BRISTOL REGIONAL WOMEN’S CENTER, P.C.; MEMPHIS CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH, ON BEHALF OF ITSELF AND ITS PATIENTS, KNOXVILLE CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH; PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF TENNESSEE AND NORTH MISSISSIPPI, FORMERLY KNOWN AS PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF MIDDLE AND EAST TENNESSEE, AND DR. KIMBERLY LOONEY v. HERBERT H. SLATERY, III, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TENNESSEE, GLENN R. FUNK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE, AMY P. WEIRICH, DISTRICT ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SHELBY COUNTY, TENNESSEE; BARRY P. STAUBUS, DISTRICT ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SULLIVAN COUNTY, TENNESSEE, CHARME P. ALLEN, LISA PIERCEY, COMMISSIONER OF THE TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, AND W. REEVES JOHNSON, JR., M.D., PRESIDENT OF THE TENNESSEE BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS, IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES - Articles

All Content

BRISTOL REGIONAL WOMEN’S CENTER, P.C.; MEMPHIS CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH, ON BEHALF OF ITSELF AND ITS PATIENTS, KNOXVILLE CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH; PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF TENNESSEE AND NORTH MISSISSIPPI, FORMERLY KNOWN AS PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF MIDDLE AND EAST TENNESSEE, AND DR. KIMBERLY LOONEY v. HERBERT H. SLATERY, III, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TENNESSEE, GLENN R. FUNK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE, AMY P. WEIRICH, DISTRICT ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SHELBY COUNTY, TENNESSEE; BARRY P. STAUBUS, DISTRICT ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SULLIVAN COUNTY, TENNESSEE, CHARME P. ALLEN, LISA PIERCEY, COMMISSIONER OF THE TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, AND W. REEVES JOHNSON, JR., M.D., PRESIDENT OF THE TENNESSEE BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS, IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES

Posted by: Karen Belcher on Feb 19, 2021

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ON MOTION AND REPLY: Sarah K. Campbell, Mark Alexander Carver, OFFICE OF THETENNESSEE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellants.

Attorneys 2: ON RESPONSE: Autumn Katz, Michelle Moriarty, Rabia Muqaddam, CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS, New York, New York, Maithreyi Ratakonda, PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA, New York, New York, Scott Tift, BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC, Nashville, Tennessee, Michael J. Dell, Jason M. Moff, KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP, New York, New York for Appellees.

Judge(s): MOORE, WHITE, and THAPAR, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. “Unfortunately, the teachings of precedent are not always as clear as we might wish.” Wright v. Spaulding, 939 F.3d 695, 699 (6th Cir. 2019) (Thapar, J.). This bit of wisdom rings particularly true for the resolution of the motion to stay pending appeal before us today, which targets the district court’s judgment declaring unconstitutional and permanently enjoining a Tennessee statute that imposes a waiting period of 48 or 24 hours on women seeking an abortion in the state. Defendants1 argue that a stay is warranted because two precedents, EMW Women’s Surgical Center, P.S.C. v. Friedlander, 978 F.3d 418 (6th Cir. 2020), and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), will compel us to vacate the district court’s judgment and permanent injunction on appeal. Our dissenting colleague—in his zeal to uphold what appears to be yet another unnecessary, unjustified, and unduly burdensome state law that stands between women and their right to an abortion—agrees. We think, however, that this case is not so simple. Because neither Casey nor EMW has foreclosed Plaintiffs’2 arguments, we must decline Defendants’ invitation to follow them blindly. After all, we are bound by “complementary duties: adhering to precedent when an issue has already been decided and considering an issue with an open mind when it has not.” Wright, 939 F.3d at 702. Assessing the parties’ preliminary arguments with the requisite clear eyes, we conclude that a stay is unwarranted. Accordingly, we DENY the motion for a stay pending appeal.

Attachments: