Okla. Call for Reprod. Just. v. Drummond

• Docket Number: Case Number: 119,918
• Decision Date: 05 February 2024
• Citation: 543 P.3d 110
• Parties: OKLAHOMA CALL FOR REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE, on behalf of itself and its members; Tulsa Women’s Reproductive Clinic, LLC, on behalf of itself, its physicians, its staff, and its patients; Alan Braid, M.D., on behalf of himself and his patients; Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood Great Plains, Inc., on behalf of itself, its physicians, its staff, and its patients; and Planned Parenthood of Arkansas & Eastern Oklahoma, on behalf of itself, its physicians, its staff, and its patients, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Gentner DRUMMOND, in his official capacity as Attorney General for the State of Oklahoma; Vicki Behenna, in her official capacity as District Attorney for Oklahoma County; Steve Kunzweiler, in his official capacity as District Attorney for Tulsa County; Lyle Kelsey, in his official capacity as Executive Director of the Oklahoma State Board of Medical Licensure and Supervision; Bret S. Langerman, in his official capacity as President of the Oklahoma State Board of Osteopathic Examiners; Keith Reed, in his official capacity as the Commissioner of the Oklahoma State Board of Health; and Jason Willeford, in his official capacity as the President of the Oklahoma State Board of Pharmacy; as well as their employees, agents, and successors, Defendants/Appellees.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

543 P.3d 110

2023 OK 111

OKLAHOMA CALL FOR REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE, on behalf of itself and its members; Tulsa Women’s Reproductive Clinic, LLC, on behalf of itself, its physicians, its staff, and its patients; Alan Braid, M.D., on behalf of himself and his patients; Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood Great Plains, Inc., on behalf of itself, its physicians, its staff, and its patients; and Planned Parenthood of Arkansas & Eastern Oklahoma, on behalf of itself, its physicians, its staff, and its patients, Plaintiffs/Appellants,

v.Gentner DRUMMOND, in his official capacity as Attorney General for the State of Oklahoma; Vicki Behenna, in her official capacity as District Attorney for Oklahoma County; Steve Kunzweiler, in his official capacity as District Attorney for Tulsa County; Lyle Kelsey, in his official capacity as Executive Director of the Oklahoma State Board of Medical Licensure and Supervision; Bret S. Langerman, in his official capacity as President of the Oklahoma State Board of Osteopathic Examiners; Keith Reed, in his official capacity as the Commissioner of the Oklahoma State Board of Health; and Jason Willeford, in his official capacity as the President of the Oklahoma State Board of Pharmacy; as well as their employees, agents, and successors, Defendants/Appellees.

Case Number: 119,918

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Filed November 14, 2023

Rehearing Denied February 5, 2024

ON APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY; The Honorable Cindy H. Truong

¶0The appellants filed an action to permanently enjoin enforcement of five Acts of the Oklahoma Legislature.Each Act concerns the termination of a pregnancy.The appellants’ challenges are based upon Oklahoma law and not federal law.They assert there is a constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy under the Oklahoma Constitution.The trial court denied a temporary injunction on three of the Acts, which is the basis of this appeal.We retained this appeal and granted a temporary injunction pending appeal.We now vacate the trial court’s order denying temporary injunction, direct it to grant a temporary injunction and remand the matter for further proceedings on the merits.

VACATED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS; TRIAL COURT DIRECTED TO GRANT TEMPORARY INJUNCTION; THIS COURT’S TEMPORARY INJUNCTION IS LIFTED ONCE THE TRIAL COURT’S TEMPORARY INJUNCTION BECOMES EFFECTIVE

J. Blake Johnson, Overman Legal Group, PLLC, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff/AppellantTulsa Women’s Reproductive Clinic, L.L.C.

Kulsoom Ijaz, Rabia Muqaddam, Caroline Sacerdote, and Linda C. Goldstein, Center for Reproductive Rights, New York, New York, for Plaintiffs/Appellants Oklahoma Call for Reproductive Justice, Tulsa Women’s Reproductive Clinic, L.L.C., and Alan Braid, M.D.

Meghan Agostinelli, Dechert LLP, Chicago, Illinois, for Plaintiffs/Appellants Oklahoma Call for Reproductive Justice, Tulsa Women’s Reproductive Clinic, L.L.C., and Alan Braid, M.D.

Jenna Newmark, Dechert LLP, New York, New York, for Plaintiffs/Appellants Oklahoma Call for Reproductive Justice, Tulsa Women’s Reproductive Clinic, L.L.C., and Alan Braid, M.D.

Jerome A. Hoffman, Dechert LLP, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Plaintiffs/Appellants Oklahoma Call for Reproductive Justice, Tulsa Women’s Reproductive Clinic, L.L.C., and Alan Braid, M.D.

Jonathan Tam, Dechert LLP, San Francisco, California, for Plaintiffs/Appellants Oklahoma Call for Reproductive Justice, Tulsa Women’s Reproductive Clinic, L.L.C., and Alan Braid, M.D.

Diana O. Salgado, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs/AppellantsComprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood Great Plains, Inc. and Planned Parenthood of Arkansas & Eastern Oklahoma.

Mithun Mansinghani, Zach West, Office of Attorney General, State of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Defendants/Appellees.

