Texas and Louisiana Invoke Pro-Trump Emoluments Ruling to Defend Abortion Restrictions
The Debevoise & Plimpton lawyer challenging the Louisiana state laws countered: "The only question before this panel today is how far it is willing to go to bypass the ordinary rules of civil and appellate procedure to create a fast track for merits review in abortion cases."
August 12, 2019 at 03:16 PM
6 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
Lawyers for Louisiana and Texas are relying on President Donald Trump’s recent emoluments clause victory to press a federal appeals court to use a rare remedy to thwart a complaint that broadly challenges Louisiana’s abortion regulatory scheme.
A lawyer for Louisiana, which lost its motion to dismiss the suit, on Friday urged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to issue a writ of mandamus, a move that could stop the case in its tracks before any finding on the merits.
The U.S. Supreme Court has said an appellate court may issue that order only on a finding of “exceptional circumstances amounting to a judicial usurpation of power,” or a “clear abuse of discretion” by a district court. The appeals panel that heard arguments included two recent Trump appointees—Judges Don Willett and Andrew Oldham—and Judge Priscilla Owen, a George W. Bush appointee.
“The petitioners have brought kitchen-sink pleading,” Louisiana Solicitor General Elizabeth Murrill told the three-judge panel hearing the case June Medical Services v. Gee. “They are enormous claims that create an enormous invasion of state interests to regulate health facilities generally and specifically with regard to abortion.”
The resolution of the case could have broader reach, providing a new avenue for Republican-led states looking for ways to rein in abortion-related challenges and a new hurdle for the challengers themselves. Similar, broadly themed cases as the Louisiana challenge are pending in other states outside the Fifth Circuit, which hears federal appeals from Texas, Mississippi and Louisiana. Texas Solicitor General Heather Hacker was granted argument time in the case as a friend-of-the-court backing Louisiana.
Willett, a former Texas Supreme Court justice, pressed Murrill to identify the cases she was relying on for her assertion that a writ of mandamus was appropriate to stop the abortion litigation. Murrill, and later Hacker of Texas, both cited In re Donald J. Trump, a July 10 decision by the Fourth Circuit.
The panel in that case dismissed a suit by Maryland and the District of Columbia that alleged Trump had violated the Constitution’s emoluments clauses. A three-judge panel granted Trump’s petition for a writ of mandamus, and the decision halted the ability of the District and Maryland to explore the president’s financial affairs.
“I would compare this to that, where the court said that mandamus is appropriate to protect the state from vexatious litigation that distracts state officers from performing their constitutional duties,” Murrill told the Fifth Circuit panel. “This is exactly that kind of litigation.”
The Louisiana lawsuit, filed by the Center for Reproductive Rights and New York’s Debevoise & Plimpton on behalf of June Medical Services, alleged that the state’s Outpatient Abortion Facility Licensing Law, 13 of its implementing regulations and 12 provisions of Louisiana’s criminal code and public health laws are unconstitutional.
The complaint said the regulations “had the purpose and effect of placing substantial obstacles in the way of women seeking abortions and radically limiting access to safe and legal abortion to the detriment of women’s health.”
“The only question before this panel today is how far it is willing to go to bypass the ordinary rules of civil and appellate procedure to create a fast track for merits review in abortion cases,” Debevoise & Plimpton partner Shannon Selden told the Fifth Circuit panel.
Louisiana has asked the panel to dismiss two counts in the lawsuit and to apply “correct pleading and jurisdictional” rules to the claims involving individual abortion regulations.
Selden urged the Fifth Circuit not “to be in the business of reviewing the factual allegations of a complaint after the denial of a motion to dismiss.” A writ of mandamus, Selden argued, “is an extraordinary writ, not a ticket to the fast lane.”
But Oldham, formerly general counsel to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and a law clerk to Justice Samuel Alito Jr., pressed Selden often on the particulars of the complaint and on whether, and how, her clients were harmed by such regulations as those involving physical space, hot and cold water and sterile instruments.
“Plaintiffs are not required to plead with particularity exactly what would happen if the statute were struck down,” Selden told Oldham in one exchange. The district court, Selden said, found sufficient facts to put Louisiana on notice about the claims, she said. What the exact effect of each challenged regulation is and the appropriate relief “is a question for the district court,” she argued.
Selden warned that “defendants would line up down the block” if they thought they could petition for mandamus whenever a trial judge denied a motion to dismiss. “One of the great promises of the federal rules and process is any litigant can file a claim and will be heard and the same rules apply to all,” she said.
Louisiana’s Murrill told the appeals judges that she “takes issue” with Selden’s argument that the Fifth Circuit can’t “airlift” claims out of the district court. “It can do that,” she said. “It is the only remedy we have when harms can’t be addressed any other way.”
June Medical Services has a petition for review pending in the U.S. Supreme Court in which it challenges a Fifth Circuit decision that upheld a state law requiring abortion providers to have admitting privileges at local hospitals. The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling in February, put the Fifth Circuit decision on hold pending the filing of a petition.
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
© 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 AllThe Brother-Sister Litigators Who Took on the FTC Over a North Carolina Hospital Merger
'For Love & Life': Touching Base with Skadden Associate and ALS Advocate Brian Wallach
Litigators of the Week: Zuckerman Spaeder Gets a Post-Trial Acquittal for Doctor Accused of Fraudulent Billing for COVID Tests
Litigation Leaders: Foley & Lardner's Lisa Noller Says When Women Lead, Everyone Benefits
Trending Stories
- 1The Law Firm Disrupted: Playing the Talent Game to Win
- 2GlaxoSmithKline Settles Most Zantac Lawsuits for $2.2B
- 3BD Settles Thousands of Bard Hernia Mesh Lawsuits
- 4Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 5Inside Track: Late-Career In-House Leaders Offer Words to Live by
Who Got The Work
Nicholas M. DePalma and Christian R. Schreiber of Venable have stepped in to represent CP Management Services, CRS RB4 Holdings and other defendants in a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The suit was filed Aug. 30 in Virginia Eastern District Court by Greenberg Traurig on behalf of Daito Kentaku USA. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Claude M. Hilton, is 1:24-cv-01538, Daito Kentaku USA, LLC v. Comstock Partners, LC.
Who Got The Work
Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs partner Andrew J. Pulliam has entered an appearance for Steve Jensen in a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The action, filed Aug. 30 in Tennessee Middle District Court by the Law Office of Perry A. Craft on behalf of Timothy Robins, accuses the defendant of writing a worthless check for over $94,000 for the sale of auctioned goods. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Eli J. Richardson, is 3:24-cv-01064, Robins v. Jensen et al.
Who Got The Work
Lane Powell shareholder Pilar C. French has entered an appearance for Penney OpCo LLC in a pending consumer class action. The complaint, filed Aug. 26 in Oregon District Court by Hattis & Lukacs, alleges that the company markets fictional discounts for certain products. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Mustafa T. Kasubhai, is 6:24-cv-01414, Gamble v. Penney OpCo LLC.
Who Got The Work
Donald L. Carmelite and Coryn D. Hubbert of Marshall Dennehey have stepped in to defend the City of York, Detective Roland Comacho and Detective Lisa Daniels in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 27 in Pennsylvania Middle District Court by Levin & Zeiger on behalf of Noel Matos Montalvo, seeks damages for the amount of time that Montalvo was incarcerated over five years for the exonerated killing of his common law wife. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jennifer P. Wilson, is 1:24-cv-01459, Montalvo v. City of York, et al.
Who Got The Work
Joseph M. Englert, Brian E. Pumphrey and M. Laughlin Allen of McGuireWoods have entered appearances for Bank of America NA in a pending class action. The action was filed Aug. 26 in Georgia Northern District Court by Podhurst Orseck; Webb, Klase & Lemond; Crabtree & Auslander; and Morrison + Associates on behalf of the representative of the beneficiaries of the Arthur N. Weinraub Trust, a trust which contains residential real property. The suit accuses the defendant of overcharging the trust by selecting unnecessary and/or excessively priced insurance for the property. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Thomas W. Thrash Jr., is 1:24-cv-03780, Weinraub v. Bank of America, N.A.
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