On May 11, 2016, Planned Parenthood of Greater Ohio and Planned Parenthood of Southwest Ohio filed this lawsuit in the U.S. Court for the Southern District of Ohio. The plaintiffs sued the Ohio Department of Health under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, asked the court for declaratory and injunctive relief to enjoin the defendants from cutting off the plaintiffs' access to state and federal funding.

The plaintiffs claimed that on February 21, 2016, Ohio Governor John Kasich signed a law to bar Ohio Planned Parenthoods from receiving government funding for non-abortion services and programs. The plaintiffs claimed that the funding in question was necessary for vital health and education services used by the men, women, and teenagers of Ohio. Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed that the law violated the First Amendment, and the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment by denying funding in retaliation for the plaintiffs' constitutionally protected advocacy for abortion rights.

On May 23, 2016, Judge Barrett granted the plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order to enjoin the defendants from cutting off funding until June 6, 2016. He held in abeyance the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction. For the next few months both parties carried out discovery. 188 F.Supp.3d 684.

On August 12, 2016, Judge Barrett granted the plaintiffs' motions for preliminary and permanent injunctions. The court found that the law in question did violate the plaintiffs' First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment Due Process rights. Judge Barrett permanently enjoined the defendants from enforcing the law against the plaintiffs and other similarly situated. 2016 WL 10333130.

On September 6, 2016, the defendants appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. On April 18, 2018, a unanimous panel of the Sixth Circuit (Circuit Judges Helene N. White, Eugene E. Siler, Jr., and Eric L. Clay) affirmed the district court’s grant of plaintiffs’ motions for judgment on the merits and for a permanent injunction. 888 F.3d 224.

However, the full court of the Sixth Circuit then voted for a rehearing en banc. On March 13, 2019, Circuit Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton, writing for the full court, reversed the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court found that the plaintiffs did not have a due process right to perform abortions. Furthermore, the court found no evidence that the ban posed an undue burden on a woman’s right to abortion. Although the plaintiffs argued that it had no obligation to establish an undue burden because the funding condition itself was unconstitutional, the court rejected that argument because the plaintiffs—who were providers, not women—did not possess the constitutional right to perform abortion; since there was no constitutional right, there was no unconstitutional condition. Circuit Judge White, who wrote the opinion for the April 2018 panel, dissented. 917 F.3d 908.

The case is still ongoing in the district court.

Gabriela Hybel - 03/03/2017
Lisa Limb - 03/21/2019


compress summary