Planned Parenthood of Houston and Southeast Tex. v. Sanchez
| Decision Date | 11 March 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 03-50930.,03-50930. |
| Parties | PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF HOUSTON AND SOUTHEAST TEXAS; Planned Parenthood of North Texas; Planned Parenthood of San Antonio and South Central Texas; Planned Parenthood of West Texas; Planned Parenthood of the Texas Capital Region; Planned Parenthood of Central Texas, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Eduardo J. SANCHEZ, Texas Commissioner of Health, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Roger K. Evans (argued), Planned Parenthood Fed. of America, New York City, Peter Drew Kennedy, Graves, Dougherty, Hearon & Moody, Austin, TX, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.
R. Ted Cruz (argued), Lara Grant, Austin, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Paul Benjamin Linton, Northbrook, IL, Kelly J. Shackelford, Liberty Legal Institute, Plano, TX, for Amici Curiae.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
The Texas Legislature restricted the distribution of federal family planning funds. Finding this state legislation likely preempted by federal spending statutes, the district court granted a preliminary injunction against its enforcement. The district court concluded that the state legislation could not be interpreted to permit various Planned Parenthood organizations to continue receiving federal funds by creating independent affiliates. We disagree. Persuaded that the state legislation does admit of this potentially saving construction, we remand for further proceedings.
The State of Texas voluntarily participates in several federal programs that provide funds for family planning services. Among these programs are Title X of the Public Health Service Act,1 which provides project grants to public and private agencies for family planning services, and Title XX of the Social Security Act,2 which provides block grants to the states for social services, including family planning. The regulations for Title X specify that funds may not be used to finance abortions or abortion-related activity.3 Both parties agree that any Title XX funds used to match Title X funds are subject to the same restrictions. Furthermore, Title XX funds may not be used for the provision of medical care.4 The State also receives Medicaid funding under Title XIX of the Social Security Act,5 which provides medical care to the needy through a cooperative federal-state program.
The Texas Department of Health (TDH)6 distributes federal family program grants under Titles X and XX. On May 8, 2003, TDH sent letters to the family planning contractors that had been approved to receive funding under TDH's federal family planning program grants.7 Appellees — six Planned Parenthood entities located in various parts of Texas that had been contractors in Texas's family planning program for many years — were among the groups approved for funding. Pursuant to Title X's statutory requirements, Appellees strictly segregated their Title X programs from their abortion-related activities to ensure that no federal funds were used for abortions.8 Thus, Appellees provided Title X and XX family planning services using the federal funds disbursed by TDH, and provided abortion services using private funding. There is no evidence in the record to suggest that Title X or XX funds were ever improperly commingled with private abortion funds.
Just under one month later, on June 2, 2003, the Texas Legislature passed the Texas General Appropriations Act.9 The Act included Rider 8, a provision restricting distribution of federal family planning money, including Title X and XX funds.10 Rider 8 provides:
8. Prohibition on Abortions
a. It is the intent of the Legislature that no funds shall be used to pay the direct or indirect costs (including overhead, rent, phones and utilities) of abortion procedures provided by contractors of the department.
b. It is also the intent of the legislature that no funds appropriated under Strategy D.1.2, Family Planning, shall be distributed to individuals or entities that perform elective abortion procedures or that contract with or provide funds to individuals or entities for the performance of elective abortion procedures.
c. If the department concludes that compliance with b. would result in a significant reduction in family planning services in any public health region of the state, the department may waive b. for the affected region to the extent necessary to avoid a significant reduction in family planning services to the region. This waiver provision shall expire on August 31, 2004, and no waiver shall extend beyond that date.
d. The department shall include in its financial audit a review of the use of appropriated funds to ensure compliance with this section.
TDH immediately began efforts to implement Rider 8. On June 10, 2003, TDH sent letters to previously approved family planning contractors, including Appellees, requiring them to sign and return an affidavit by June 30, 2003. The affidavit was a pledge by a contractor applying for Title X and XX funds that, as of September 1, 2003, it would perform no elective abortion procedures and that it would not contract with or provide funds to individuals or entities for the performance of abortions. Appellees were informed that unless they made this pledge they would be ineligible for participation in the funding programs.
Appellees filed suit on June 26, 2003, seeking immediate injunctive relief. Appellees focused on section (b) of Rider 8 and raised three basic arguments: (1) that Rider 8(b) imposes an unconstitutional condition on Appellees' eligibility for funds; (2) that it imposes an unconstitutional burden on a woman's right to obtain an abortion; and (3) that it violates the Supremacy Clause11 by imposing additional eligibility requirements on Appellees' receipt of federal funds that are inconsistent with the federal funding statutes.
