Case: Reproductive Health Services v. Strange

2:14-cv-01014 | U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama

Filed Date: Oct. 1, 2014

Closed Date: Aug. 8, 2022

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

This is a case about the Alabama abortion restriction that imposed barriers on a minor's ability to get abortion care in the state. On October 1, 2014, a licensed abortion facility and the nurse who owned the facility filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama. The plaintiffs sued the Alabama Attorney General and the Montgomery County District Attorney under 42 USC § 1983. Represented by the national ACLU and the ACLU of Alabama, the plaintiffs so…

This is a case about the Alabama abortion restriction that imposed barriers on a minor's ability to get abortion care in the state.

On October 1, 2014, a licensed abortion facility and the nurse who owned the facility filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama. The plaintiffs sued the Alabama Attorney General and the Montgomery County District Attorney under 42 USC § 1983. Represented by the national ACLU and the ACLU of Alabama, the plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief. The case was assigned to Magistrate Judge Susan Russ Walker.

Under Alabama law a minor seeking an abortion needed to obtain the consent of his or her legal guardians. The law provided an alternate mechanism, termed a judicial bypass, where a minor could waive the requirement by obtaining an order from a juvenile court or a court of equal standing. House Bill 494 ("the Act") altered the judicial bypass process by allowing the participation of the district attorney, a guardian ad litem for the minor's fetus, and the minor's legal guardians in the bypass process. Previously the process kept the identity of the minor confidential. The act allowed these parties to subpoena any witnesses to testify against the minor at the bypass hearing. The act also allowed these parties to appeal a juvenile court's decision and delay the resolution of the process. Lastly the act restricted the bypass process to minors who were residents of the state.

Plaintiffs first claim alleged that the act violated their patients' Fourteenth Amendment rights to liberty and privacy as guaranteed by the due process clause. They alleged that their patients had the right to an effective, confidential, and expeditious judicial bypass and that the act was a substantive due process violation because it failed to provide an adequate judicial bypass to the parental consent requirement. ("Claim 1").

Next the plaintiffs alleged that the act violated their patients' Fourteenth Amendment right to informational privacy by allowing adverse parties and the court to disclose deeply sensitive, private information about the minor to others, including to any potential witnesses. ("Claim 2"). Third, the plaintiffs alleged that the act violated the fundamental right to travel as guaranteed by the Privileges and Immunities Clause by impairing the abortion rights of out-of-state minors. ("Claim 3"). Lastly the plaintiffs argued that the act violated the Equal Protection Clause by treating out-of-state minors differently from in-state residents, thereby creating classifications that penalized the exercise of the fundamental right to travel. ("Claim 4").

On October 1, 2014 the plaintiffs also filed a motion for preliminary injunctive relief. They argued that they were likely to succeed on their claim due to established precedent from Bellotti v. Baird, which held that the judicial bypass procedure had to ensure judicial authorization of the abortion without parental consent if the minor proved that 1) she was sufficiently mature and well informed, or 2) the abortion was in her best interest. 443 U.S. 622 (1979).

On January 16, 2015 the defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and for lack of jurisdiction. The defendants argued that the plaintiffs had no third-party standing and had no direct, imminent injury of their own. The defendants also argued that the challenge to the state judicial bypass system implicated important state interests in the administration of Alabama's court system, so the appropriate forum was state court. Additionally, the defendants argued that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim, because the bypass procedure complied with the Bellotti regime, and did not facially violate the right to privacy or interstate travel.

On March 25, 2015 the plaintiffs filed a motion for declaratory judgment and a permanent injunction in regards to Claims 3 and 4. The defendants had expressed that the parental consent requirement did not apply to out of state minors. However, the Alabama Attorney General refused plaintiffs' request to instruct district attorneys that out-of-state minors were not subject to the parental consent requirement. Therefore, the plaintiffs asked the court for declaratory judgment and a permanent injunction exempting out-of-state minors from the parental consent requirement.

On June 23, 2015 the defendants filed an unopposed motion to stay all litigation deadlines pending resolution of the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction and the defendants' motion to dismiss. The court granted the motion three days later.

On September 2, 2016 the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss and ordered them to file an answer to the plaintiffs' complaint. 204 F.Supp.3d 1300. The court determined that plaintiffs had direct standing because the statute regulated the conduct of abortion providers and could be enforced against the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also had third-party standing. The court additionally concluded that neither abstention nor certification to the Alabama Supreme Court were appropriate. Furthermore, the court held that the suit was not barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity, because the defendants had the requisite connection to the statute through the criminal enforcement provisions of their respective jurisdictions.

In the same September 2 opinion, the court deferred ruling on the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction until the defendants filed their answer. Plaintiffs' March 25 motion for declaratory judgment was premature as the pleadings were not closed, but could be reasserted once the pleadings did close. Other than granting leave to defendants to file the answer, all other litigation deadlines remained stayed.

On November 18, 2016, after the defendants had filed their answer, both the plaintiffs and the defendants filed motions for judgment on the pleadings. On July 28, 2017 the court granted the plaintiffs' motion with respect to Claim 1 and the defendants' motion with respects to Claims 2, 3, and 4. 268 F.Supp.3d 1261.

The court held that allowing parents and other parties to participate in the bypass proceedings violated the procedural and substantive due process rights of the minor involved and posed an undue burden on her liberty interests. Additionally, the Act unreasonably limited the anonymity of the minor involved and the confidentiality of the proceedings. Ensuring bypass courts had sufficient evidence upon which to make informed decisions could be accomplished without infringing on these rights. The court granted declaratory relief, which rendered the unconstitutional provisions unenforceable. As such, the court declined to grant injunctive relief.

Because of the court's Claim 1 holding, the court held that it would be superfluous to also grant plaintiffs' motion with respect to Claim 2. Lastly, since the parties had concluded that the act exempted out-of-state minors, the court granted judgment to the defendants on Claims 3 and 4, dismissing those claims. The court severed the unconstitutional provisions from the remainder of the act.

On August 8, 2017 the defendants appealed the district court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Nearly four years later, on June 30, 2021 the appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment. 3 F.4th 1240. The court of appeals held that the providers had direct standing, Eleventh Amendment immunity did not bar the suit, and the Act's bypass procedures constituted an undue burden on a large fraction of women to whom the provisions were relevant.

On July 21, 2021 the defendants filed a petition for a rehearing en banc. In part, they argued that the recent death of the owner of the plaintiff abortion clinic rendered the lawsuit moot. On January 27, 2022 the appellate court granted a rehearing en banc and vacated the previous appellate opinion. However, shortly thereafter, on February 1, the appellate court held the case in abeyance pending the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization.

After the Dobbs decision overruled Roe v. Wade and concluded that there was no federal fundamental right to an abortion, the parties in this case filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss the appeal on July 7, 2022. The Eleventh Circuit granted this motion on July 21, remanding the case back to the district court for dismissal. On August 2, the plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal. The case was dismissed with prejudice six days later by Magistrate Judge Chad W. Bryan, who had been reassigned to the case while the appeal was pending.

	Document
1 2:14-cv-01014	Complaint	Oct. 1, 2014	Oct. 1, 2014 Complaint
52 2:14-cv-01014	Memorandum Opinion and Order	Sept. 2, 2016	Sept. 2, 2016 Order/Opinion 240 F.Supp.3d 240
85 2:14-cv-01014	Memorandum Opinion, Declaratory Judgment, and Order Reproductive Health Services v. Marshall	July 28, 2017	July 28, 2017 Order/Opinion 268 F.Supp.3d 268
104 2:14-cv-01014 17-13561	Opinion U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit	June 30, 2021	June 30, 2021 Order/Opinion 3 F.4th 3

ECF Number	Description	Date	Link Date / Link
1	COMPLAINT against Daryl D. Bailey and Luther Strange, filed by Reproductive Health Services and June Ayers. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(scn, ) (Entered: 10/02/2014) 1 Exhibit A View on PACER	Oct. 1, 2014	Oct. 1, 2014 Clearinghouse
2	MOTION for Preliminary Injunctive Relief, by June Ayers and Reproductive Health Services. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(scn, ) (Entered: 10/02/2014)	Oct. 1, 2014	Oct. 1, 2014 PACER
3	BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support re 2 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by June Ayers and Reproductive Health Services. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A of Memo, # 2 Exhibit 1 of Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit 2 of Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit B of Memo, # 5 Exhibit C of Memo, # 6 Exhibit 1 of Exhibit C)(scn, ) (Entered: 10/02/2014)	Oct. 1, 2014	Oct. 1, 2014 PACER
4	Corporate/Conflict Disclosure Statement by June Ayers. (scn, ) (Entered: 10/02/2014)	Oct. 1, 2014	Oct. 1, 2014 PACER
5	Corporate/Conflict Disclosure Statement by Reproductive Health Services. (scn, ) (Entered: 10/02/2014)	Oct. 1, 2014	Oct. 1, 2014 PACER
6	Motion for Andrew D. Beck to Appear Pro Hac Vice by June Ayers and Reproductive Health Services. (Attachments: # 1 USDC Certificate of Good Standing, # 2 Proposed Order)(scn, ) (Entered: 10/02/2014)	Oct. 1, 2014	Oct. 1, 2014 PACER
7	Motion for Jennifer Dalven to Appear Pro Hac Vice by June Ayers and Reproductive Health Services. (Attachments: # 1 USDC Certificate of Good Standing, # 2 Proposed Order)(scn, ) (Entered: 10/02/2014)	Oct. 1, 2014	Oct. 1, 2014 PACER
8	Filing fee re 1 Complaint, 6 Motion for Andrew D. Beck to appear PHV, and 7 Motion for Jennifer Dalven to appear PHV: $ 500.00, receipt number 4602033763 (scn, ) (Entered: 10/02/2014)	Oct. 1, 2014	Oct. 1, 2014 PACER
9	Summons Issued as to Daryl D. Bailey and Luther Strange; mailed CMRRR with 1 Complaint. (scn, ) (Entered: 10/02/2014)	Oct. 2, 2014	Oct. 2, 2014 PACER
10	ORDER directing that, upon consideration of the motions for admission pro hac vice (Doc. # # 6, 7 ), filed October 1, 2014, to admit Andrew D. Beck and Jennifer Calven as counsel for plaintiffs, and for good cause, it is ORDERED that said motions be and hereby are GRANTED. Signed by Honorable Judge Susan Russ Walker on 10/6/14. (scn, ) (Entered: 10/06/2014)	Oct. 6, 2014	Oct. 6, 2014 PACER
11	Return Receipt Card showing service of 9 Summons and 1 Complaint signed by O. Williams for Daryl D. Bailey served on 10/3/2014, answer due 10/24/2014. (scn, ) (Entered: 10/07/2014)	Oct. 6, 2014	Oct. 6, 2014 PACER
12	Return Receipt Card showing service of 9 Summons and 1 Complaint signed by S. Clemens for Luther Strange served on 10/6/2014, answer due 10/27/2014. (scn, ) (Entered: 10/08/2014)	Oct. 8, 2014	Oct. 8, 2014 PACER
13	Motion for Rene Paradis to Appear Pro Hac Vice by June Ayers, Reproductive Health Services. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Good Standing, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Marshall, Randall) (Entered: 10/09/2014)	Oct. 9, 2014	Oct. 9, 2014 PACER
14	Filing fee re 13 Motion for Renee Paradis to appear PHV: $ 50.00, receipt number 4602033896 (scn, ) (Entered: 10/09/2014)	Oct. 9, 2014	Oct. 9, 2014 PACER
15	MOTION to Set a Briefing Schedule on Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief or to Convene a Scheduling Conference by June Ayers, Reproductive Health Services. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Beck, Andrew) (Entered: 10/10/2014)	Oct. 10, 2014	Oct. 10, 2014 PACER
