Florida's Abortion Ban Remains in Effect Amid Court Battle
The 15-week restriction will remain in effect at least until the First District Court of Appeal, above, or possibly the Florida Supreme Court, rules on the state's appeal of a temporary injunction blocking the law.
July 13, 2022 at 02:31 PM
3 minute read
A new Florida law preventing abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy will remain in effect while a legal battle plays out.
Leon County Circuit Judge John Cooper last week issued a temporary injunction to block the law, finding that it violated the Florida Constitution. But the state appealed, which, under court rules, triggered an automatic stay of the injunction.
Cooper on Tuesday denied a request from abortion clinics and a physician to vacate the stay. That effectively means the injunction remains on hold and that the 15-week restriction will remain in effect at least until the First District Court of Appeal — or possibly the Florida Supreme Court — rules on the state's appeal.
Cooper pointed to a "very high burden" that the First District Court of Appeal has set for vacating stays while appeals are pending. He wrote that "courts are obliged to follow binding precedent even if they might wish to decide the case differently" and pointed to direction from the appeals court that automatic stays may only be vacated "under the most compelling circumstances."
In addition, Cooper's order listed a series of cases in recent years, including a high-profile decision in May by a circuit judge to vacate an automatic stay in a congressional redistricting lawsuit. The Tallahassee-based appeals court quickly overturned that decision, putting the stay back into effect.
"The above cases regarding the automatic stay are included in this order to demonstrate the basis for this court's conclusion that the First District has established a high barrier, based on the 'most compelling circumstances' doctrine, to a trial court issuing an order vacating an automatic stay," he wrote.
The abortion clinics and physician filed the lawsuit June 1, arguing that the 15-week limit violated a privacy clause in the Florida Constitution that has long played a key role in bolstering abortion rights in the state. Cooper agreed with that argument in issuing the temporary injunction July 5.
After the state quickly appealed, triggering the automatic stay, the plaintiffs filed an emergency motion to vacate the stay.
"Every day that HB 5 [the law] remains in effect, Florida patients in desperate need of post-15-week abortion services are being turned away and forced to attempt to seek abortions out of state, if they are able to do so; to attempt abortions outside the medical system; or to continue pregnancies against their will," the emergency motion said.
But Attorney General Ashley Moody's office objected to vacating the stay, in part saying in a court filing that the plaintiffs had not "shown a likelihood of success on the merits" of their arguments in the case. Also, the filing cited the Florida Supreme Court's "preference for preserving legislative enactments pending appeal even when a trial court has found them invalid."
The plaintiffs could ask the appeals court to vacate the stay. It is not clear how long it could take for the appeals court to rule on the temporary injunction — or whether it will.
The state has asked that the case be fast-tracked to the Florida Supreme Court, bypassing a decision by the appeals court. The plaintiffs have objected to such a move.
Jim Saunders reports for the News Service of Florida.
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 AllAmid Growing Litigation Volume, Don't Expect UnitedHealthcare to Change Its Stripes After CEO's Killing
6 minute readFreeman Mathis & Gary Taps Orlando for Third New Florida Office This Year
3 minute readFla.'s Statute of Limitations and Statutes of Repose in Med Mal Cases: It's Not Over Until It's Over
6 minute readTrending 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