Planned Parenthood Ass'n of Utah v. State

• Docket Number: 20220696
• Decision Date: 01 August 2024
• Citation: 554 P.3d 998
• Parties: PLANNED PARENTHOOD ASSOCIATION OF UTAH, on behalf of itself and its patients, physicians, and staff, Appellee, v. STATE of Utah, Governor Spencer J. Cox, in his official capacity, Attorney General Sean D. Reyes, in his official capacity, and Mark B. Steinagel, in his official capacity as the Director of the Utah Division of Professional Licensing, Appellants.
• Court: Utah Supreme Court

554 P.3d 998

2024 UT 28

PLANNED PARENTHOOD ASSOCIATION OF UTAH, on behalf of itself and its patients, physicians, and staff, Appellee,

v.STATE of Utah, GovernorSpencer J. Cox, in his official capacity, Attorney General Sean D. Reyes, in his official capacity, and Mark B. Steinagel, in his official capacity as the Director of the Utah Division of Professional Licensing, Appellants.

No. 20220696

Supreme Court of Utah.

Heard August 8, 2023

Filed August 1, 2024

Third District, Salt Lake County, The Honorable Andrew H. Stone, No. 220903886

Attorneys:^*

Troy L. Booher, J. Frederic Voros, Jr., John Mejia, Salt Lake City, Hannah Swanson, Julie A. Murray, Wash., D.C., Valentina De Fex, Camila Vega, N.Y.C., N.Y., for respondent

Melissa A Holyoak, Solic.Gen., Stanford E. Purser, Deputy Solic.Gen., Lance F. Sorenson, Asst. Att’y Gen., Tyler R. Green, Salt Lake City, Taylor A.R. Meehan, Aldington, Va., for petitioners

Associate Chief Justice Pearceauthored the opinion of the Court, in which Justice Petersen, Justice Hagen, and Justice Pohlman joined.

Associate Chief Justice Pearce, opinion of the Court:

INTRODUCTION

¶1Planned Parenthood Association of Utah(PPAU) challenges the law Senate Bill 174 enacted (SB 174).SB 174 prohibits abortion at any stage of pregnancy in all but three circumstances.PPAU contends that SB 174 violates rights the Utah Constitution guarantees.PPAU sought a preliminary injunction halting the law’s enforcement while it litigated SB 174’s constitutionality.After an evidentiary hearing, the district court entered the injunction.

¶2The State petitioned for interlocutory review and presents two primary arguments.It first argues that PPAU lacks standing to assert this challenge.The State next argues that the district court abused its discretion when it granted the preliminary injunction.

¶3 PPAU has standing.PPAU satisfies the requirements for traditional standing and possesses the third-party standing that allows it to advance the claims of its patients.

¶4The district court acted within its discretion when it granted the preliminary injunction.Because the State asks us to review the grant of a preliminary injunction, we do not decide the merits of PPAU’s claims that SB 174 infringes on rights the Utah Constitution protects.Rather, we examine whether the district court abused its discretion when it concluded that PPAU had met the then- existing standard for an injunction.The district court did not.

¶5 PPAU raises serious issues concerning SB 174’s constitutionality—and serious issues going to the merits is what Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 65A required when the district court evaluated the motion for a preliminary injunction.The district court did not abuse its discretion when it reviewed the evidence the parties presented and concluded that PPAU would suffer irreparable harm if the law were not enjoined, that the balance of harms tips in favor of an injunction, and that an injunction would not be adverse to the public interest.We affirm the district court and allow the preliminary injunction to remain in place while PPAU litigates its claims.

BACKGROUND

¶6 Two years before the United States Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade,410 U.S. 113, 93 S.Ct. 705, 35 L.Ed.2d 147(1973), the Utah Legislature enacted SB 174.SeeAbortion ProhibitionAmendments, S.B. 174, 2020 Leg., Gen. Sess.(Utah2020)(available at https://le.utah.gov/~2020/bills/static/sb0174.html).SB 174 prohibited abortion¹ at any point during a pregnancy, with three exceptions.²

¶7SB 174 provides that any person who performs an unauthorized abortion "is guilty of a second degree felony," which carries the risk of monetary fines and up to fifteen years in prison.SeeUtah Code §§ 76-3-301(1)(a),76-7a-201(3).SB 174 further requires the Department of Health and Human Services(Department) to report physicians who violate the law to the Division of Professional Licensing.Seeid.§ 76-7a-201(5).If a violation occurs at an abortion clinic, the Department is instructed to "take appropriate corrective action" against the clinic, "including revoking the abortion clinic’s license."Id.§ 76-7a-201(4).