The district court issued a temporary restraining order on June 30, 2003. A few days later, on August 4, 2003, the court entered a preliminary injunction barring TDH from enforcing paragraphs (b) and (c) of the Rider.12 The court determined that Appellees had demonstrated a likelihood of success on the unconstitutional condition claim and the Supremacy Clause claim. In reaching this conclusion the court held that Rider 8 could not be interpreted to allow Appellees effectively to continue receiving federal funds by creating independent "affiliates" — that is, legal entities separate from those performing abortions.
TDH appeals the court's holding as to the unconstitutional condition and Supremacy Clause claims, and asserts that Rider 8 can be interpreted to allow affiliates. Appellees, in turn, contend that the district court erred in concluding that Rider 8 imposes no undue burden on women's right to obtain an abortion.
We review the ultimate decision to grant a preliminary injunction for an abuse of discretion.13 A decision grounded in erroneous legal principles is reviewed de novo.14
To obtain a preliminary injunction plaintiffs must show (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, (2) a substantial threat that plaintiffs will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted, (3) that the threatened injury outweighs any damage that the injunction might cause the defendant, and (4) that the injunction will not disserve the public interest.15 A preliminary injunction is an "extraordinary remedy" and should only be granted if the plaintiffs have "`clearly carried the burden of persuasion' on all four requirements."16
We turn to the Supremacy Clause claim. Appellees assert that Rider 8 is invalid under the Supremacy Clause because it adds eligibility requirements to the receipt of federal funds that are inconsistent with federal law. The district court found a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. In our review, we first explain why this is a preemption claim. Then we examine whether the district court had jurisdiction and whether the Appellees stated a claim, as well as the role of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in this case.
Where, as here, a state law purportedly conflicts with federal statutes enacted under the Spending Clause,17 courts often proceed without invoking "preemption."18 Some courts have explicitly found that preemption was not an issue in such cases,19 while others have expressed ambivalence.20 The growing consensus, however, is to analyze such claims under traditional preemption doctrine.21 The First Circuit gave the following explanation:
The vast majority of preemption cases involve situations in which Congress has exercised its power under the Commerce Clause. Here, however, we are dealing with a congressional exercise of the spending power, not the commerce power, and the dynamics between preemption and Congress's reliance on the spending power differ appreciably from those applicable in the Commerce Clause context. The principal difference is that whereas preemptive legislation enacted under the Commerce Clause trumps state law throughout the United States ex proprio vigore, preemptive legislation enacted under the spending power presents states with a choice: they may either accept federal funds (and subject themselves to requirements imposed by federal law) or decline such funds (and avoid the necessity of abiding by those requirements).22
Because TDH has "willingly tapped into the federal fisc,"23 we use the terminology and framework of preemption in analyzing Appellees' Supremacy Clause claim, as did the district court below.24
We next ask whether the district court properly exercised jurisdiction over Appellees' preemption claim and whether Appellees' efforts state a claim. We answer in the affirmative.
It is well-established that the federal courts have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 over a preemption claim seeking injunctive and declaratory relief.25 In Shaw v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hopkins v. Jegley
...See Planned Parenthood of Houston & Se. Tex. v. Sanchez , 480 F.3d 734, 739-40 (5th Cir. 2007) ; Planned Parenthood of Houston & Se. Tex. v. Sanchez , 403 F.3d 324, 333 (5th Cir. 2005).There is no language in the statute that supports this argument. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (providing in pertin......
-
New Orleans & Gulf Coast Ry. Co. v. Barrois
...is an affirmative federal claim that can form the basis for federal jurisdiction. See, e.g., Planned Parenthood of Houston and Se. Tex. v. Sanchez, 403 F.3d 324, 331 (5th Cir.2005) (suit against Texas state officials to enjoin the enforcement of allegedly preempted state abortion laws); Gil......
-
Hopkins v. Jegley
...See Planned Parenthood of Houston & Se. Tex. v. Sanchez , 480 F.3d 734, 739–40 (5th Cir. 2007) ; Planned Parenthood of Houston & Se. Tex. v. Sanchez , 403 F.3d 324, 333 (5th Cir. 2005).There is no language in the statute that supports this argument. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (providing in pertin......
-
Koenning v. Suehs
...336 (8th Cir.1991); King v. Smith, 392 U.S. 309, 316, 326–27, 88 S.Ct. 2128, 20 L.Ed.2d 1118 (1968); Planned Parenthood of Houston & Se. Tex. v. Sanchez, 403 F.3d 324, 337 (5th Cir.2005) ( “once a state has accepted federal funds, it is bound by the strings that accompany them”)). Plaintiff......