Planned Parenthood Arizona v. Humble, No. 14-15624 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CasePlaintiffs filed suit seeking to enjoin enforcement of Ariz. Rev. Stat. 36-449.03(E)(6), and its implementing regulation, which restricts the manner in which certain medications may be used to perform abortions. On appeal, plaintiffs challenged the district court's denial of their motion for preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs argued that, under a proper reading of its text, the Arizona law prohibits all medication abortions. The State argued that the law allows medication abortions, but only if they are performed in accordance with the on-label regimen. The court assumed without deciding that the Arizona law passes rational basis review and moved directly to the application of the undue burden test in light of Planned Parenthood of Se. Penn. v. Casey and Gonzales v. Carhart. The court concluded that plaintiffs have introduced uncontroverted evidence that the Arizona law substantially burdens women's access to abortion services, and Arizona has introduced no evidence that the law advances in any way its interest in women's health. Therefore, the court held that the district court abused its discretion when it held that plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their undue burden claim. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded with instructions to issue the requested preliminary injunction.
Court Description: Civil Rights. The panel reversed the district court’s denial of plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction and remanded with instructions that the district court issue the requested injunction in an action seeking to enjoin enforcement of an Arizona statute, Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-449.03(E)(6), and its implementing regulation, Ariz. Admin. Code § R9-10- 1508(G), which restrict the manner in which certain medications may be used to perform abortions. The panel assumed without deciding that the Arizona law, which restricts the use of an off-label evidence-based regime of medication abortions, passed rational basis review and moved directly to the application of the undue burden test. The panel held that plaintiffs introduced uncontroverted evidence that the Arizona law substantially burdened women’s access to abortion services, and Arizona introduced no evidence that the law advanced in any way Arizona’s interest in women’s health. The panel concluded that on the record before it, the burden imposed by the Arizona law was undue within the meaning of Planned Parenthood of Se. Penn. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 876 (1992), and Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007). The panel therefore held that the district court abused its discretion when it held that plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their undue burden claim.
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.