June Med. Servs. LLC v. Phillips

640 F.Supp.3d 523

JUNE MEDICAL SERVICES LLC, et al. v. Courtney PHILLIPS, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Health

CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-525-JWD-RLB

United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana

Signed November 14, 2022

Charles M. Samuel, III, Rittenberg, Samuel & Phillips, LLC, New Orleans, LA, Dimitra Doufekias, Pro Hac Vice, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Washington, DC, Jenny Suhjin, Ma, Pro Hac Vice, Center for Reproductive Health, New York, NY, Travis J. Tu, Pro Hac Vice, Center for Reproductive Rights, U.S. Litigation, New York, NY, for Plaintiffs June Medical Services LLC, Choice Inc. of Texas, John Doe 1, John Doe 2.

Charles M. Samuel, III, Rittenberg, Samuel & Phillips, LLC, New Orleans, LA, Dimitra Doufekias, Pro Hac Vice, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Washington, DC, Travis J. Tu, Pro Hac Vice, Center for Reproductive Rights, U.S. Litigation, New York, NY, for Plaintiff Bossier City Medical Suite.

Elizabeth Baker Murrill, Louisiana's Office of the Attorney General, Baton Rouge, LA, Phyllis Esther Glazer, Louisiana Department of Justice, Baton Rouge, LA, Joseph Scott St. John, Office of the Attorney General, Louisiana Dept. of Justice, New Orleans, LA, for Courtney Phillips.

RULING AND ORDER

JOHN W. deGRAVELLES, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant's Renewed Emergency Rule 60(b) Motion to Vacate Permanent Injunction, (Doc. 501), filed by Courtney Phillips, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Health ("Defendant"). Plaintiffs oppose the motion, (Doc. 502), and Defendant has filed a reply, (Doc. 503). Oral argument was scheduled for November 29, 2022, (Doc. 504), but the Court finds that it is no longer necessary. The Court has carefully considered the law, the facts in the record, and the arguments and submissions of the parties and is prepared to rule. For the following reasons, the motion is granted, and the Court's permanent injunction in this case is hereby vacated.

I. Relevant Background

A. This Court's Injunction

On April 26, 2017, this Court issued an extensive 116-page Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, (Doc. 274), addressing the constitutionality of Act 620, which has been codified at an amended La. R.S. § 40:1299.35.2. (Doc. 274 at 12.) Section A(2)(a) requires every doctor who performs abortions in Louisiana to have "active admitting privileges" at a hospital within 30 miles of the facility where abortions are performed. (Id. (quoting La. R.S. § 40:1299.35.2A(2)(a)).) While the Act contains other requirements, this provision was the only one challenged in the case. (Id. (citing Doc 5-1 at 8 n.1).) Shortly before trial, on April 20, 2015, LDH promulgated implementing regulations that include an admitting privileges requirement repeating the language of Act 620 and a penalty provision of $4,000 per violation. (Id. (citing La. Admin. Code tit. 48, pt. I, §§ 4401 (definition of "active admitting privileges"); 4423(B)(3)(e), available at 41 La. Reg. 685, 696 (Apr. 20. 2015)).) These were accompanied by a statement averring that they "will only be enforced pursuant to Order" in the present case. (Id.) Thus, the Court's order embraced both the Act and the regulations.

Those Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law culminated in the following:

[T]he Court declares Act 620 unconstitutional in all of its applications, and enters a permanent injunction barring its enforcement. The active admitting privileges requirement of Section A(2)(a) of Act 620 is found to be a violation of the substantive due process right of Louisiana women to obtain an abortion, a right guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution as established in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S.Ct. 705, 35 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973), and pursuant to the test first set forth in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 112 S.Ct. 2791, 120 L.Ed.2d 674 (1992) ("Casey"), and subsequently refined in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, 579 U.S. 582, 136 S. Ct. 2292, 2319, 195 L.Ed.2d 665 (2016) (hereinafter "WWH"). Act 620 is therefore declared unconstitutional, and its enforcement enjoined in all of its applications.

