Abortion Law Foes Object to Fast-Tracking Case
The state's lawyers pointed to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, writing that in the past, "the Florida Supreme Court has relied on the U.S. Supreme Court's abortion decisions in reasoning that Florida's privacy clause 'implicate(s)' the right to abortion."
July 12, 2022 at 10:40 AM
4 minute read
Attorneys for abortion clinics and a physician objected Monday to fast-tracking a legal fight about a new Florida law that prevents abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy and disputed that a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade affects the case.
The attorneys filed a response after Attorney General Ashley Moody's office last week requested that the case effectively bypass the 1st District Court of Appeal and go to the Florida Supreme Court.
Moody's office made the request after Leon Circuit Judge John Cooper issued a temporary injunction against the 15-week abortion limit, ruling it violated a privacy clause in the Florida Constitution. The state quickly appealed Cooper's ruling to the 1st District Court of Appeal and asked for what is known as "certification" to move it quickly to the Supreme Court.
But in the response Monday, attorneys for the abortion clinics and physician disputed that "urgency" exists to fast-track the case. They filed the lawsuit June 1 and focused on the Florida Constitution's privacy clause, which has long played a key role in supporting abortion rights in the state.
"Florida's Constitution anticipates district courts deciding constitutional challenges before Supreme Court review," the response said. "The state cites no authority to show that a hope of overturning decades of Florida Supreme Court precedent justifies disregarding this normal appellate progression."
The response also fired back against arguments by Moody's office that the U.S. Supreme Court's June 24 ruling that overturned the landmark Roe v. Wade abortion-rights decision bolsters the state's position on the 15-week limit.
"Floridians' right to abortion is rooted in the privacy clause in the Florida Constitution — a clause, adopted in 1980, that has no analogue in the federal Constitution and therefore is entirely unaffected by Dobbs (the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade)," the response said.
In its request to speed the case to the Supreme Court, Moody's office said the appeal of Cooper's temporary injunction "raises questions of exceptional public importance that warrant immediate resolution by the Florida Supreme Court. This (1st District) Court should so certify this appeal (to the Supreme Court) as soon as practicable."
The state's lawyers also pointed to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, writing that in the past, "the Florida Supreme Court has relied on the U.S. Supreme Court's abortion decisions in reasoning that Florida's privacy clause 'implicate(s)' the right to abortion."
The state's filing said the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, a Mississippi case, "rejected the notion that a right to abortion 'is an integral part of a broader entrenched right,' whether characterized as a 'right to privacy'" or as "the freedom to make 'intimate and personal choices' that are 'central to personal dignity and autonomy.'"
"That sea-change in federal law plainly warrants reconsideration of the Florida Supreme Court's interpretation of Florida's own constitutional right to privacy, and there will be great uncertainty in Florida until it does so," the state's lawyers wrote.
While Cooper issued a temporary injunction against the 15-week law, the injunction was placed on hold when the state filed the notice of appeal at the Tallahassee-based 1st District Court of Appeal. That is because the notice triggered an automatic stay, under an appellate rule.
Attorneys for the abortion clinics and physician asked Cooper to vacate the automatic stay. They pointed, in part, to "irreparable harm" if the 15-week limit remains in effect during the appeal. Cooper had not ruled on vacating the stay as of early Monday afternoon, according to a court docket.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllHow Florida Supreme Court Changes Affect Firms: AI Concerns at Forefront
11th Circuit Rejects Private School's Religious Rights Claim When Stopped From Broadcasting Public Prayer
Trending Stories
- 1'Largest Retail Data Breach in History'? Hot Topic and Affiliated Brands Sued for Alleged Failure to Prevent Data Breach Linked to Snowflake Software
- 2Former President of New York State Bar, and the New York Bar Foundation, Dies As He Entered 70th Year as Attorney
- 3Legal Advocates in Uproar Upon Release of Footage Showing CO's Beat Black Inmate Before His Death
- 4Longtime Baker & Hostetler Partner, Former White House Counsel David Rivkin Dies at 68
- 5Court System Seeks Public Comment on E-Filing for Annual Report
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250