasonable medical judgment” if she does not hold her judgment in good faith. But the statute requires that judgment be a “reasonable medical” judgment, and Dr. Karsan has not asserted that her “good faith belief” about Ms. Cox’s condition meets that standard. Judges do not have the authority to expand the statutory exception to reach abortions that do not fall within its text under the guise of interpreting it.

Meanwhile, the Center for Reproductive Rights announced that Ms. Cox has left Texas in order to get health care elsewhere. CNN reports on the Texas Supreme Court's decision.

2nd Circuit: Jewish School Prevented From Purchasing Site Meets Standing and Ripeness Requirements To Sue

In Ateres Bais Yaakov Academy of Rockland v. Town of Clarkston, (2d Cir., Dec. 8, 2023), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals held that an Orthodox Jewish school that was prevented by town officials and a citizens' group from purchasing property on which to build met the standing and ripeness requirements to bring suit under RLUIPA, civil rights laws and state tort law. The court said in part:

ABY argues on appeal that its claims were ripe because nothing more than de facto finality is required for us to review them, and that such finality attached when the Zoning Board informed ABY that it would not entertain its appeal. ABY also argues that the district court erred in holding that ABY failed to satisfy the traceability requirement of Article III standing as to its tortious interference claim because it adequately pleaded that the Town Defendants’ conduct caused its contractual injuries. We agree with ABY and, therefore, we REVERSE the judgement of the district court and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

4th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments on Planned Parenthood Funding Cutoff

The U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals last Friday heard oral arguments (audio of full oral arguments) in Planned Parenthood South Atlantic v. Kerr. The case, which is on remand from the Supreme Court, involves South Carolina's appeal of an injunction that bars it from terminating Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood. (See prior posting.) ADF has further background on the case.

Monday, December 11, 2023

Certiorari Denied in Challenge to Conversion Therapy Ban

Today by a vote of 6-3, the U.S. Supreme Court denied review in Tingley v. Ferguson, (Docket No. 22-942, certiorari denied 12/11/2023). In the case the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected free speech, free exercise and vagueness challenges to Washington state's ban on practicing conversion therapy on minors. (See prior posting.) Justice Thomas filed an opinion dissenting from the denial of certiorari, saying in part:

Under SB 5722, licensed counselors can speak with minors about gender dysphoria, but only if they convey the state-approved message of encouraging minors to explore their gender identities. Expressing any other message is forbidden—even if the counselor’s clients ask for help to accept their biological sex. That is viewpoint-based and content-based discrimination in its purest form. As a result, SB 5722 is presumptively unconstitutional, and the state must show that it can survive strict scrutiny before enforcing it.

The Ninth Circuit attempted to sidestep this framework by concluding that counseling is unprotected by the First Amendment because States have traditionally regulated the practice of medicine....

This case is not the first instance of the Ninth Circuit restricting medical professionals’ First Amendment rights, and without the Court’s review, I doubt it will be the last.

Justice Alito filed a brief opinion dissenting from the denial of review. Justice Kavanaugh also indicated that he would grant the petition for certiorari.

Litigation Over Air Force's Handling of Religious Objections to Vaccine Mandate Dismissed as Moot by Supreme Court

The U.S. Supreme Court today in Kendall v. Doster, (Docket No. 23-154, GVR'd 12/11/2023) (Order List), granted certiorari, vacated the judgment below, and remanded the case to the 6th Circuit with instructions to direct the District Court to vacate its preliminary injunctions as moot. In the case, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court's grant of a class-wide preliminary injunction barring the Air Force from disciplining Air Force personnel who had sought religious exemptions from the military's COVID vaccine mandate. (See prior posting.) The case is moot because the vaccine mandate has been rescinded by the military in compliance with Congressional legislation ordering the recission. (See prior posting.) The court similarly remanded as moot two other cases involving other challenges to rescinded federal vaccine mandates.

Sunday, December 10, 2023

2nd Circuit: NY Ban on Firearms in Places of Worship Violates Free Exercise Rights

Antonyuk v. Chiumento, (2d Cir., Dec. 8, 2023), is a 261-page opinion upholding in part and rejecting in many other respects constitutional challenges to New York's Concealed Carry Improvement Act. One of the constitutional challenges which the court upheld was a claim by a pastor and his church that applying a firearms ban to non-security personnel in places of worship violates the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses. In the case, the pastor alleged that the New York restrictions interfere with his religious duty to protect his congregation by being armed in church and by inviting other congregants with concealed carry licenses to bring their firearms. In accepting that argument, the court said in part:

[T]he CCIA is not neutral because it allows the owners of many forms of private property, including many types of retail businesses open to the public, to decide for themselves whether to allow firearms on the premises while denying the same autonomy to places of worship. By adopting a law that applies differently as to places of worship (alongside the other enumerated sensitive places) than to most other privately owned businesses and properties, the CCIA is, on its face, neither neutral nor generally applicable....

The State provides no explanation for why leaders of religious groups in general, and the Plaintiffs specifically, are less able to “eject persons carrying firearms” than any other property owner who is permitted to make a free choice whether to allow firearms on their premises.... A place of worship that prohibits guns will be equally reliant on the police and the criminal law to eject a person carrying a firearm, whether it does so pursuant to a sensitive place designation or a church policy. Either way, someone will have to call the cops. And if the State has determined that places of worship must be designated as sensitive places because criminal trespass law is not enough to keep out guns, then the decision to regulate places of worship more assiduously than other locations amounts to an unequal pursuit of the interest in preventing gun violence. Such an approach is understandable, but unconstitutional....

Reuters reports on the decision.

Saturday, December 09, 2023

U Penn Sued Over Hostile Antisemitic Campus Environment

Suit was filed earlier this week in a Pennsylvania federal district court by two Jewish students alleging that the hostile environment for Jewish students on the University of Pennsylvania's campus violates Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law and constitutes a breach of contract. The 84-page complaint (full text) in Yakoby v. University of Pennsylvania, (ED PA, filed 12/5/2023), alleges in part:

1. Penn, the historic 300-year-old Ivy League university, has transformed itself into an incubation lab for virulent anti-Jewish hatred, harassment, and discrimination. Once welcoming to Jewish students, Penn now subjects them to a pervasively hostile educational environment. Among other things, Penn enforces its own rules of conduct selectively to avoid protecting Jewish students from hatred and harassment, hires rabidly antisemitic professors who call for anti-Jewish violence and spread terrorist propaganda, and ignores Jewish students’ pleas for protection. In doing so, Penn has placed plaintiffs and other Jewish and Israeli students at severe emotional and physical risk.

2. This lawsuit seeks to hold Penn accountable under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for the damages it has caused plaintiffs and for its failure to remedy the hostile environment on its campus. The harassment and discrimination on campus and in the classroom are relentless and intolerable. Plaintiffs and their Jewish peers are routinely subjected to vile and threatening antisemitic slurs and chants such as “Intifada Revolution,” “from the River to the Sea,” “Fuck the Jews,” “the Jews deserve everything that is happening to them,” “you are a dirty Jew, don’t look at us,” “keep walking you dirty little Jew,” “get out of here kikes!” and “go back to where you came from.” Plaintiffs and other Jewish students must traverse classrooms, dormitories, and buildings vandalized with antisemitic graffiti. Subjected to intense anti-Jewish vitriol, these students have been deprived of the ability and opportunity to fully and meaningfully participate in Penn’s educational and other programs.

The Daily Pennsylvanian reports on the lawsuit.

Friday, December 08, 2023

Texas Court Issues TRO Permitting an Abortion; Texas AG Responds

A Texas state trial court yesterday issued a Temporary Restraining Order prohibiting the Texas Attorney General and the state Medical Board from enforcing Texas' abortion ban against plaintiff physician and her staff for performing a D&E abortion for plaintiff Kate Cox who is carrying a fetus diagnosed with a chromosomal condition that will result in its death before birth or at most in a few days after birth. The court in Cox v. State of Texas, (TX Dist. Ct., Dec. 7, 2023), said in part:

The longer Ms. Cox stays pregnant, the greater the risks to her life. Ms. Cox has already been to three emergency rooms with severe cramping, diarrhea, and leaking unidentifiable fluid.... If she is forced to carry this pregnancy to term, she will likely need a third C-section ... [which would] make it less likely that Ms. Cox would be able to carry another child in the future.

Dr. Karsan has met Ms. Cox, reviewed her medical records, and believes in good faith, exercising her best medical judgment, that a D&E abortion is medically recommended for Ms. Cox and that the medical exception to Texas' abortion bans and laws permits an abortion in Ms. Cox's circumstances. Dr. Karsan, however, cannot risk liability under Texas's abortion bans and laws for providing Ms. Cox's abortion absent intervention from the Court confirming that doing so will not jeopardize Dr. Karsan's medical license, finances and personal liberty.

Responding to the decision, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said in a press release:

The Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) granted by the Travis County district judge purporting to allow an abortion to proceed will not insulate hospitals, doctors, or anyone else, from civil and criminal liability for violating Texas’ abortion laws. This includes first degree felony prosecutions.... and civil penalties of not less than $100,000 for each violation.... And, while the TRO purports to temporarily enjoin actions brought by the OAG and TMB against Dr. Karsan and her staff, it does not enjoin actions brought by private citizens.... Nor does it prohibit a district or county attorney from enforcing Texas’ pre-Roe abortion laws against Dr. Karsan or anyone else. The TRO will expire long before the statute of limitations for violating Texas’ abortion laws expires.

He also sent a letter (full text) to three hospitals-- which were not parties to the case-- warning that they may be liable for negligently credentialing the physician and failing to exercise appropriate medical judgment if they permit the abortion to be performed in their facility. Austin-American Statesman reports on the decision.

UPDATE: On Dec. 8, the Texas Supreme Court administratively stayed the trial court's order while it considers the case on appeal.