(Id. at 11.) This Court went on to say:

Act 620 is unconstitutional on its face under Casey and WWH. The Act would create substantial obstacles for women seeking abortion in Louisiana without providing any demonstrated benefit to women's health or safety. Any marginal health benefits would be dramatically outweighed by the obstacles the restriction erects to women's access to their constitutional right to abortion. The Act therefore cannot withstand the scrutiny mandated by WWH. Plaintiffs have succeeded on the merits of their constitutional claim that the Act violates the Fourteenth Amendment.

* * *

An order permanently enjoining enforcement of Act 620 in all of its applications is the appropriate remedy. As with the Texas abortion restrictions enjoined in all their applications by the decision in WWH, Act 620 would close most of the abortion facilities in Louisiana and "place added stress on those facilities able to remain open." WWH, 136 S. Ct. at 2319. Act 620 "vastly increase[s] the obstacles confronting women seeking abortions" in Louisiana "without providing any benefit to women's health capable of withstanding any meaningful scrutiny." Id. Therefore, Act 620 is unconstitutional on its face. Pursuant to this Court's authority under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, and Rules 57 and 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this Court will enter orders declaring Act 620 unconstitutional and permanently enjoining the Act in all of its applications.

(Id. at 114-15.) The Court entered a judgment in this matter effectuating this ruling and imposing a permanent injunction which barred the enforcement of Act 620 and its implementing regulations. (Doc. 275.)

Following an appeal and lengthy procedural history, this Court's decision was ultimately considered by the Supreme Court. There, the High Court held, "We have examined the extensive record carefully and conclude that it supports the District Court's findings of fact. Those findings mirror those made in [WWH] in every relevant respect and require the same result. We consequently hold that the Louisiana statute is unconstitutional." June Med. Servs. L. L. C. v. Russo, — U.S. —, 140 S. Ct. 2103, 2113, 207 L.Ed.2d 566 (2020).

B. Dobbs

Less than two years later, the Supreme Court changed course and issued the well-known decision of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, — U.S. —, 142 S. Ct. 2228, 213 L.Ed.2d 545 (2022). There, the Supreme Court said:

We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely—the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

* * *

Stare decisis, the doctrine on which Casey's controlling opinion was based, does not compel unending adherence to Roe's abuse of judicial authority. Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences. And far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue, Roe and Casey have enflamed debate and deepened division.

It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people's elected representatives. "The permissibility of abortion, and the limitations, upon it, are to be resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting." Casey, 505 U.S. at 979, 112 S. Ct. 2791 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part). That is what the Constitution and the rule of law demand

Id. at 2242-43. The High Court went on to conclude that "rational-basis review is the appropriate standard for . . . challenges" to state abortion regulations, id. at 2283-84, and finished the decision as follows:

We end this opinion where we began. Abortion presents a profound moral question. The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives.

Id. at 2284.

C. Post-Dobbs Proceedings

On June 27, 2022, Defendant filed an emergency motion seeking an order vacating the permanent injunction in this case in light of Dobbs. (Doc. 487.) Defendant sought relief summarily or, alternatively, within two days of filing her motion. (Id.) Plaintiffs opposed the motion, arguing that Defendant was not entitled to relief on the merits or, alternatively, that they should at least be given the opportunity to brief the matter fully. (Doc. 488.)

On June 29, 2022, this Court issued an order denying the motion in part and denying the motion without prejudice in part. (Doc. 489.) The Court denied the request for expedited consideration, explaining, "The subject of this motion is a matter of considerable importance to the State and its citizens and involves complicated issues of procedural and substantive law. The Court finds that granting this motion with only two days consideration is unreasonable and unwarranted." (Id.) However, the Court denied the substantive part of Defendant's motion without prejudice and stated that it would take up the matter after full briefing in compliance with and within the deadlines established by the Court's local rules. (Id.)

The same day, Defendant filed a motion to reconsider in light of Whole Woman's Health v. Young, 37 F.4th 1098 (5th Cir. 2022). (Doc. 490.) This time, Defendant sought relief summarily, or alternatively, by the very next day. (Id.) Plaintiffs opposed the motion. (Doc. 492.)

On July 5, 2022, this Court denied the motion for reconsideration. (Doc. 493.) The Court found that none of the grounds required for reconsideration had been...