Judges halt enforcement of challenged laws

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Two federal judges issued preliminary injunctions June 24 preventing parts of two new controversial laws regarding immigration and funding of Planned Parenthood of Indiana from being enforced.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt granted two of the three preliminary injunctions Planned Parenthood of Indiana and other plaintiffs sought regarding House Enrolled Act 1210. The law prohibits any entity that performs an abortion – with an exception for hospitals – to receive state funding for health services unrelated to abortion. That provision went into effect when signed by Gov. Mitch Daniels on May 10. The plaintiffs also challenged the informed consent information that abortion providers have to give to patients – a fetus can feel pain before 20 weeks of gestation and human physical life begins when a human ovum is fertilized by a human sperm.

In the 44-page decision in Planned Parenthood of Indiana Inc., et al. v. Commissioner of the Indiana State Department of Health, et al., No. 1:11-CV-630, Judge Pratt addressed the plaintiffs’ arguments relating to the “freedom of choice” provision in the Medicaid statute and whether the defunding provision is preempted by federal law. She found the plaintiffs established a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of the “freedom of choice” argument and on the preemption argument as it relates to Disease Intervention Services grants PPIN receives from the state Department of Health to test for sexually transmitted diseases.

“HEA 1210 has already affected PPIN in tangible ways. HEA 1210 has and will continue to dramatically affect PPIN’s operations,” wrote Judge Pratt, citing PPIN’s estimates it will have to close seven health centers and lay off 37 positions if the law stands. “These circumstances warrant granting a preliminary injunction.”

Regarding the language abortion providers must use, Judge Pratt ruled against the plaintiffs on the argument that “human physical life begins when a human ovum is fertilized by a human sperm” violates their First Amendment rights. She did rule in favor of the plaintiffs on their argument that telling clients that the fetus feels pain at 20 weeks or earlier would constitute impermissible compelled speech.

The same day Judge Pratt released the Planned Parenthood decision, Judge Sarah Evans Barker issued a preliminary injunction in Ingrid Buquer, et al. v. City of Indianapolis, et al., No. 1:11-CV-708, in favor of the three immigrants residing in central Indiana who sued to stop enforcement of two provisions of Senate Enrolled Act 590. The new law amended statute to allow state and local law enforcement officers to make a warrantless arrest of a person when the officer has a removal order issued for the person by an immigration court, a detainer, or notice of action issued for the person by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, or has probable cause to believe the person has been indicted for or convicted of one or more aggravated felonies. The law also creates a new infraction for any person other than a police officer who knowingly or intentionally offers or accepts a consular identification card as a valid form of ID for any purpose.

Although this law has not yet taken effect and the plaintiffs haven’t suffered a direct injury based on the law, they have established that they will be subject to arrest if and when the law takes effect. Section 19, regarding the warrantless arrest, is susceptible to only one interpretation – it authorizes the warrantless arrest of persons for matters and conduct that are not crimes. This contravenes the Fourth Amendment, so this section would be unconstitutional, wrote Judge Barker. She also found this section is preempted by federal law.

She ruled Section 18, dealing with the consular identification cards, appears to directly interfere with the rights bestowed on foreign nationals by treaty.

“Although we do not dispute that the stated purpose of ensuring the reliability of identification of individuals with the state and preventing fraud against the state is a legitimate governmental purpose, the breadth of the limitation imposed by Section 18, to wit, preventing any person (other than a police officer) from either knowingly presenting or accepting a CID as a valid form of identification for any purpose far exceeds its stated purpose and therefore is not rational,” she wrote.

The plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm if a preliminary injunction is not issued, Judge Barker ruled, and she said the injunction is in the public interest. The judge preliminarily enjoined the defendants from enforcing sections 18 and 19 of the new law until further order of the court.


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.