Divided Sixth Circuit Rules En Banc Against Planned Parenthood in Ohio Funding Fight
A split en banc ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has cleared the way for Ohio to cut funding to health care groups that provide abortions.
March 12, 2019 at 11:48 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
A split en banc ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has cleared the way for Ohio to cut funding to health care groups that provide abortions.
Tuesday's 11-6 ruling in a case brought by Planned Parenthood in Ohio overturns a unanimous three-judge panel and a district court, which had found an Ohio law meant to prevent funding from going to groups that provide or promote abortions was unconstitutional. But the en banc panel on Monday found there is no constitutional violation, since there is no due process right to perform abortions.
Judge Jeffrey Sutton wrote the majority opinion holding that Ohio's law “will not create an undue burden on a woman's right to an abortion.”
“Private organizations do not have a constitutional right to obtain governmental funding to support their activities,” Sutton wrote. “The state also may choose not to subsidize constitutionally protected activities. Just as it has no obligation to provide a platform for an individual's free speech, say a Speaker's Corner in downtown Columbus, it has no obligation to pay for a woman's abortion. Case after case establishes that a government may refuse to subsidize abortion services.”
“The Supreme Court has never identified a freestanding right to perform abortions,” Sutton continued. “To the contrary, it has indicated that there is no such thing. … Medical centers do not have a constitutional right to offer abortions. Yet, if we granted Planned Parenthood relief today, we would be effectively saying that they do.”
In the dissent, Judge Helene White said the majority failed to apply a recent U.S. Supreme Court doctrine prohibiting the government from imposing a condition on funds if those conditions violate the Constitution if enacted as a regulation and if they affect protected conduct outside the scope of a government program.
“The majority's novel rule gives the government the authority to impose almost any condition it wants on abortion providers so long as the providers continue to perform abortions,” White wrote. “The government acknowledged as much at oral argument. This type of assault on a constitutional right is precisely the type of harm the unconstitutional-conditions doctrine is meant to protect against.”
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr's Alan Schoenfeld argued for the Planned Parenthood affiliates, and Stephen Carney, of the Ohio attorney general's office, represented the state. Ohio state solicitor Eric Murphy, recently confirmed to the Sixth Circuit, also was on the team defending Ohio. U.S. Justice Department appellate lawyer Hashim Mooppan, appearing in support of Ohio, argued for the U.S. government as an amicus.
The Ohio case is almost assured to go up to the U.S. Supreme Court. In December, the Supreme Court declined to review two appellate court decisions blocking state efforts to deny public funding to Planned Parenthood chapters.
The two cases from Kansas and Louisiana—Andersen v. Planned Parenthood of Kansas & Mid-Missouri and Gee v. Planned Parenthood of Gulf Coast—involved the Medicaid Act's “qualified provider” provision and whether it created a right to challenge a state's decision that a provider is “not qualified” under state regulations. The two states had terminated their Medicaid provider agreements with the Planned Parenthood affiliates.
The Fifth and Tenth circuits ruled against the states.
The Supreme Court denied review without comment, but Justice Clarence Thomas dissented. Thomas, joined by justices Samuel Alito Jr. and Neil Gorsuch, accused his colleagues of “abdicating” their judicial duty because of the cases' abortion connection.
“Some tenuous connection to a politically fraught issue does not justify abdicating our judicial duty,” Thomas wrote, noting the legal issue has nothing to do with abortion. “If anything, neutrally applying the law is all the more important when political issues are in the background.”
Marcia Coyle contributed to this report.
Read the ruling:
[falcon-embed src="embed_1"]
Read more:
Efforts to Unsettle 'Roe' Move Toward Supreme Court, as Kavanaugh Faces Senate
Another DOJ Appellate Veteran Leaves Post Amid Trickle of Departures
Justice Thomas Accuses Colleagues of Sidestepping Abortion-Related Disputes
Another Jones Day Alum Snags Sixth Circuit Seat
DOJ's Chad Readler, Ex-Jones Day Partner, Confirmed to 6th Circuit
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
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 AllLitigators of the Week: A Knockout Blow to Latest FCC Net Neutrality Rules After ‘Loper Bright’
An ‘Indiana Jones Moment’: Mayer Brown’s John Nadolenco and Kelly Kramer on the 10-Year Legal Saga of the Bahia Emerald
Litigators of the Week: A Win for Homeless Veterans On the VA's West LA Campus
'The Most Peculiar Federal Court in the Country' Comes to Berkeley Law
Trending Stories
- 1'A Death Sentence for TikTok'?: Litigators and Experts Weigh Impact of Potential Ban on Creators and Data Privacy
- 2Bribery Case Against Former Lt. Gov. Brian Benjamin Is Dropped
- 3‘Extremely Disturbing’: AI Firms Face Class Action by ‘Taskers’ Exposed to Traumatic Content
- 4State Appeals Court Revives BraunHagey Lawsuit Alleging $4.2M Unlawful Wire to China
- 5Invoking Trump, AG Bonta Reminds Lawyers of Duties to Noncitizens in Plea Dealing
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