16	ORDER directing that, upon consideration of the motion for admission pro hac vice, filed October 9, 2014, to admit Rene Paradis as counsel for plaintiffs, and for good cause, it is ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. Signed by Honorable Judge Susan Russ Walker on 10/10/14. (scn, ) (Entered: 10/10/2014)	Oct. 10, 2014	Oct. 10, 2014 PACER
17	ORDER denying 15 Motion to set a briefing schedule or to convene a scheduling conference, as further set out. Signed by Honorable Judge Susan Russ Walker on 10/14/14. (scn, ) (Entered: 10/14/2014)	Oct. 14, 2014	Oct. 14, 2014 PACER
18	MOTION for More Definite Statement Or To Strike by Daryl D. Bailey, Luther Strange. (Parker, William) (Entered: 11/03/2014)	Nov. 3, 2014	Nov. 3, 2014 PACER
19	Corporate/Conflict Disclosure Statement by Luther Strange. (Parker, William) (Entered: 11/03/2014)	Nov. 3, 2014	Nov. 3, 2014 PACER
20	Corporate/Conflict Disclosure Statement by Daryl D. Bailey. (Parker, William) (Entered: 11/03/2014)	Nov. 3, 2014	Nov. 3, 2014 PACER
21	BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for More Definite Statement or to Strike filed by June Ayers, Reproductive Health Services. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A)(Beck, Andrew) (Entered: 11/05/2014)	Nov. 5, 2014	Nov. 5, 2014 PACER
22	ORDER directing that the parties are DIRECTED to execute and file, on or before November 13, 2014, either the attached form consenting to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction or the form requesting reassignment to a District Judge. Signed by Honorable Judge Susan Russ Walker on 11/7/14. (scn, ) (Entered: 11/07/2014)	Nov. 7, 2014	Nov. 7, 2014 PACER
23	NOTICE by June Ayers, Reproductive Health Services of Supplemental Authority in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for More Definite Statement or to Strike (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Beck, Andrew) (Entered: 11/14/2014)	Nov. 14, 2014	Nov. 14, 2014 PACER
24	CONSENT to Jurisdiction by US Magistrate Judge by Daryl D. Bailey, Luther Strange. (scn, ) (Entered: 11/17/2014)	Nov. 17, 2014	Nov. 17, 2014 PACER
25	CONSENT to Jurisdiction by US Magistrate Judge by June Ayers, Reproductive Health Services. (scn, ) (Entered: 11/17/2014)	Nov. 17, 2014	Nov. 17, 2014 PACER
26	Joint MOTION for Order Setting Briefing Schedule and Notice of Agreement by Daryl D. Bailey, Luther Strange. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Proposed Order)(Parker, William) (Entered: 11/19/2014)	Nov. 19, 2014	Nov. 19, 2014 PACER
27	ORDER directing that: (1) the defendants' motion for more definite statement or to strike (Doc. # 18 ) is DENIED as moot in light of the defendants' agreement to withdraw the motion and not to base a future Rule 12 motion on the grounds contained therein; (2) the defendants' time for responding to the complaint under Rule 12 is extended to January 16, 2015; (3) by January 16, 2015, the defendants shall file their brief in opposition to the plaintiffs' preliminary injunction motion (Doc. # 2 ); (4) by February 6, 2015, the plaintiffs shall file their reply brief in further support of their preliminary injunction motion and their opposition to any Rule 12 motion filed by the defendants; and (5) by February 20, 2015, the defendants shall file their reply brief in support of their Rule 12 motion, if any. Signed by Honorable Judge Susan Russ Walker on 11/20/14. (scn, ) (Entered: 11/20/2014)	Nov. 20, 2014	Nov. 20, 2014 PACER
28	ORDER directing that the Rule 26(f) report containing the discovery plan shall be filed as soon as practicable but not later than January 5, 2015, as further set out. Signed by Honorable Judge Susan Russ Walker on 12/11/14. (scn, ) (Entered: 12/11/2014)	Dec. 11, 2014	Dec. 11, 2014 PACER
