Case: Planned Parenthood Association of Utah v. State of Utah

This case concerns two Utah statutes banning abortions in nearly every circumstance, imposing criminal and licensing penalties on doctors, and requiring all abortions to be performed in hospitals and not licensed clinics.

On June 25, 2022, Planned Parenthood Association of Utah (“PPA”), represented by Planned Parenthood Federation of American and the ACLU, sued the State of Utah, the Attorney General of Utah, the Governor of Utah, and the Director of the Utah Division of Occupational and Professional Licensing (collectively, “UTS”) in Utah state district court. This suit, filed the day after Jackson Women's Health Organization v. Dobbs was decided, challenged Utah Senate Bill 174 (“SB 174”), that went into effect on June 24, 2022, that criminalized the provision of an abortion during any time of a pregnancy with some narrow exceptions for rape, incest, or serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment to the mother. Utah doctors found in violation of SB 174 faced one-to-fifteen years in prison, steep criminal fines, and loss of their professional licenses. PPA alleged that SB 174 infringed on Utahn’s rights protected by Utah’s Constitution by violating the right to (1) determine family composition and to parent; (2) equal protection; (3) uniform operation of laws; (4) substantive due process of bodily integrity; (5) prohibition on involuntary servitude; (6) conscience; and (7) privacy. PPA sought a declaratory judgment stating SB 174 violated the Utah State Constitution, along with a temporary and permanent injunction. The case was assigned to District Court Judge Andrew H. Stone.

Simultaneously to the complaint, PPA filed a motion for a temporary restraining order to enjoin SB 174’s enforcement and to preserve the status quo while this case was being litigated. PPA sought an emergency injunction to go into effect by Monday, June 27, as it had several patients scheduled for abortion care and would have to cancel all appointments unless UTS was enjoined from enforcing SB 174.

On June 27, 2022, the court granted the temporary restraining order, finding that without the order PPA and women needing abortion services would be irreparably harmed, PPA’s personnel risked felony prosecution, and women in Utah lacked safe, local abortion services. PPA was allowed to continue to provide abortions to those who would not have qualified under SB 174’s limited exceptions until the court decided whether or not to turn this temporary restraining order into a preliminary injunction.

On June 29, 2022, PPA filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, which the court granted on July 17. The court found that with a preliminary injunction, SB 174 would cause irreparable harm to PPA, its patients, and its staff, including the threat of criminal and licensing penalties, reputational harm, and harm to their livelihoods. Further, SB 174 would force pregnant Utahns to continue carrying a pregnancy that they have decided to end, with all the physical, emotional, and financial costs that entails. This preliminary injunction lasted until the final resolution of this case, unless decided otherwise. 

On August 11, 2022, UTS filed an interlocutory appeal to the Utah Supreme Court arguing that PPA lacked standing by itself or representing others to assert a right to abortion and that PPA had no possibility of winning on its claims given the anti-abortion landscape both before and after Utah’s Constitution was adopted.

On August 15, 2022, UTS also filed a motion to stay the preliminary injunction for the same reasons as the ones listed out in their interlocutory appeal. The sought a stay to the preliminary injunction while the interlocutory appeal and any resulting appellate proceedings concluded. 

On October 3, 2022, the Utah Supreme Court granted UTS permission to appeal, but denied the stay motion.

On April 3, 2023, PPA filed an expedited motion to file an amended complaint. In March 2023, the Utah legislature enacted House Bill 467 (“HB 467”) that amended the exceptions to the enjoined SB 174, added serious professional licensing consequences to SB 174’s existing penalties, prohibited all abortions provided outside of hospitals. and eliminated Utah’s long-standing licensure category of abortion clinics. PTA argued that because over 95% of abortions in Utah were provided by licensed abortion clinics, and Utah hospitals provided abortions in only narrow circumstances, HB 687 would functionally ban abortion in Utah when it went into effect on May 3, 2023. Because PTA would be forced to stop providing abortions under HB 467 even though SB 174 was enjoined, PTA sought to amend its complaint so they could challenge certain related provisions of HB 467. On April 17, the court granted this motion.

Simultaneously on April 3, PPA filed a second motion for a preliminary injunction, this time focused on HB 467. This second injunction solely focused on HB 467’s provision that required all abortions before 18 weeks to be performed in a hospital, prohibited licensed abortion clinics from providing abortions before 18 weeks, and eliminated abortion clinics as a facility licensure category. PPA sought a preliminary injunction to prevent these provisions from going into effect on May 3, 2023. 

On May 2, 2023, the court granted PPA’s preliminary injunction against HB 467. The court found that PPA was likely to succeed in arguing that HB 467 created classifications between licensed abortion clinics and hospitals which imposed disparate treatment of health care facilities without any reasonable objective. Judge Stone also found that PPA made a “strong showing of its likelihood to succeed on its argument that the Legislature was not reasonable in imposing different burdens on licensed abortion clinics than hospitals because this classification singles out [PPA] and other licensed abortion clinics without rational basis.” Lastly, the court found PPA was likely to succeed in showing that HB 467 failed rational basis review because the classifications established under HB 467 were not reasonable and seemed to directly discriminate against PPA, and therefore, a violation of Utah’s Uniform Operation of Laws clause. There was also no showing that Utah hospitals, who already barely performed abortions, had any plans to expand their abortion care services to make up for the difference when licensed abortion clinics closed, thus pregnant Utahns would be irreparably harmed.

On May 23, 2023, UTS filed a motion for a stay pending appeal until the Utah Supreme Court resolved the interlocutory appeal from the preliminary injunction against SB 174, which the court granted on May 24.

On August 1, 2024, the Utah Supreme Court upheld the injunction against SB 174. They found that PPA satisfied the requirements for traditional standing and possessed the third-party standing that allowed them to advance the claims of its patients. Further, the Utah Supreme Court decided that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it granted the preliminary injunction. This opinion did not decide the merits of PPA’s claims that SB 174 infringed on the rights protected by the Utah Constitution. 

This case is ongoing as of April 6, 2025. As of this date, SB 174 and HB 467 are preliminary enjoined.