Planned Parenthood Great Nw. v. Labrador
| Docket Number | 1:23-cv-00142-BLW |
| Decision Date | 31 July 2023 |
| Parties | PLANNED PARENTHOOD GREATER NORTHWEST, on behalf of itself, its staff, physicians, and patients, CAITLIN GUSTAFSON, M.D., on behalf of herself and her patients, and DARIN L. WEYHRICH, M.D., on behalf of himself and his patients, Plaintiffs, v. RAUL LABRADOR, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of Idaho, MEMBERS OF THE IDAHO STATE BOARD OF MEDICINE and IDAHO STATE BOARD OF NURSING, in their official capacities, COUNTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS, in their official capacities, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Idaho |
This case involves a challenge to Attorney General Raul Labrador's interpretation of Idaho's criminal abortion statute, Idaho Code § 18-622. Earlier this year, Attorney General Labrador drafted a letter interpreting this sentence of Section 18-622: “The professional license of any health care professional who . assists in performing or attempting to perform an abortion . . . shall be suspended . . . .” That letter interprets the “assisting” language to include providing information about or referring patients to legal out-of-state abortion services. Plaintiffs Planned Parenthood Greater Northwest, Caitlin Gustafson, M.D., and Darin L. Weyhrich, M.D. (collectively the “Medical Providers”), seek to enjoin the Attorney General, Members of the Idaho State Board of Medicine and Board of Nursing,[1] and the Prosecuting Attorneys for every Idaho county from bringing criminal cases and licensing actions based on that statutory interpretation. See Plf.s' Motion, Dkt. 2. Following the Medical Providers' request for a preliminary injunction, Attorney General Labrador and certain county prosecutors (collectively “the State”) filed a competing motion to dismiss (Dkt. 41), claiming that various justiciability doctrines demand that the complaint be dismissed.[2] For the reasons explained below, the Court will: (1) grant the Medical Providers' motion for a preliminary injunction as it pertains to Attorney General Labrador; (2) deny the motion with respect to the members of the Idaho State Board of Medicine and Board of Nursing; and (3) deny the State's motion to dismiss.
A. Procedural and Historic Background
Overturning nearly fifty years of precedent, the Supreme Court's ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, 142 S.Ct. 2228 (2022), withdrew a federally protected right, returning the regulation of abortion to the province of the individual states. In the following summer, Idaho's criminal abortion statute first went into effect. That law provides that “every person who performs or attempts to perform an abortion . . . commits the crime of criminal abortion.” Idaho Code § 18-622.[3]
Criminal abortion is a felony punishable by at least two, and up to five, years' imprisonment. Id. § 18-622(2). The statute also imposes professional licensing penalties for any “health care professional who performs or attempts to perform an abortion or who assists in performing or attempting to perform an abortion in violation of this subsection.” Id. In such an event, the provider's license must be suspended for six months upon the first offense, and permanently revoked upon the second. Id. Unsurprisingly, the interpretation and potential prosecution of Idaho's criminal abortion statute is a polarizing and often discussed topic throughout the state.
On March 27, 2023, Attorney General Labrador sent a letter to Idaho Representative Brent Crane responding to his request for an opinion on the scope of Idaho's criminal abortion statute and whether that law “prohibit[ed] referring women across state lines to obtain abortion services.” See Crane Letter, Dkt. 1-1. In relevant part, the Attorney General's letter states:
Idaho law prohibits an Idaho medical provider from either referring a woman across state lines to access abortion services or prescribing abortion pills for the woman to pick up across state lines. Idaho law requires the suspension of a health care professional's license when he or she “assists in performing or attempting to perform an abortion.” Idaho Code § 18-622(2) (emphasis added). The plain meaning of assist is to give support or aid. An Idaho health care professional who refers a woman across state lines to an abortion provider or who prescribes abortion pills for the woman across state lines has given support or aid to the woman in performing or attempting to perform an abortion and has thus violated the statute.
Id. at 2 (emphasis original). Although the State claims the letter was intended to be private, it was soon after disseminated to Stanton International-a pro-life organization-which posted the letter on its public website and used it in fundraising efforts. See Def.s' Br. at 3-4; Dkt. 41-1; see also Idaho Attorney General Issues Legal Analysis Affirming the Prohibition of Abortion Pills, Stanton Int'l, https://stantoninternational.org/chemicalabortion/ (last visited June 24, 2023).