29	REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting. (Beck, Andrew) (Entered: 12/18/2014)	Dec. 18, 2014	Dec. 18, 2014 PACER
30	MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM, MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction by Daryl D. Bailey, Luther Strange. (Parker, William) (Entered: 01/16/2015)	Jan. 16, 2015	Jan. 16, 2015 PACER
31	BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support re 30 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by Daryl D. Bailey, Luther Strange. (Parker, William) (Entered: 01/16/2015)	Jan. 16, 2015	Jan. 16, 2015 PACER
32	RESPONSE in Opposition re 2 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Daryl D. Bailey, Luther Strange. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Leon Hampton Declaration)(Parker, William) (Entered: 01/16/2015)	Jan. 16, 2015	Jan. 16, 2015 PACER
33	UNIFORM SCHEDULING ORDER setting: Discovery due by 08/14/2015; Dispositive Motions due by 10/02/2015; Mediation Notice due by 09/16/2015; as further set out. Signed by Honorable Judge Susan Russ Walker on 1/20/15. (scn, ) (Entered: 01/20/2015)	Jan. 20, 2015	Jan. 20, 2015 PACER
34	BRIEFING ORDER. Signed by Honorable Judge Susan Russ Walker on 1/20/15. (scn, ) (Entered: 01/20/2015)	Jan. 20, 2015	Jan. 20, 2015 PACER
35	ORDER directing that, upon consideration of plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction (Doc. # 2 ), and for good cause, it is ORDERED that a hearing to address the motion is scheduled for 10:00 a.m. on March 18, 2015, in courtroom 5-B, Frank M. Johnson, Jr. United States Courthouse Complex, One Church Street, Montgomery, Alabama; the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to provide a court reporter for this hearing. Signed by Honorable Judge Susan Russ Walker on 1/20/15. (Furnished to Calendar/JT)(Furnished to MDAL Clerk of Court)(scn, ) (Entered: 01/20/2015)	Jan. 20, 2015	Jan. 20, 2015 PACER
36	ORDER directing that the dispositive motion briefing order entered on this date does not apply to the presently pending motion to dismiss, filed by defendants on January 16, 2014 (Doc. # 30 ). The briefing schedule on the motion to dismiss is as set forth in the court's earlier order (Doc. # 27 ), which adopted the schedule proposed jointly by the parties. Signed by Honorable Judge Susan Russ Walker on 1/20/15. (scn, ) (Entered: 01/20/2015)	Jan. 20, 2015	Jan. 20, 2015 PACER
37	BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss filed by June Ayers, Reproductive Health Services. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Beck, Andrew) (Entered: 02/06/2015)	Feb. 6, 2015	Feb. 6, 2015 PACER
38	REPLY BRIEF in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by June Ayers, Reproductive Health Services. (Beck, Andrew) (Entered: 02/06/2015)	Feb. 6, 2015	Feb. 6, 2015 PACER
39	REPLY BRIEF re 30 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by Daryl D. Bailey, Luther Strange. (Parker, William) (Entered: 02/20/2015)	Feb. 20, 2015	Feb. 20, 2015 PACER
40	ORDER directing that a status conference is hereby scheduled for March 11, 2015, by telephone at 10:00 a.m. CST, as further set out. Signed by Honorable Judge Susan Russ Walker on March 4, 2015. (Furnished to Calendar/JT) (scn, ) (Entered: 03/04/2015)	March 4, 2015	March 4, 2015 PACER

Case: Reproductive Health Services v. Strange

2:14-cv-01014 | U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama

Case Summary

People

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Resources

Docket

Case Details