¶8The Legislature understood that SB 174 would violate the United States Constitution at the time of its enactment.To address this, SB 174 contained a "[c]ontingent effective date."SeeAbortion ProhibitionAmendments, S.B. 174, 2020 Leg., Gen. Sess.(Utah2020)(available at https://le.utah.gov/~2020/bills/static/sb0174.html).SB 174 would become law only after the state legislative general counsel certified to the Legislative Management Committee that "a court of binding authority ha[d] held that a state may prohibit the abortion of an unborn child at any time during the gestational period."Id.

¶9 The United States Supreme Court thereafter issued Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization,597 U.S. 215, 142 S.Ct. 2228, 213 L.Ed.2d 545(2022), which overruled its decisions in Roe v. Wade,410 U.S. 113, 93 S.Ct. 705, 35 L.Ed.2d 147(1973), andPlanned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey,505 U.S. 833, 112 S.Ct. 2791, 120 L.Ed.2d 674(1992).The same day the decision issued, the legislative general counsel certified that SB 174 could become effective, informing the Legislative Management Committee that "[b]ecause the United States Supreme Court is a court of binding authority, and because its majority opinion authorizes a state to prohibit the abortion of an unborn child at any time during the gestational period, the contingency required by the Legislature in S.B. 174 has been met."

¶10 PPAU filed a complaint challenging SB 174 the following day.PPAU alleged that SB 174 violates several provisions of the Utah Constitution:

• the right to bodily integrity under article I, sections 1,7, and11;

• the right to determine one’s own family composition under article I, sections 2,25, and27;

• the right to equal protection under Utah’s Equal Rights Provision—article IV, section 1;

• the right to the uniform operation of laws under article I, section 24;

• the right of conscience under article I, section 4;

• the right to privacy under article I, sections 1and14; and

• the prohibition on involuntary servitude under article I, section 21.

¶11 PPAU requested, and the district court granted, a temporary restraining order preventing the State’s enforcement of the new law.PPAU then sought a preliminary injunction.

¶12 In its motion for a preliminary injunction, PPAU first asserted that it had standing to ask the district court to enjoin SB 174.PPAU contended that SB 174 causes it to suffer a " ‘distinct and palpable injury that gives rise to a personal stake in the outcome of the dispute.’ "(QuotingSonntag v. Ward, 2011 UT App 122, ¶ 3, 253 P.3d 1120.)According to PPAU, that injury includes economic harm as well as the threat of criminal prosecution and license revocation.PPAU also claimed it qualifies for third-party standing and can assert the rights of its patients.

¶13 As for the merits of its motion, PPAU argued that it could carry its burden under Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 65A.At the time, a party seeking a preliminary injunction needed to demonstrate that

• "[t]here is a substantial likelihood that [it] will prevail on the merits of the underlying claim, or the case presents serious issues on the merits which should be the subject of further litigation";

• it "will suffer irreparable harm unless the order or injunction issues";

• "[t]he threatened injury to [it] outweighs whatever damage the proposed order or injunction may cause to the party restrained or enjoined"; and

• "[t]he order or injunction, if issued, would not be adverse to the public interest."

Utah R. Civ. P. 65A(e)(2014).

¶14 PPAU maintained that it had raised serious issues of constitutional significance on six of its claims and was likely to prevail on the merits at trial on these claims.³

¶15 PPAU asserted that it and its staff would suffer harms that a judgment could not compensate, including the threat of criminal prosecution and license revocation.PPAU added that if SB 174 were enforced, its patients would be denied access to "time-sensitive medical care"—thus resulting in irreparable physical, emotional, and economic harm.

¶16 PPAU claimed that any harm the State would endure because of a preliminary injunction would be "marginal" in comparison to the harms PPAU and its patients would face if the court declined to grant an injunction.It pointed to caselaw suggesting that the "State‘does not have an interest in enforcing a law that is likely constitutionally infirm.’ "(QuotingChamber of Cam. of U.S. v. Edmondson,594 F.3d 742, 771(10th Cir.2010).)PPAU also questioned the extent to which SB 174 would further the State’s expressed interest in preserving life, noting that "Utah already bans nearly all abortions after viability."

¶17 PPAU asserted that an injunction would not be adverse to the public interest because the "public has a substantial interest in an injunction blocking a law that funda- mentally upsets the longstanding status quo on which Utah women and their families have relied upon for at least five decades."

¶18 PPAU supported its motion for a preliminary injunction with several declarations.

¶19Dr. David Turok, PPAU’s director of surgical services and a board-certified obstetrician-gynecologist who provides abortions, attested to SB 174’s impact on PPAU, its staff, and its patients.Dr. Turok explained that under SB 174, "approximately 2,800 Utahns each year will be forced either to remain pregnant against their will; go out of state for an abortion if they can find the means to do so … or attempt to obtain an abortion outside of the medical system."Dr. Turok emphasized that this last option "may in some cases be unsafe."

¶20 Dr. Turok further discussed that even "in an uncomplicated pregnancy, an individual experiences a wide range of physiological challenges."He opined that pregnancy "can also exacerbate...