United States v. State

Decision Date06 October 2021
Docket Number1:21-CV-796-RP
Parties UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. The State of TEXAS, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Western District of Texas

566 F.Supp.3d 605

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff,
v.
The State of TEXAS, Defendant.

1:21-CV-796-RP

United States District Court, W.D. Texas, Austin Division.

Signed October 6, 2021


566 F.Supp.3d 619

Brian David Netter, Joshua M. Kolsky, Adele Marie El-Khouri, Christopher D. Dodge, Cody T. Knapp, Kuntal Cholera, James R. Powers, Lisa Newman, Michael Hendry Baer, Olivia R. Hussey Scott, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.

Beth Klusmann, William Thomas Thompson, Amy Snow Hilton, Leif A. Olson, Eric A. Hudson, Natalie Deyo Thompson, Office of the Attorney General Office of the Solicitor General, Austin, TX, for Defendant.

ORDER

ROBERT PITMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

566 F.Supp.3d 620

Before the Court are the United States’ Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction (the "Motion"), (Dkt. 8), the State of Texas's (the "State" or "Texas") Motion to Dismiss, (Dkt. 54), the Amici States’1 Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Brief as Amici Curiae, (Dkt. 9), the United States’ Opposed Motion for Protective Order of Audiovisual Recordings, (Dkt. 36), the State's Objections to the United States’ Declarations, (Dkt. 55), and Erick Graham, Jeff Tuley, and Mistie Sharp's (the "Texas Intervenors") motion to strike lodged at the hearing, (Hr'g Tr., Dkt. 65, at 96). On October 1, 2021, the Court held a hearing at which it heard evidence and considered arguments on the United States’ request for a preliminary injunction and the State's motion to dismiss. (Dkt. 61; Hr'g Tr., Dkt. 65). Having considered the parties’ arguments, the evidence presented, and the relevant law, the Court issues the following order.

I. INTRODUCTION

A person's right under the Constitution to choose to obtain an abortion prior to fetal viability is well established. Fully aware that depriving its citizens of this right by direct state action would be flagrantly unconstitutional, the State contrived an unprecedented and transparent statutory scheme to do just that. The State created a private cause of action by which individuals with no personal interest in, or connection to, a person seeking an abortion would be incentivized to use the state's judicial system, judges, and court officials to interfere with the right to an abortion. Rather than subjecting its law to judicial review under the Constitution, the State deliberately circumvented the traditional process. It drafted the law with the intent to preclude review by federal courts that have the obligation to safeguard the very rights the statute likely violates.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

This case concerns State legislature's passage of Senate Bill 8 ("S.B. 8"), a sweeping anti-abortion law. See Senate Bill 8, 87th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Tex. 2021). S.B. 8 purports to ban all abortions performed on any pregnant person2 where cardiac activity has been detected in the embryo, with no exceptions for pregnancies that result from rape, sexual abuse, incest, or fetal defect incompatible with life after birth. Tex. Health & Safety Code § 171.204(a). As explained further below, S.B. 8 can be enforced through civil lawsuits by private citizens against anyone who performs, aids and abets or intends to participate in a prohibited abortion. See id. §§ 171.208, 171.210.

1. Abortion

The Court finds that the declarations of providers Gilbert, Dkt. 8-2, Hagstrom Miller, Dkt. 8-4, and Linton, Dkt. 8-5, credibly describe the details of embryonic development. 3

566 F.Supp.3d 621

Fertilization of an egg usually happens at two weeks from the first day of a patient's last menstrual period ("LMP"). At three weeks LMP, the egg implants in the uterus and pregnancy begins. An ultrasound is first able to detect a pregnancy around four to five weeks LMP; the gestational sac is too small to detect before this time. (Gilbert Decl., Dkt. 8-2, at 8). An embryo then develops until nine weeks LMP. The embryo begins to form cells that in later stages of pregnancy will become the heart. An ultrasound during this phase will reveal a sac of fluid, sometimes with a dot inside that represents the embryo. At this early stage, certain cells produce cardiac activity, which appears on an ultrasound as "an electrical impulse that appears as a visual flicker within [the] dot." (Id. at 6). This electrical impulse can occur "very early in pregnancy," as soon as six weeks LMP or sometimes sooner; the embryo does not have a fully developed heart at this time. (Id. ). At approximately ten weeks LMP, the embryo develops into a fetus. The fetus does not reach viability until approximately 24 weeks, although viability is an individual medical determination. (Id. at 6). "Viability is medically understood as the point when a fetus has a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival after birth, with or without artificial support[,]" and is "medically impossible at 6 weeks LMP ...." (Id. at 6–7).

The Court finds that abortion is a safe4 and common medical procedure, based on the credible declarations of abortion providers founded on their education and experience. Most providers in Texas perform both medication and procedural abortions. A medication abortion consists of taking two medications, mifepristone and misoprostol, which initiate a process similar to a miscarriage. (Id. at 4). A procedural abortion requires a provider to conduct an abortion procedure in person on the patient. Approximately one quarter of women in the United States will have an abortion by the age of forty-five. (Id. at 8). In Texas alone, providers performed more than 50,000 abortions last year. (Id. at 8–9).5 The declarants credibly describe a host of reasons why people might obtain an abortion—commonly arising out of medical,6

566 F.Supp.3d 622

financial,7 and family planning8 concerns. In some cases, "patients choose to have an abortion because their pregnancies are the result of rape, incest, or other intimate partner violence." (Id. at 11).9 Still others seek abortions after fetal anomalies are diagnosed, when such diagnoses may result in severe disabilities or death. Fetal anomalies of this nature cannot be diagnosed until significantly later than six weeks LMP, and some cannot be diagnosed until 18 or 20 weeks LMP. (See Gilbert Decl., Dkt. 8-2, at 11). Many people do not realize they are pregnant at six weeks LMP because the markers of pregnancy vary greatly across the population.10

566 F.Supp.3d 623

As a result, they cannot seek abortion care until after embryonic cardiac activity is detectable.11 Even so, the Court finds that "the vast majority of abortions in the United States and in Texas take place in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy"—but "most patients are at least 6 weeks LMP into their pregnancy when they make an abortion appointment." (Gilbert Decl., Dkt 8-2, at 8).

2. Abortion Regulation in Texas

Texas law contains a number of regulations for abortion procedures antecedent to the developments in S.B. 8 at issue here. Those regulations remain in force irrespective of the constitutionality of S.B. 8. State law requires physicians to perform an ultrasound before performing an abortion on a patient. An ultrasound typically cannot detect a pregnancy before four weeks LMP, when the gestational sac becomes visible. (Id. at 4). State law also requires a series of counseling requirements to be completed, as well as imposing a 24-hour waiting period. Unless a person certifies that they live more than 100 miles from an abortion facility, they must make two trips to a clinic to complete these requirements because of the waiting period. See Tex. Health & Safety Code §§ 171.011 –016. Appointments for counseling and for medication abortion must be done in person. Id. ; id. § 171.063. Written parental consent or a court order are required for patients eighteen years old or younger. Id. §§ 33.001–014. The State also prohibits Medicaid coverage of abortion; most private insurers similarly refuse to cover the procedure. (See Hagstrom Miller Decl. I, Dkt. 8-4, at 4). Credible evidence establishes that these requirements create burdens for people seeking abortions. (See Gilbert Decl., Dkt. 8-2, at 12) ("Patients must coordinate transportation to the clinic, childcare for their family, lodging if they live far from a clinic, and time off from work (which may not be paid).").

In addition, the Texas legislature passed H.B. 2 in 2013, imposing further restrictions on abortion facilities and providers. House Bill 2, 83rd Leg., 2nd Called Sess. (Tex. 2013). That law was enjoined and ultimately overturned by the Supreme Court. See

566 F.Supp.3d 624

Whole Women's Health v. Hellerstedt , 579 U.S. 582, 136 S. Ct. 2292, 195 L.Ed.2d 665 (2016). But during the period of its operation, it forced many clinics to close, almost all of which have not reopened.12 The result is that, whereas before H.B. 2 there were 44 clinics, now only 20 clinics serve the entire state. (See Hagstrom Miller Decl. I, Dkt. 8-4, at 5).13 Similar closures arose from Governor...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • La Unión Del Pueblo Entero v. Abbott
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Texas
    • May 24, 2022
    ...at times offering both more expansive and confined readings of the scope of the interests supported by Debs. " United States v. Texas , 566 F.Supp.3d 605, 640 (W.D. Tex. 2021), cert. granted before judgment , ––– U.S. ––––, 142 S. Ct. 14, 211 L.Ed.2d 225 (2021).In any event, the United Stat......
  • Collins v. Nat'l Football League
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Texas
    • October 12, 2021
  • Rainbow Energy Mktg. Corp. v. DCT, LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Texas
    • June 17, 2022
    ... ... DCT, LLC, Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff No. 1:21-cv-313-RP United States District Court, W.D. Texas, Austin Division June 17, 2022 ...           ... litigation arises from Winter Storm Uri, which devastated the ... state of Texas in February 2021 with days of freezing rain, ... snow, and below-freezing ... ...
  • Wilkins v. Attorney Keval Patel Law Firm
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas
    • June 21, 2023
    ... ... ATTORNEY KEVAL PATEL LAW FIRM, et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 3:23-cv-00088United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Galveston DivisionJune 21, 2023 ...           ... MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION ...           ANDREW ... M. EDISON, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE ...          Pending ... before me are motions to ... State ... Bar of Texas (Dkt. 55). Having reviewed the briefing, the ... record, and the ... ...
1 books & journal articles
  • "A SWORD IN THE BED": BRINGING AN END TO THE FUSION OF LAW AND EQUITY.
    • United States
    • Notre Dame Law Review Vol. 98 No. 1, November 2022
    • November 1, 2022
    ...(arguing that traditional principles of equity accord no right to issue a "universal injunction[]"); United States v. Texas, 566 F. Supp. 3d 605, 645 (W.D. Tex. (3) Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo, S.A. v. All. Bond Fund, Inc., 527 U.S. 308, 318 (1999). (4) Id. at 319. (5) See CHARLES DICKENS,......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT