Case: Tucson Woman's Clinic v. Schamadan

4:00-cv-00141 | U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona

Filed Date: March 1, 2000

Closed Date: Oct. 21, 2010

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

Abortion providers in Arizona brought this case on March 1, 2000 on behalf of themselves and their patients against several state officials pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, including the Director of the Arizona Department of Health Services, the Arizona Attorney General, and a class of all prosecuting attorneys in the state of Arizona. The plaintiffs were represented by the County Attorney for the County of Maricopa. Plaintiffs challenged a set of Arizona statutes and regulations passed in 1999 that provided for the licensing, supervision, regulation, and control of physician practices in which five or more first trimester abortions per month or any post-first trimester abortions were performed. Plaintiffs requested declaratory and injunctive relief against enforcement of these laws because they allegedly violated plaintiffs’ and their patients’ constitutional rights to equal protection, due process (vagueness and undue burden), informational privacy, and undue delegation under the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as their right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure guaranteed by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The case was assigned to Judge Raner C. Collins.

Plaintiffs also promptly filed a motion for preliminary injunction to stay enforcement of the statutes and regulations at issue while the case was ongoing. On several occasions throughout the discovery period, Judge Collins granted stipulations by both parties that defendants would not enforce the statutes and regulations, though a formal preliminary injunction was never issued.

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment in April 2001. Plaintiffs’ motion sought relief as a matter of law on all claims except for their undue burden claim, on which they maintained there was a disputed issue of material fact. Defendants filed six separate motions for summary judgment, one for each of the plaintiffs’ claims. The court granted in part and denied in part both parties’ motions. 2002 WL 32595282.

The plaintiffs’ Equal Protection claim rested on three alleged violations: (1) physicians that provide abortions are singled out from physicians that provide comparable procedures, (2) women seeking abortions were treated differently than men seeking similar medical procedures, and (3) physician practices that provide five or more first trimester abortions per month were treated differently from those that provide less than five. The court found none of these persuasive, and granted summary judgment to the defendants.

However, the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the Fourth Amendment unreasonable search and seizure issue. Due to the sensitive nature of abortion and the physician-patient relationship, the court held that licensed abortion clinics were sufficiently different form other places of business that courts have allowed to be closely regulated (including auto junkyards, catering businesses, and the veterinary drug industry). Thus, the regulatory provision requiring that the clinics give the Department of Health Services access to their facilities and requiring disclosure of patient medical records without a warrant violated the Fourth Amendment.

Further, the court concluded that the regulations violated an individual’s right to informational privacy by requiring disclosure of unredacted patient medical records and personal information contained in ultrasound prints. However, the court also found that the provision providing for warrantless searches of physicians’ offices had already been addressed in the plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment claim above. Accordingly, the court granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs’ and defendants’ motions for summary judgment on the informational privacy claim.

The plaintiffs further contended that the statutes and regulations at issues granted local hospitals “unbridled power” to determine whether plaintiffs may continue to provide abortions, and that granting third parties authority to prevent otherwise legal abortions violated the Constitution. The court disagreed, holding that the delegation did not explicitly give hospitals the authority to act unconstitutionally, and did not grant unbridled or unfettered discretion because it was still subject to judicial review and held to constitutional standards. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on this claim was granted, and plaintiffs’ denied.

In their fifth claim, plaintiffs alleged that the statutes and regulations were unconstitutionally vague under the Due Process Clause because it failed to provide abortion providers a reasonable opportunity to know what conduct is prohibited and allowed room for potential discriminatory and arbitrary enforcement. In particular, plaintiffs argued that the term “gestational age” contained two incompatible methods of calculation because they produced estimates roughly two weeks apart. In addition, plaintiffs challenged medical terms of art or medical judgments such as “potentially life-threatening,” “serious injury, “vital signs,” and drugs and equipment needed to support and monitor cardiopulmonary function. The court reviewed case law from the Seventh and Fifth Circuits to determine that none of these terms were vague enough to raise a constitutional issue, and thus granted summary judgment on this claim to defendants.