On April 5, 2023, the Medical Providers sued. In their complaint, the Medical Providers raise First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, and dormant commerce clause challenges to the interpretation laid out in the Crane Letter. See Compl, Dkt. 1. Despite alleging multiple constitutional violations, the Medical Providers seek uniform relief: a finding that Attorney General Labrador's interpretation is unconstitutional because it extends the enforcement of Idaho Code § 18-622 to legal conduct outside of Idaho's borders. See id. at 18. In conjunction with the complaint, the Medical Providers filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to bar any prosecution under the Crane Letter interpretation.[4] See Plf.s' Motion, Dkt. 2.
Following the Medical Providers' motion, the Court scheduled a status conference for April 7, 2023, to discuss a scheduling conflict with the parties and to determine the necessity for an immediate emergency hearing.[5] In the hours preceding the scheduling conference, the State provided the parties and this Court with a new letter from Attorney General Labrador titled “Withdrawal of the March 27 Letter.” See Withdrawal Letter, Dkt. 42-2. In this letter, the Attorney General explained that “[d]ue to subsequent events in the legislative process and my determination that your request was not one I was required to provide under Idaho law, [the Crane Letter] analysis is now void.” Id. at 1. The Withdrawal Letter was signed and dated that same day. Id.
At the status conference, the Medical Providers stated that despite the withdrawal of the Crane Letter, they remained concerned about the threat of enforcement of Idaho's criminal abortion laws under that interpretation and maintained that they are still forced to withhold vital information and recommendations about legal abortion services. See Gibron Suppl. Decl. ¶ 8-9, Dkt. 35-2; Gustafson Suppl. Decl. ¶ 6-9, Dkt. 35-3; Weyhrich Suppl. Decl. ¶ 6-7, Dkt. 35-4. While the Medical Providers opted to forgo an emergency hearing, the Court ultimately set an expedited briefing schedule for the preliminary injunction, which allowed the State an opportunity to file a motion to dismiss in conjunction with its response.[6] See Dkt. 39.
On April 14, 2023, the State filed a combined response and motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). See Def.s' Br., Dkt. 41-1. In its opposition and motion to dismiss, the State elected not to address the constitutionality of the Crane Letter interpretation. Id. Instead, the State focused entirely on this Court's Article III power, maintaining that the case should be dismissed under all three justiciability doctrines-standing, ripeness, and mootness-and that Attorney General Labrador is not a proper defendant because he is entitled to sovereign immunity. Id.
On April 20, 2023, the parties' pending motions were fully briefed in accordance with the expedited schedule set by the Court. See Dkt. 85. However, on April 21, 2023, the Friday before the oral argument was scheduled, St. Luke's Health System, Ltd. (“St. Luke's”) and the States of Washington, Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Hawai'i, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, and the District of Columbia (collectively the “Amici States”) requested leave to file Amici Curiae briefs in support of the Medical Providers' motion for a preliminary injunction. See Dkts. 86 and 94. The Amici States also requested to be admitted pro hac vice without the designation of local counsel, as they did not seek to present an argument at the hearing. See Dkt. 93. The State opposed allowing both Amici to file their memoranda and the Amici States' request to have the local counsel requirement waived. See Dkts. 88, 96, and 97.
On April 24, 2023, the Court heard oral argument on the motion for a preliminary injunction, motion to dismiss, and addressed the Amicis' submitted memoranda. During the hearing, the Court granted St. Luke's and the Amici States' motions to file; however, the Court conditioned the Amici States pro hac admission, and consideration of their memoranda, on obtaining local counsel before the following Thursday.[7] The Court also provided the State with additional time to file an opposition to the Amici States' memorandum due to the limited opportunity the State had to respond before the hearing.
Three days later, in addition to its opposition, the State asked the Court for leave to file supplemental briefing to address two specific issues. See Dkt. 106. First, the State wanted to address the impact of the Withdrawal Letter, which interpreted Attorney General Labrador's authority to prosecute violations of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial