FEMHEALTH USA, INC., dba carafem v. RICKEY NELSON WILLIAMS, JR. et al. and OPERATION SAVE AMERICA; JASON STORMS; MATTHEW BROCK; COLEMAN BOYD; FRANK LINAM; BRENT BUCKLEY - Articles

All Content

FEMHEALTH USA, INC., dba carafem v. RICKEY NELSON WILLIAMS, JR. et al. and OPERATION SAVE AMERICA; JASON STORMS; MATTHEW BROCK; COLEMAN BOYD; FRANK LINAM; BRENT BUCKLEY

Posted by: Tanja Trezise on Sep 29, 2023

Head Comment: BUSH delivered a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Stephen M. Crampton, THOMAS MORE SOCIETY, Tupelo, Mississippi, for Appellants.

Attorneys 2: ARGUED: Briana T. Sprick Schuster, BASS, BERRY & SIMS PLC, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellee.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: Stephen M. Crampton, THOMAS MORE SOCIETY, Tupelo, Mississippi, Larry L. Crain, CRAIN LAW GROUP, PLLC, Brentwood, Tennessee, for Appellants.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: Briana T. Sprick Schuster, Sarah B. Miller, Angela L. Bergman, Allison Wiseman Aker, BASS, BERRY & SIMS PLC, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellee.

Attorneys 5: ON BRIEF: Barbara A. Schwabauer, Erin H. Flynn, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae.

Judge(s): MOORE, GIBBONS, and BUSH, Circuit Judges

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

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. When this interlocutory appeal was initially briefed, the issue presented was whether the district court abused its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE Act), 18 U.S.C. § 248. By the time we heard oral argument, however, that merits issue had been overtaken by a dispute over whether intervening events that occurred after the parties filed their merits briefs warranted modifying or dissolving the district court’s preliminary injunction. Because that dispute raises new factual and legal issues that the district court is best positioned to resolve in the first instance, we DISMISS the appeal and REMAND for further proceedings. We separately DENY appellants’ motion for attorney fees, expenses, and costs.

Attachments: