Whole Woman's Health v. Paxton
| Citation | 978 F.3d 974 (Mem) |
| Decision Date | 30 October 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 17-51060,17-51060 |
| Parties | WHOLE WOMAN'S HEALTH, On Behalf of Itself, Its Staff, Physicians and Patients; Planned Parenthood Center for Choice, On Behalf of Itself, Its Staff, Physicians, and Patients; Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Surgical Health Services, On Behalf of Itself, Its Staff, Physicians, and Patients; Planned Parenthood South Texas Surgical Center, On Behalf of Itself, Its Staff, Physicians, and Patients; Alamo City Surgery Center, P.L.L.C., On Behalf of Itself, Its Staff, Physicians, and Patients, doing business as Alamo Women's Reproductive Services; Southwestern Women's Surgery Center, On Behalf of Itself, Its Staff, Physicians, and Patients; Curtis Boyd, M.D., On His Own Behalf and On Behalf of His Patients; Jane Doe, M.D., M.A.S., On Her Own Behalf and On Behalf of Her Patients; Bhavik Kumar, M.D., M.P.H., On His Own Behalf and On Behalf of His Patients; Alan Braid, M.D., On His Own Behalf and On Behalf of His Patients; Robin Wallace, M.D., M.A.S., On Her Own Behalf and On Behalf of Her Patients, Plaintiffs—Appellees, v. Ken PAXTON, Attorney General of Texas, In His Official Capacity; Sharen Wilson, Criminal District Attorney for Tarrant County, In Her Official Capacity; Barry Johnson, Criminal District Attorney for McLennan County, In His Official Capacity, Defendants—Appellants. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit) |
A majority of the circuit judges in regular active service and not disqualified having voted in favor, on the Court's own motion, to rehear this case en banc,
IT IS ORDERED that this cause shall be reheard by the court en banc with oral argument on a date hereafter to be fixed. The Clerk will specify a briefing schedule for the filing of supplemental briefs. Pursuant to 5th Cir.R.41.3, the panel opinion in this case dated October 22, 2020, is vacated.
To continue reading
Request your trial
6 cases
-
Hopkins v. Jegley
...v. Paxton , 978 F.3d 896 (5th Cir. 2020), aff'g 280 F. Supp. 3d 938, 953–54 (W.D. Tex. 2017), vacating and reh'g en banc granted 978 F.3d 974 (5th Cir. 2020).Dr. Hopkins and LRFP argue that, as a matter of Supreme Court precedent, defendants "cannot criminalize the performance of the most c......
-
Whole Women's Health v. Jackson
...(mem.) (COVID abortion ban); Whole Woman's Health v. Paxton , 978 F.3d 896 (5th Cir. 2020), reh'rg en banc granted, vacated by 978 F.3d 974 (5th Cir. 2020) (mem.)). Indeed, in In re Abbott , the Fifth Circuit noted that the State had "threatened that [the anti-abortion statute] would be enf......
-
Whole Woman's Health v. Paxton
...Judge Willett in dissent again. See Whole Woman's Health v. Paxton , 978 F.3d 896 (5th Cir.), vacated and reh'g en banc granted , 978 F.3d 974 (5th Cir. 2020). A majority of the members of our court voted to take the case en banc .II.A. We review the district court's permanent injunction fo......
-
Whole Woman's Health v. Paxton
...with Judge Willett in dissent again. See Whole Woman's Health v. Paxton, 978 F.3d 896 (5th Cir.), vacated and reh'g en banc granted, 978 F.3d 974 (5th Cir. 2020). A majority of the members of our court voted to take the case en banc. II. A. We review the district court's permanent injunctio......
Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
-
A WOMAN'S CHOICE? THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF DOWN SYNDROME ABORTION BANS AND THE BREAKDOWN OF THE DOCTOR-PATIENT RELATIONSHIP.
...June Medical is controlling), to Whole Woman's Health v. Paxton, 978 F.3d 896 (5th Cir. 2020), reh'g en banc granted, opinion vacated by 978 F.3d 974 (5th Cir. 2020); Planned Parenthood of Indiana & Kentucky v. Box, 991 F.3d 740 (7th Cir. 2021) (holding that June Medical yielded no cont......