Clinics, Doctor Go to Supreme Court in Abortion Law Fight
Abortion clinics and a doctor have launched a challenge at the Florida Supreme Court after an appeals court Wednesday rejected a temporary injunction…
August 29, 2022 at 11:15 AM
4 minute read
Abortion clinics and a doctor have launched a challenge at the Florida Supreme Court after an appeals court Wednesday rejected a temporary injunction that would have blocked a new law preventing abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy.
Attorneys for the group of clinics and the doctor, Shelly Hsiao-Ying Tien, filed a notice late Thursday afternoon that is a first step in asking the Supreme Court to review the decision by a panel of the First District Court of Appeal.
The notice, posted on the Supreme Court website Friday, was the latest in a series of legal moves in the battle about the law, which the Legislature and Gov. Ron DeSantis approved this year.
As is common, the notice does not detail arguments the attorneys will make at the Supreme Court. But it is rooted in a temporary injunction issued July 5 by Leon County Circuit Judge John Cooper, who ruled that the 15-week abortion limit violated a privacy clause in the Florida Constitution that has bolstered abortion rights in the state for more than three decades.
Lawyers for the state appealed Cooper's ruling to the Tallahassee-based First District Court of Appeal, a move that, under legal rules, placed an automatic stay on the temporary injunction. That effectively allowed the 15-week abortion limit to be in effect while the legal wrangling continued.
The clinics and the doctor, represented by attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union, Planned Parenthood, the Center for Reproductive Rights and the international law firm of Jenner & Block, asked the appeals court to lift the stay.
But the panel of the appeals court, in a 2-1 decision July 21, refused to lift the stay. The panel, in another 2-1 decision Wednesday, tossed out Cooper's underlying temporary injunction.
The Republican-controlled Legislature passed the 15-week limit amid a national debate about abortion rights, and the abortion clinics and the doctor filed the lawsuit June 1.
Wednesday's decision by the appeals court was based on the rationale it used in refusing to lift the stay July 21. A key issue has been whether the plaintiffs could show "irreparable harm" from the near-total ban on abortions after 15 weeks.
In the July 21 decision, Judge Brad 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, who was joined in the opinion by Judge Stephanie Ray, 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."
But Judge Susan Kelsey dissented July 21 and in Wednesday's decision.
"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 clinic and the doctor also appealed the July 21 decision about the stay to the Supreme Court, but that issue remained pending before the Wednesday decision.
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 All11th Circuit Revives Project Veritas' Defamation Lawsuit Against CNN
Courts of Appeal Conflicted Over Rule 1.442(c)(3) When Claims for Damages Involve a Husband and Wife
Florida Court's Reversal of Attorney Fees Triggered by Client's Death
4 minute readCOVID-19 Death Suit Against Nursing Home Sent to State Court, 11th Circuit Affirms
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
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