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. This is ridiculous. Most JDs not practicing law don't know squat to justify calling themselves a lawyer. Maybe they should try visiting the inside of a courtroom before they go around calling themselves lawyers. This kind of promotional BS just increases the volume of people with JDs that are underqualified thereby dragging all the rest of us down likewise.

  2. I think it is safe to say that those Hoosier's with the most confidence in the Indiana judicial system are those Hoosier's who have never had the displeasure of dealing with the Hoosier court system.

  3. I have an open CHINS case I failed a urine screen I have since got clean completed IOP classes now in after care passed home inspection my x sister in law has my children I still don't even have unsupervised when I have been clean for over 4 months my x sister wants to keep the lids for good n has my case working with her I just discovered n have proof that at one of my hearing dcs case worker stated in court to the judge that a screen was dirty which caused me not to have unsupervised this was at the beginning two weeks after my initial screen I thought the weed could have still been in my system was upset because they were suppose to check levels n see if it was going down since this was only a few weeks after initial instead they said dirty I recently requested all of my screens from redwood because I take prescriptions that will show up n I was having my doctor look at levels to verify that matched what I was prescripted because dcs case worker accused me of abuseing when I got my screens I found out that screen I took that dcs case worker stated in court to judge that caused me to not get granted unsupervised was actually negative what can I do about this this is a serious issue saying a parent failed a screen in court to judge when they didn't please advise

  4. I have a degree at law, recent MS in regulatory studies. Licensed in KS, admitted b4 S& 7th circuit, but not to Indiana bar due to political correctness. Blacklisted, nearly unemployable due to hostile state action. Big Idea: Headwinds can overcome, esp for those not within the contours of the bell curve, the Lego Movie happiness set forth above. That said, even without the blacklisting for holding ideas unacceptable to the Glorious State, I think the idea presented above that a law degree open many vistas other than being a galley slave to elitist lawyers is pretty much laughable. (Did the law professors of Indiana pay for this to be published?)

  5. Joe, you might want to do some reading on the fate of Hoosier whistleblowers before you get your expectations raised up.