Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
15 Week Abortion Ban Appeal: Court of Appeals denies Motion to Vacate Automatic Stay
Last edited Fri Jul 22, 2022, 09:52 AM - Edit history (1)
The court also rejected the State's attempt to fast track the case to the Florida Supreme Court. 2 to 1 majority.
15 week ban is still in effect.
Court Opinion
Excerpt of the Dissenting Opinion
I am constrained to dissent in light of what I can only conclude is binding precedent from the Florida Supreme Court and this Court.
In the specific context of abortion regulation, the Florida Supreme Court has held that even “minimal” loss of the constitutional right of privacy is per-se irreparable injury. Gainesville Woman Care, LLC v. State, 210 So. 3d 1243, 1263 (Fla. 2017) (quoting Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976) (“[L]oss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.”)). We applied this Florida Supreme Court holding in Green v. Alachua County, 323 So. 3d 246 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021), holding that the typical four-part test for temporary injunctive relief “collapses” into the single question of whether the challenged law implicates the right of privacy. Id. at 250 (“We read the supreme court’s jurisprudence on the right to privacy to require that we make a single, threshold, de novo inquiry when considering a temporary injunction appeal— Does the challenged law implicate an individual’s right of privacy?”). We are therefore required to presume irreparable harm, and because we held in Green that is the sole question for injunctive relief in the right-to-privacy context, we must grant Appellees’ motion to vacate.
Precedent also bars us from relying on Appellants’ supposed lack of standing to assert the personal right of privacy that individual patients could assert.
I am constrained to dissent in light of what I can only conclude is binding precedent from the Florida Supreme Court and this Court.
In the specific context of abortion regulation, the Florida Supreme Court has held that even “minimal” loss of the constitutional right of privacy is per-se irreparable injury. Gainesville Woman Care, LLC v. State, 210 So. 3d 1243, 1263 (Fla. 2017) (quoting Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976) (“[L]oss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.”)). We applied this Florida Supreme Court holding in Green v. Alachua County, 323 So. 3d 246 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021), holding that the typical four-part test for temporary injunctive relief “collapses” into the single question of whether the challenged law implicates the right of privacy. Id. at 250 (“We read the supreme court’s jurisprudence on the right to privacy to require that we make a single, threshold, de novo inquiry when considering a temporary injunction appeal— Does the challenged law implicate an individual’s right of privacy?”). We are therefore required to presume irreparable harm, and because we held in Green that is the sole question for injunctive relief in the right-to-privacy context, we must grant Appellees’ motion to vacate.
Precedent also bars us from relying on Appellants’ supposed lack of standing to assert the personal right of privacy that individual patients could assert.
