Whole Woman's Health, et al v. David Lakey, et al, No. 14-50928 (5th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on October 2, 2014.
Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT ___________________ No. 14-50928 ___________________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED June 19, 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk WHOLE WOMAN'S HEALTH; AUSTIN WOMEN'S HEALTH CENTER; KILLEEN WOMEN'S HEALTH CENTER; NOVA HEALTH SYSTEMS, doing business as Reproductive Services; SHERWOOD C. LYNN, JR., M.D., on behalf of themselves and their patients; PAMELA J. RICHTER, D.O., on behalf of themselves and their patients; LENDOL L. DAVIS, M.D., on behalf of themselves and their patients, Plaintiffs - Appellees - Cross-Appellants v. KIRK COLE, M.D., Commissioner of the Texas Department of State Health Services, in his Official Capacity; MARI ROBINSON, Executive Director of the Texas Medical Board, in her Official Capacity, Defendants - Appellants - Cross-Appellees _______________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin _______________________ Before PRADO, ELROD, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. O R D E R: On June 9, 2015, we issued an opinion in Whole Woman’s Health v. Cole, No. 14-50928, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 9699 (5th Cir. Jun. 9, 2015). We now MODIFY our opinion and judgment of June 9, 2015 to provide that the district court’s injunction of the ASC requirement (as defined in the June 9 opinion) as applied to the McAllen facility shall remain in effect until October 29, 2015, at which time the injunction shall be vacated in part, as delineated and explained in our June 9 opinion. The unopposed Motion to Become an Amicus Party and to File Amicus Brief, filed June 15, 2015, is GRANTED. The opposed Appellees’ Motion to Stay the Mandate, filed June 10, 2015, is DENIED. Judge Prado respectfully dissents from the denial of the motion to stay.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