Finally, plaintiffs argued that the court could not resolve their undue burden claim under the Due Process Clause at the summary judgment stage because a factual issue remained as to whether the implementation of the statutes and regulations would result in increased costs for abortions. Defendants argued that no issue of material fact existed because the statutes and regulations served a valid purpose, were not enacted for an invidious purpose, and that plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate that they would result in prohibitive cost increases. The court agreed with defendants and granted their motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs’ undue burden claim.

The court also noted that the statutory scheme contained a severability clause, so the portions ruled unconstitutional by the court’s order could be cleanly severed without additional provisions being held invalid. Both parties appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

On June 18, 2004, in an opinion written by Judge Sidney R. Thomas, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to plaintiffs on their Fourth Amendment and informational privacy, as well as its grant of partial summary judgment to plaintiffs on their vagueness claims. 371 F.3d 1173. The Ninth Circuit also affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to defendants on the equal protection and the undue delegation claims, as well as its grant of partial summary judgment to defendants on the vagueness claims. However, the court reversed and remanded the district court’s grant of summary judgment to defendants on the undue burden claim, holding that the district court too quickly discounted the burdens imposed by the statutes and regulations, including financial and health costs. The plaintiffs were thus entitled to a bench trial and specific findings of fact as to the impact the burdens would have on women seeking abortions.

Both parties filed petitions for rehearing. On August 23, 2004, the Ninth Circuit issued an amended opinion, holding that one particular portion of the regulatory scheme did not violate informational privacy rights. 379 F.3d 531. The particular regulation in question required licensees to release information, including the name of a patient, to a professional licensing board if there was an “incident” with the patient involving death or serious injury. The Ninth Circuit took up this issue on appeal even though it had not been raised below, and had found an informational privacy violation in its earlier opinion. After reviewing the petitions for rehearing, the Ninth Circuit decided to amend their opinion, finding no informational privacy violation because the type of information requested was narrow, the potential for harm in any subsequent non-consensual disclosure was minimal, and the state interest in having the professional physician licensing board follow up on serious incidents was strong. With this amended opinion, the Ninth Circuit denied the petitions for rehearing.

Back in the district court, the parties engaged in settlement negotiations and eventually submitted a joint stipulation of settlement on September 10, 2008, which the court promptly granted. The Arizona Department of Health Services agreed under the settlement to write a new list of rules and regulations to implement the 1999 statute, which reduced the burdens on abortion providers by requiring the the health department to have a warrant in order to obtain patient records with identifying information and requiring dates of inspections to be scheduled with abortion facilities ahead of time. The regulations were implemented in 2010, and the case was dismissed with prejudice on October 21, 2010.

	Document
118 4:00-cv-00141	Fourth Amended Complaint Tucson Woman's Clinic v. Eden	Jan. 23, 2001	Jan. 23, 2001 Complaint
227 4:00-cv-00141	Order Tucson Woman's Clinic v. Eden	Sept. 30, 2002	Sept. 30, 2002 Order/Opinion 2002 WL 32595282
228 4:00-cv-00141	Judgment in a Civil Case Tucson Woman's Clinic v. Eden	Sept. 30, 2002	Sept. 30, 2002 Order/Opinion
47 4:00-cv-00141 02-17375 02-17381 02-17382	Opinion Tucson Woman's Clinic v. Eden U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit	June 18, 2004	June 18, 2004 Order/Opinion 371 F.3d 1173
56 4:00-cv-00141 02-17375 02-17381 02-17382	Opinion Tucson Woman's Clinic v. Eden U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit	Aug. 23, 2004	Aug. 23, 2004 Order/Opinion 379 F.3d 531
286 4:00-cv-00141	Order re: Joint Request for Stipulation of Settlement Tucson Woman's Clinic v. Eden	Sept. 11, 2008	Sept. 11, 2008 Order/Opinion
294 4:00-cv-00141	Order of Dismissal with Prejudice Tucson Woman's Clinic v. Eden	Oct. 21, 2010	Oct. 21, 2010 Order/Opinion

