Florida Court Rejects Abortion Law Injunction
A key issue has been whether the plaintiffs could show "irreparable harm" from the near-total ban on abortions after 15 weeks.
August 25, 2022 at 06:00 AM
3 minute read
An appeals court Wednesday tossed out a temporary injunction that would have blocked a new Florida law preventing abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy.
A panel of the 1st District Court of Appeal had signaled last month that it would reject the temporary injunction issued by Leon County Circuit Judge John Cooper, who said the 15-week limit violated a privacy right in the Florida Constitution.
Wednesday's one-paragraph main ruling, written by Judge Brad Thomas and joined by Judge Stephanie Ray, cited a July 21 decision by the panel that allowed the 15-week limit to remain in effect as legal battling continued. Judge Susan Kelsey dissented Wednesday, as she did in the July 21 decision.
The Republican-controlled Legislature passed the 15-week limit this year amid a national debate about abortion rights. A group of abortion clinics and a doctor filed the lawsuit June 1, arguing that the 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 the plaintiffs, issuing a temporary injunction July 5. The state quickly appealed, which, under legal rules, placed an automatic stay on the temporary injunction.
The appeals court's July 21 decision kept the stay in place, while also making clear that the panel likely would reject the underlying temporary injunction. Thomas wrote Wednesday that attorneys for the plaintiffs and the state did not provide additional briefs or arguments after the July 21 decision.
A key issue has been whether the plaintiffs could show "irreparable harm" from the near-total ban on abortions after 15 weeks.
In last month's decision, Thomas wrote that "a temporary injunction cannot be issued absent a showing of irreparable harm. As to appellees (the abortion clinics and doctor) themselves, any loss of income from the operation of the law cannot provide a basis for a finding of irreparable harm as a matter of law. And the parties do not dispute that the operation of the law will not affect the majority of provided abortions."
Also, Thomas wrote that the plaintiffs "cannot lawfully obtain a temporary injunction as they cannot assert that they will suffer irreparable harm unless the trial court preserves the status quo ante. … Appellees' claims are based on the allegation that they are in doubt regarding their ability to provide abortions, not that they themselves may be prohibited from obtaining an abortion after a certain time."
In Wednesday's ruling, he briefly alluded to the issue, writing that the plaintiffs "could not assert irreparable harm on behalf of persons not appearing below" in circuit court.
In her dissent last month, Kelsey argued that the court should vacate the stay that allowed the abortion limit to remain in effect. She cited that opinion Wednesday as she again dissented.
"In the specific context of abortion regulation, the Florida Supreme Court has held that even 'minimal' loss of the constitutional right of privacy is per-se irreparable injury," Kelsey wrote last month, She added, "We are therefore required to presume irreparable harm."
Attorneys for the clinics and the doctor asked the Florida Supreme Court on Friday to vacate the stay and pointed to irreparable harm.
"Every day that HB 5 remains enforceable, Florida patients in desperate need of post-15-week abortion services are being turned away and forced to attempt to seek abortions hundreds of miles or more out of state, to attempt abortions outside the medical system, or to continue pregnancies against their will," a 30-page emergency motion said.
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'Black Box Evidence is Bulletproof': South Florida Attorneys Obtain $1 Million Settlement
2 minute readUS Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Brought Under NYC Gender Violence Law, Ruling Claims Barred Under State Measure
Attorney Emerges as Possible Owner of Historic Miami Courthouse Amid Delays of New Building
Trending Stories
- 1Judge Sides With Retail Display Company in Patent Dispute Against Campbell Soup, Grocery Stores
- 2Is It Time for Large UK Law Firms to Begin Taking Private Equity Investment?
- 3Federal Judge Pauses Trump Funding Freeze as Democratic AGs Launch Defensive Measure
- 4Class Action Litigator Tapped to Lead Shook, Hardy & Bacon's Houston Office
- 5Arizona Supreme Court Presses Pause on KPMG's Bid to Deliver Legal Services
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