7th Circuit hears Planned Parenthood, JLAP appeals

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals heard two arguments in Indiana cases Oct. 20, one about how the state’s Medicaid money goes to Planned Parenthood and a second suit involving a man who claims he was discriminated against by being referred to the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program when applying to take the Indiana bar exam.

In the case of Planned Parenthood of Indiana v. Indiana, No. 11-2464, the state is asking the appellate court to reverse a decision earlier this year by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt in the Southern District of Indiana granting an injunction against the state defunding Planned Parenthood.

Ken Falk, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, argued that the state can't selectively choose which organizations can provide medical services.

"Our argument is that Medicaid is quite clear. You can regulate providers based on fraud, competence and what have you, but what the state has said is we can regulate for all these other reasons," he said. "This is the reason we are choosing to regulate now, and that violates a specific provision of the Medicaid act, and that is freedom of choice."

Indiana Solicitor General Tom Fisher stressed that the state has a duty to taxpayers to ensure the Legislature's wishes are honored.

"Our Legislature decided that to preserve the integrity of our taxpayer dollars in Medicaid, it did not want facilities that perform abortions to receive Medicaid dollars," he said. "In that circumstance, those taxpayer dollars effectively subsidize the abortion. That's why they passed this law, and that's why we're here defending it."

Judge Diane Sykes hinted at her thoughts on the case during her questioning.

"The fact that Planned Parenthood performs abortions doesn't have anything to do with the quality of the medical process," she said. "It's not akin to fraud. . . . The problem I have with the state's interpretation of the phrase 'qualified' is that it's infinitely elastic. It can mean anything the state wants it to mean."

The court panel took the case under advisement after the 45 minutes of arguments, before turning to other cases that included another Hoosier lawsuit.

In Bryan Brown v. Dr. Elizabeth Bowman, Terry Harrel, et al., No. 11-2164, from the Northern District of Indiana, the three-judge appellate panel analyzed the case of an Allen County man who’s suing the state because he was denied the chance to take the bar exam here after an evaluation by the JLAP that screened him out. Brown alleges it was because of his religious beliefs.

In March, Judge Theresa Springmann dismissed Brown’s case and found that precedent prevents her as a federal judge from addressing what was a state-court action prohibiting his admission. She relied on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine that involves two rulings from the Supreme Court of the United States in 1923 and 1983, which together hold District courts lack jurisdiction over lawsuits from state-court losers and that any jurisdiction remains solely with the nation’s highest court. In Brown’s case, the SCOTUS has already denied his petition for writ of certiorari.

Now, Brown is asking the 7th Circuit to overturn Springmann’s ruling and find the Rooker-Feldman doctrine doesn’t apply to his case. Brown raises questions about the scope of the doctrine and the reach of expert witness immunity, based on his contentions that defendants in this case weren’t properly sworn in under oath and therefore are prevented from being dubbed “witnesses” as required by the state.

The state’s attorney told the panel that Brown was given full due process when the Indiana Supreme Court reviewed his bar application and denied it and the issue cannot now be reviewed because these claims were already heard in the judicial process at the state level.

Brown represented himself before the 7th Circuit, asking the panel to overturn the ruling and adopt the rationale spelled out in a past dissent by Justice John Paul Stevens calling for a scaling back of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.

The judges asked few questions during the 15-minute argument, and both sides were mostly able to spell out the arguments they’d made in their previously filed briefs.

“This is built on the idea that I’d seen an evil eye and uneven hand in the way I was processed,” Brown said. “I was treated in a way in which shouldn’t be done in America.”


  • Appreciate the coverage
    I will post my oral argument at later in the weekend. Briefing available there. My case is one documenting political correctness on steriods. Ideology should not matter in bar application cases -- but it very much did in mine.

Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.