COMBS, J.:

¶1 This opinion addresses only the trial court’s denial of a temporary injunction to enjoin the enforcement of three Oklahoma Acts: House Bill1904, 2021 Okla. Sess. Laws ch. 211(effective November 1, 2021);Senate Bill 778, 2021 Okla. Sess. Laws ch. 577(effective November 1, 2021); and Senate Bill 779, 2021 Okla. Sess. Laws ch. 578(effective November 1, 2021).On September 2, 2021, the appellants - Oklahoma Call for Reproductive Justice; Tulsa Women’s Reproductive Clinic, LLC; Alan Braid, M.D.; Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood Great Plains, Inc.; and Planned Parenthood of Arkansas & Eastern Oklahoma (Appellants) - petitioned the trial court to find that five Oklahoma Acts relating to abortion were unconstitutional under the due process section of the Oklahoma Constitution(article II, section 7).In addition, they asserted S.B. 778andS.B. 779 violated the single-subject rule found in article V, section 57 of the Oklahoma Constitution and the Acts were enacted for an improper purpose.The appellants did not assert any federal claims.Contemporaneous with their petition, the appellants filed a motion for a temporary injunction requesting the trial court enjoin enforcement of the Acts.The trial court held a heating on the motion and filed its order on October 7, 2021.The court granted a temporary injunction on two of the Acts but denied a temporary injunction on H.B. 1904, S.B. 778, andS.B. 779.The appellants have appealed the denial of the temporary injunction on the three Acts.They filed a petition in error on October 13, 2021, and filed a motion for temporary injunction pending appeal in this Court.We retained the appeal and granted their motion for temporary injunction pending appeal on October 25, 2021.¹

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[1–12]¶2 Matters involving the grant or denial of injunctive relief are of equitable concern.Dowell v. Pletcher,2013 OK 50, ¶5, 304 P.3d 457, 460.Injunction is an extraordinary remedy and relief by this means should not be granted lightly.Id.A temporary injunction protects a court’s ability to render a meaningful decision on the merits of the controversy.Okla. Pub. Emps.Ass’n v. Okla, Military Dep’t,2014 OK 48, ¶15, 330 P.3d 497, 504.The purpose of a temporary injunction is to preserve the status quo and prevent the perpetuation of a wrong or the doing of an act whereby the rights of the moving party may be materially invaded, injured, or endangered.Id.Equity courts exercise discretionary power in granting or withholding extraordinary remedies, particularly where injunctive relief is sought, and its granting rests in the sound discretion of the court to be exercised in accordance with equitable principles and in light of all circumstances.Dowell,2013 OK 50, ¶5, 304 P.3d at 460.The right to injunctive relief must be established by clear and convincing evidence.Id.¶7, 304 P.3d at 460.To obtain a temporary injunction, a plaintiff must show that four factors weigh in their favor: 1) the likelihood of success on the merits; 2) irreparable harm to the party seeking the relief if the injunction is denied; 3) their threatened injury outweighs the injury the opposing party will suffer under the injunction; and 4) the injunction is in the public interest.Okla. Pub. Emps.Ass’n,2014 OK 48, ¶9, 330 P.3d at 502-03.Granting or denying injunctive relief is within the sound discretion of the trial court and a judgment issuing or refusing to issue an injunction will not be disturbed on appeal unless the lower court has abused its discretion or the decision is clearly against the weight of the evidence.Dowell,2013 OK 50, ¶¶5-6, 304 P.3d at 460;Sharp v. 251st Street Landfill, Inc.,1996 OK 109, ¶4, 925 P.2d 546, 549.The temporary injunction is not itself a decision on the merits.Edwards v. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs. of Canadian Cty., 2015 OK 58, ¶34, 378 P.3d 54, 64.Neither appellate affirmance nor reversal of an interlocutory injunction decree could, without more, become an adjudication on the merits of the action.Smith v. State ex. rel. Bd. of Regents of Okla. State Univ.,1993 OK 1, ¶7, 846 P.2d 370, 372.Issues resolved at this interim stage are never res judicata of the claim.Id.When they are retendered on trial of the plaintiff’s quest for permanent injunction, both parties are free to offer different or additional proof.Id.

ANALYSIS

¶3The appellants assert they have demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits concerning their arguments challenging the constitutionality of the three Acts under the Oklahoma Constitution.The constitutionality of the three challenged Acts goes to the merits of the underlying action.Our duty at this interlocutory stage is to review only the trial court’s decision denying a temporary injunction and to determine whether the court abused its discretion or the decision was clearly against the weight of the evidence.

¶4The appellants claim the three Acts violate the Oklahoma Constitution.They do not assert their arguments are based upon the federal Constitution.The appellants assert the Acts place undue burdens on a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy in violation of article II, section 7 of the Oklahoma Constitution, the state due process section.This section provides:

No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

Therefore, we must first determine whether the Oklahoma Constitution provides a right - or at least some right - to terminate a pregnancy and, if so, what is the appropriate standard for determining when a state regulation violates that right.We recently answered these questions in Oklahoma Call for Reproductive Justice v. Drummond (OCRJ I),2023 OK 24, 526 P.3d 1123.

[13, 14] ¶5 OCRJ I was this Court’s first opinion concerning abortion rights following the United States Supreme Court’s holding that there was no longer a right to terminate a pregnancy under the federal Due Process Clause.SeeDobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org.,597 U.S. 215, 142 S. Ct. 2228, 213 L.Ed.2d 545(2022).Dobbs held that, in order for a fundamental right to be recog- nized as a component...