Title	Description		External URL Date / External URL
Tucson Women’s Clinic v. Eden Center for Reproductive Rights	This case challenged a “TRAP” law passed by the Arizona Legislature in 1999. The term “TRAP” stands for “targeted regulation of abortion providers,” and it refers to laws that target the medical prac…	Nov. 1, 2010	Nov. 1, 2010 https://reproductiverights.org/...
Arizona Abortion Law Goes Into Effect Following Settlement Center for Reproductive Rights	The Center for Reproductive Rights and the defendants, including Arizona county attorneys, negotiated for years and finally agreed to significant changes to the law. The result of that settlement alo…	Nov. 1, 2010	Nov. 1, 2010 https://reproductiverights.org/...
Tucson Woman's Clinic v. Eden (2004) Claudia Nunez-Eddy	The case Tucson Woman's Clinic v. Eden (2004) established that some of Arizona's abortion clinic laws violated physicians' and patients' rights to privacy, and it required Arizona's abortion laws to …	Nov. 14, 2016	Nov. 14, 2016 https://embryo.asu.edu/...

ECF Number	Description	Date	Link Date / Link
1	COMPLAINT FILED (MAH) (Entered: 03/02/2000)	March 1, 2000	March 1, 2000 PACER
2	MOTION for pro hac vice admission of attorney Bebe J. Anderson by pla [2-1] (MAH) (Entered: 03/07/2000)	March 7, 2000	March 7, 2000 PACER
3	ORDER by Judge Raner C. Collins granting motion for pro hac vice admission of attorney Bebe J. Anderson by pla [2-1] (cc: all counsel) (MAH) (ADI-ICMS, ). (Entered: 03/08/2000)	March 8, 2000	March 8, 2000 PACER
4	RETURN OF SERVICE of summons and cmp EXECUTED in person upon dft Janet Napolitano on 3/3/00 (MAH) (Entered: 03/09/2000)	March 8, 2000	March 8, 2000 PACER
5	RETURN OF SERVICE of summons and cmp EXECUTED in person upon dft Richard M Romley on 3/3/00 (MAH) (Entered: 03/09/2000)	March 8, 2000	March 8, 2000 PACER
6	MOTION to exceed the page limit in support of their mtn for temporary restraining order/prelim injunction by plas [6-1] (MAH) (Entered: 03/13/2000)	March 10, 2000	March 10, 2000 PACER
	LODGED mtn for restraining order/prelim injunction by plas (MAH)	March 10, 2000	March 10, 2000 PACER
	LODGED declaration of Damon S Raphael re mtn for TRO by pla (MAH)	March 10, 2000	March 10, 2000 PACER
	LODGED delcaration of William Richardson, M.D. re mtn for TRO by plas (MAH)	March 10, 2000	March 10, 2000 PACER
	LODGED declaration of Sherrylyn Young, M.D. re mtn for TRO by plas (MAH)	March 10, 2000	March 10, 2000 PACER
	LODGED declaration of Virginia L. Yrun re mtn for TRO by plas (MAH)	March 10, 2000	March 10, 2000 PACER
	LODGED declaration of Robert Tamis, M.D. re mtn for TRO by plas (MAH)	March 10, 2000	March 10, 2000 PACER
7	NOTICE by pla of service of plas' mtn for temporary restraining order with supporting declarations on dfts (MAH) (Entered: 03/13/2000)	March 10, 2000	March 10, 2000 PACER
8	MOTION for pro hac vice admission of attorney Bonnie Scott Jones by plas [8-1] (MAH) (Entered: 03/13/2000)	March 10, 2000	March 10, 2000 PACER
9	RETURN OF SERVICE of summons and cmp EXECUTED in person upon dft James L Schamadan on 3/7/00 (MAH) (Entered: 03/13/2000)	March 10, 2000	March 10, 2000 PACER
10	ORDER by Judge Raner C. Collins granting motion to exceed the page limit in support of their mtn for temporary restraining order/prelim injunction by plas [6-1] (cc: all counsel) (MAH) (ADI-ICMS, ). (Entered: 03/13/2000)	March 13, 2000	March 13, 2000 PACER
