June Medical Services v. Phillips
This case challenges seven abortion restrictions in Louisiana, including one that would triple the state's mandatory waiting period.
(REVISED 1.19.2022) - This lawsuit challenges seven abortion restrictions passed in Louisiana in 2016—including a measure that would triple the state’s mandatory delay for women seeking abortion from 24 to 72 hours and a measure that bans the most common method of second-trimester abortion. This case was formerly referred to as June Medical Services v. Kliebert (2016).
The Center for Reproductive Rights’ lawsuit also challenges measures that:
- Could effectively ban medication abortion by imposing impossible requirements on women and their physicians when a woman completes her medication abortion outside of a doctor’s office,
- Polices a woman’s reason for needing to end a pregnancy by banning abortion in cases of genetic abnormalities,
- Further limits the availability of abortion by restricting which types of physicians may offer abortion care,
- Further stigmatizes abortion care by not only prohibiting any state or local government agency from entering into any funding agreement with any abortion provider, but also prohibiting state or local government officials from contracting with any third party that contracts with an abortion provider,
- Imposes a prison term of hard labor for receiving reimbursement covering expenses related to carrying out the wishes of a woman who—following an abortion—wants to donate fetal tissue for medical research. Notably, the measure does not impose the same restriction if a woman experiences a miscarriage.
Plaintiff(s): Hope Medical Group for Women and Bossier City Medical Suite
Center Attorney(s): Caroline Sacerdote, Alice Wang
Co-Counsel/Cooperating Attorneys: William E. Rittenberg at Rittenberg, Samuel, and Phillips, LLC and attorneys at Morrison &, Foerster
Summary:
The Center filed a lawsuit in federal court on July 1, 2016 challenging all seven of the new abortion restrictions passed by the state of Louisiana in 2016. The laws were scheduled to take effect on August 1, however, under an agreement between the Plaintiffs and the State the enforcement of the laws has been delayed. On December 16, we filed an amended complaint in light of additional regulations enacted by the State.
The State then filed several motions to dismiss the case. Following briefing and oral arguments, on November 16, 2017, the trial court ruled largely in the Plaintiffs’ favor, allowing almost all of the claims to proceed.
On November 18, 2019, the State filed an emergency mandamus petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, asking the appellate court to unseal confidential information about our clients to include in their briefing at the U.S. Supreme Court in another case (the Center’s challenge to a different Louisiana abortion restriction, June Medical Services v. Russo). On November 25, the district court issued an order denying the relief the State had sought while the petition was pending, and the Fifth Circuit then denied the State’s mandamus petition on mootness grounds two days later. On November 29, the State filed an emergency appeal of the district court’s order, which was denied on December 17.
On December 30, 2020, the State filed an interlocutory appeal of a district court order denying the State’s request to unseal certain documents. On January 7, 2022, the Fifth Circuit ruled in the State’s favor.
State: Louisiana
Status: Open
Documents:
- Reply Brief, 03.03.2016
- Court Ruling on Motion to Stay, 02.16.2016
- First Amended Complaint, 12.16.2016
Read more about the case:
