Florida Supreme Court Keeps in Place 15-Week Abortion Limit
The justices, in a 4-1 decision, turned down a motion by seven abortion clinics and a doctor for a stay of a ruling by the First District Court of Appeal that kept the law in place.
January 25, 2023 at 01:01 PM
4 minute read
The Florida Supreme Court rejected requests to halt a law that prevents abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy.
The justices, in a 4-1 decision, turned down a motion by seven abortion clinics and a doctor for a stay of a ruling by the First District Court of Appeal that kept the law in place. The one-paragraph decision did not detail the Supreme Court's reasoning.
At a minimum, the decision will keep the law in effect until the Supreme Court can rule on underlying issues in the case. Justices Charles Canady, Ricky Polston, John Couriel and Jamie Grosshans were in the majority, while Justice Jorge Labarga wrote a short dissent.
"In view of this [Supreme] Court's longstanding precedent, I conclude that the petitioners have met the exacting burden required for this Court to stay the First District Court of Appeal's decision pending review in this Court," Labarga wrote.
Chief Justice Carlos Muniz and Justice Renatha Francis did not take part.
The majority's decision did not directly address a major question in the case: whether the Supreme Court will reverse decades of legal precedent that has said a privacy clause in the state Constitution protects abortion rights.
The decision and a similar 4-1 ruling Monday on another issue involving a stay came about five months after the First District Court of Appeal tossed out a temporary injunction issued by Leon County Circuit Judge John Cooper, who said the 15-week limit violated the privacy clause in the Constitution.
The appeals court ruled the plaintiffs could not show "irreparable harm" from the 15-week limit, which lawmakers and Gov. Ron DeSantis approved last year amid a national debate about abortion rights.
The plaintiffs quickly took the case to the Supreme Court and asked for a stay of the appeals-court ruling to prevent the law from being in effect while the legal battle continued. Earlier, the plaintiffs had asked the Supreme Court to vacate an automatic stay that had been imposed on Cooper's ruling after it went to the appeals court. The other 4-1 decision Monday rejected that request.
The clinics and physician Shelly Hsiao-Ying Tien filed the lawsuit June 1, and Cooper issued the temporary injunction July 5. The state immediately appealed, which, under legal rules, placed the automatic stay on Cooper's ruling, keeping the 15-week limit in effect.
The appeals court refused to lift the automatic stay and subsequently rejected Cooper's temporary injunction.
In their Aug. 31 motion for a stay filed at the Supreme Court, the plaintiffs contended that the First District Court of Appeal had not followed precedents.
"Granting plaintiffs' requests to stay the First DCA's decision and allow the injunction to take effect would restore the status quo while litigation continues and allow Floridians to resume exercise of their constitutional right to decide whether to carry a pregnancy to term or obtain a pre-viability abortion — a right that this [Supreme] Court has repeatedly recognized is encompassed by the Florida Constitution's right of privacy," said the brief, filed by attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union, Planned Parenthood, the Center for Reproductive Rights and the national law firm of Jenner & Block.
But in September, Attorney General Ashley Moody's office urged the Supreme Court to reject the motion for a stay, and to go further by finding that the privacy clause does not apply to abortion rights.
"Florida's Privacy Clause creates a right 'to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into the person's private life,'" lawyers in Moody's office wrote in one filing. "That language is naturally read to limit governmental snooping and information-gathering — but not to establish a liberty to destroy unborn (or any other) life."
If the Supreme Court ultimately goes along with Moody's arguments, it could clear the way for DeSantis and the Republican-controlled Legislature to place more restrictions on abortions. The court has become dominated by conservative justices since DeSantis took office in 2019, at least in part because of the retirements of three longtime justices, Barbara Pariente, R. Fred Lewis and Peggy Quince, who helped make up a more liberal majority.
Monday's decisions came a day after Vice President Kamala Harris made an appearance in Tallahassee to support abortion rights on the 50th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe last year, leaving abortion decisions up to states.
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 All'Serious Disruptions'?: Federal Courts Brace for Government Shutdown Threat
3 minute readDivided State Court Reinstates Dispute Over Replacement Vehicles Fees
5 minute readSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute read'They Got All Bent Out of Shape:' Parkland Lawyers Clash With Each Other
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