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
© 2025 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 All'I've Seen Terrible Things': Lawyer Predicts Spike in Hazing Suits
How 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
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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