11	MOTION for preliminary injunction/temporary restraining order against enforcement of Arizona Revised Statutes 36-402, 36-449, 36-449.01, 36-449.02 and 36-449.03 and Arizona Regulation Title 9, Chapter 10, Article 15 [11-1] (MAH) (Entered: 03/13/2000)	March 13, 2000	March 13, 2000 PACER
12	DECLARATION by pla Damon Raphael, M.D. re motion for preliminary injunction/temporary restraining order against enforcement of Arizona Revised Statutes 36-402, 36-449, 36-449.01, 36-449.02 and 36-449.03 and Arizona Regulation Title 9, Chapter 10, Article 15 [11-1] [11-1] (MAH) (Entered: 03/13/2000)	March 13, 2000	March 13, 2000 PACER
13	DECLARATION by pla William Richardson re motion for preliminary injunction/temporary restraining order against enforcement of Arizona Revised Statutes 36-402, 36-449, 36-449.01, 36-449.02 and 36-449.03 and Arizona Regulation Title 9, Chapter 10, Article 15 [11-1] [11-1] (MAH) (Entered: 03/13/2000)	March 13, 2000	March 13, 2000 PACER
14	DECLARATION by pla Sherrylyn Young, M.D. re motion for preliminary injunction/temporary restraining order against enforcement of Arizona Revised Statutes 36-402, 36-449, 36-449.01, 36-449.02 and 36-449.03 and Arizona Regulation Title 9, Chapter 10, Article 15 [11-1] [11-1] (MAH) (Entered: 03/13/2000)	March 13, 2000	March 13, 2000 PACER
15	DECLARATION by pla Virginia L. Yrun for Planned Parenthood/S re motion for preliminary injunction/temporary restraining order against enforcement of Arizona Revised Statutes 36-402, 36-449, 36-449.01, 36-449.02 and 36-449.03 and Arizona Regulation Title 9, Chapter 10, Article 15 [11-1] [11-1] (MAH) (Entered: 03/13/2000)	March 13, 2000	March 13, 2000 PACER
16	DECLARATION by pla Robert H Tamis, M.D. re motion for preliminary injunction/temporary restraining order against enforcement of Arizona Revised Statutes 36-402, 36-449, 36-449.01, 36-449.02 and 36-449.03 and Arizona Regulation Title 9, Chapter 10, Article 15 [11-1] [11-1] (MAH) (Entered: 03/13/2000)	March 13, 2000	March 13, 2000 PACER
17	RETURN OF SERVICE of summons and cmp EXECUTED in person upon dft Barbara LaWall on 3/8/00 (MAH) (Entered: 03/14/2000)	March 14, 2000	March 14, 2000 PACER
18	ORDER by Judge Raner C. Collins granting motion for pro hac vice admission of attorney Bonnie Scott Jones by plas [8-1] Bonnie Scott Jones appointed for plas (cc: all counsel) (MAH) (ADI-ICMS, ). (Entered: 03/15/2000)	March 15, 2000	March 15, 2000 PACER
19	ORDER by Judge Raner C. Collins setting motion for preliminary injunction/temporary restraining order [11-1] at 1:30 3/27/00; ORD that dfts shall file any responsive briefs by noon 3/22/00; if parties intend to present testimony at the hrg, they should notify the court by 3/22/00 (cc: all counsel) (MAH) (ADI-ICMS, ). (Entered: 03/15/2000)	March 15, 2000	March 15, 2000 PACER
20	STIPULATION by pla, dft to stay enforcement of abortion clinic regulatory scheme pending outcome of preliminary injunction hrg, to continue preliminary injunction hrg for 90 days, to extend dfts and & response ddls; set reply ddl for pla. (PAB) (Entered: 03/23/2000)	March 22, 2000	March 22, 2000 PACER
