Florida Supreme Court to Hear Abortion Case in September
The outcome of the case will affect a law passed this year that would bar abortions after six weeks of pregnancy and could determine whether a privacy clause in the Florida Constitution will protect abortion rights.
July 10, 2023 at 02:23 PM
4 minute read
Cases and CourtsThe Florida Supreme Court said it will hear arguments Sept. 8 in a case that could play a major role in the future of abortion rights in the state.
The court issued an order scheduling a hearing in a challenge to a 2022 law that prevented abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. The outcome of the case also will affect a law passed this year that would bar abortions after six weeks of pregnancy and could determine whether a privacy clause in the Florida Constitution will protect abortion rights.
Attorney General Ashley Moody's office is asking the Supreme Court to back away from more than three decades of legal precedents that have said the privacy clause applies to abortion rights. Moody's office said in a March 29 brief that past rulings were "clearly erroneous" and that decisions about abortion restrictions should be left to the Legislature.
"Rather than allow the legislative process to unfold in response to new scientific and medical developments, this [Supreme] Court's [past] abortion cases have disabled the state from preventing serious harm to women and children and stifled democratic resolution of profoundly important questions touching on the treatment of unborn life, when an unborn child is capable of consciousness and pain, and what medical procedures affecting the procreative process are safe and appropriate to allow," the brief said.
But attorneys for abortion clinics and a doctor challenging the 15-week limit, known as HB 5, argued in an April 28 brief that the Supreme Court should maintain the long-standing interpretation of the privacy clause.
"Unable to justify HB 5's extreme ban under existing law, the state instead asks this court to abandon precedent and overrule a fundamental constitutional right that generations of Floridians have relied on," the plaintiffs' brief said. "This radical request — which is unsupported by plain language, history, or law — would defy the will of the people and threaten to upend this court's privacy jurisprudence well beyond abortion."
Seven abortion clinics and physician Shelly Hsiao-Ying Tien filed the lawsuit in June 2022 challenging the constitutionality of the 15-week abortion law.
Leon County Circuit Judge John Cooper agreed with the plaintiffs that the law violated the state Constitution and issued a temporary injunction. But a panel of the 1st District Court of Appeal overturned the injunction, ruling that the plaintiffs could not show "irreparable harm" from the 15-week limit.
The appeals court's decision allowed the 15-week limit to take effect, and the plaintiffs are asking the Supreme Court to reinstate the injunction. The Supreme Court in January agreed to take up the case but did not set a date for arguments until Friday.
With the case pending, the Republican-controlled Legislature and Gov. Ron DeSantis this spring approved the six-week abortion limit. But the six-week limit is contingent on the outcome of the challenge to the 15-week law.
Florida voters in 1980 approved a constitutional amendment that established state privacy rights. A 1989 Florida Supreme Court ruling set an initial precedent about the privacy clause protecting abortion rights, and subsequent decisions have followed that precedent.
If the Supreme Court finds in the 15-week case that the privacy clause does not protect abortion rights, it would effectively allow the state to move forward with the six-week limit. The Supreme Court has become far more conservative during the past four years, in part because of appointments by DeSantis.
Meanwhile, a coalition of groups in May began a drive to try to pass a constitutional amendment in 2024 to ensure abortion rights. The proposal, spearheaded by the political committee Floridians Protecting Freedom, would seek to ensure abortion rights up to fetal viability, which has generally been interpreted as about 24 weeks of pregnancy.
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
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