21	ORDER by Judge Raner C. Collins granting stipulation to continue ddls, setting motion for preliminary injunction/temporary restraining order against enforcement of Arizona Revised Statutes 36-402, 36-449, 36-449.01, 36-449.02 and 36-449.03 and Arizona Regulation Title 9, Chapter 10, Article 15 [11-1] at 10:00 6/29/00 ; dfts shall have a 30 day extension on the current ddl to file an answer to the cmp; dfts shall file any responsice briefs to plas' mtn for a TRO by 5/22/00; plas' reply briefs are due 6/5/00 ORD that enforcement of the Abortion Clinic Regulatory Scheme is STAYED pending the outcome of the preliminary injunction hrg (cc: all counsel) (MAH) (ADI-ICMS, ). (Entered: 03/24/2000)	March 24, 2000	March 24, 2000 PACER
22	First AMENDED COMPLAINT by pla [1-1] ; (MAH) (Entered: 04/12/2000)	April 12, 2000	April 12, 2000 PACER
23	CERTIFICATE of service of amended cmp upon dfts by pla (MAH) (Entered: 04/12/2000)	April 12, 2000	April 12, 2000 PACER
24	MOTION for pro hac vice for Eve Gartner by pla Planned Parenthood/S [24-1] (PAB) (Entered: 04/17/2000)	April 17, 2000	April 17, 2000 PACER
25	ORDER by Judge Raner C. Collins granting motion for pro hac vice for Eve Gartner by pla Planned Parenthood/S [24-1] (cc: all counsel) (MAH) (ADI-ICMS, ). (Entered: 04/18/2000)	April 18, 2000	April 18, 2000 PACER
26	MOTION (Request) to substitute the Maricopa County Attorney as class representative or accord Pima County nominal party status by dft [26-1] (MAH) (Entered: 05/08/2000)	April 18, 2000	April 18, 2000 PACER
27	ANSWER by dft Barbara LaWall to first amended cmp (MAH) (Entered: 05/02/2000)	May 1, 2000	May 1, 2000 PACER
28	ANSWER by dft James L Schamadan, dft Janet Napolitano to first amended cmp (MAH) (Entered: 05/02/2000)	May 1, 2000	May 1, 2000 PACER
29	MOTION to certify class action by pla [29-1] the proposed class for a dft consists of the Arizona AG, all Arizona County Attorneys, City Attorneys and Town Attorneys, and their employees and agents, in their official capacities (MAH) (Entered: 05/08/2000)	May 8, 2000	May 8, 2000 PACER
30	RESPONSE (Memorandum of law in opposition ) by pla to motion to substitute the Maricopa County Attorney as class representative or accord Pima County nominal party status by dft [26-1] (MAH) (Entered: 05/08/2000)	May 8, 2000	May 8, 2000 PACER
31	STIPULATION by plas, dfts to dismiss pla Planned Parenthood of Southern Arizona, allow pla to file second amended cmp and amended memorandum of law in support of their mtn for temporary restraining order and/or prelim injunction, and to amend existing scheduling order (MAH) (Entered: 05/08/2000)	May 8, 2000	May 8, 2000 PACER
	LODGED second amd cmp (MAH)	May 8, 2000	May 8, 2000 PACER
32	CERTIFICATE of service of stipluation to dismiss pla Planned Parenthood, permit the filing of certain amended pleadings and amend existing scheduling order, plas' second amd cmp, plas' amd memorandum of law in suport of mtn for TRO/prelim injunction, plas' memorandum in support of mtn for class certification and in opposition to dfts mtn re class certification by pla (MAH) Modified on 05/17/2000 (Entered: 05/08/2000)	May 8, 2000	May 8, 2000 PACER
33	MOTION for pro hac vice admission of attorney Suzanne Novak by plas [34-1] (MAH) Modified on 05/17/2000 (Entered: 05/08/2000)	May 8, 2000	May 8, 2000 PACER

Case: Tucson Woman's Clinic v. Schamadan

4:00-cv-00141 | U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona

Case Summary

People

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Resources

Docket

Case Details