Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota et al v. Noem et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
PLANNED PARENTHOOD MINNESOTA,
NORTH DAKOTA, SOUTH DAKOTA and
SARAH A. TRAXLER, M.D.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
KRISTI NOEM, Governor, in official
capacity; JOAN ADAM, Interim Secretary
of Health, Department of Health, in
official capacity; PHILIP MEYER, D.O.;
President, South Dakota Board of Medical
and Osteopathic Examiners, in official
capacity,
Defendants.
4:22-CV-04009-KES
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER
Plaintiffs, Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota and
Sarah A. Traxler, M.D. (Planned Parenthood), move under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 65 for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against
part of South Dakota Administrative Rule 44:67:04:13 (Jan. 27, 2022). Docket 3.
For the following reasons, the court grants Planned Parenthood’s motion for a
temporary restraining order.
BACKGROUND
Planned Parenthood is a non-profit that operates a clinic in Sioux Falls,
South Dakota, where it offers a broad range of reproductive health services,
including medication and procedural abortions. Docket 1 ¶ 18. Its Sioux Falls
clinic is the only abortion provider in the state. Id. ¶ 23. In 2021, Planned
Case 4:22-cv-04009-KES Document 18 Filed 01/26/22 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: <pageID>

2
Parenthood performed 190 abortions at its Sioux Falls clinic, 40% of which were
medication abortions. Id. ¶ 24.
Medication abortion requires a two-drug regimen: first, mifepristone, and 24
to 48 hours later, misoprostol. Id. ¶ 28. Under existing South Dakota law, a person
who wishes to receive a medication abortion first must meet with a physician at
the clinic to begin the informed consent process. Id. At least 72 hours later, the
person must return to the clinic for the physician to administer mifepristone while
the person is at the clinic. Id. During the same clinic visit, the physician dispenses
the second drug, misoprostol, and instructs the person to take the misoprostol 24
to 48 hours later at a location of their choosing. Id. Medication abortion is
preferable to a procedural abortion for some people because of the flexible timing
and location it offers. Id. ¶ 30. For other people, a medication abortion is safer and
medically indicated. Id. ¶ 31.
Misoprostol is available at commercial pharmacies with a prescription and
can be used to treat gastric ulcers, incomplete abortions, miscarriage
management, postpartum hemorrhage, and difficult IUD insertion/removal.
Docket 6 ¶¶ 13, 19, 31. Use of misoprostol to address incomplete abortion,
management of postpartum hemorrhage, and miscarriage management involves a
higher risk of bleeding than for use in a medication abortion. Id. ¶ 31. The FDA
has never required that misoprostol be dispensed at a clinic, even when used as
part of a medication abortion. Id. ¶ 19. The only time a person taking misoprostol
is required to have it dispensed by a physician during a separate clinic
appointment is for use in a medication abortion in South Dakota Rule
44:67:04:13. See Docket 1-1 at 3-4.
Case 4:22-cv-04009-KES Document 18 Filed 01/26/22 Page 2 of 8 PageID #: <pageID>

3
Rule 44:67:04:13 is set to take effect on January 27, 2022. Under the Rule,
a patient seeking a medication abortion would be required to make 4 clinic visits
to obtain a medication abortion: first, for informed consent; second, at least 72
hours later for administration of mifepristone; third, 24 to 72 hours later for
administration of misoprostol; and fourth, “a follow-up appointment
. . . on the 14th day after taking the medication to confirm that the fetus,
placenta, and membranes have been fully expelled.” Docket 1-1. The third and
fourth clinic appointments are new, additional requirements to existing South
Dakota law. Planned Parenthood asks the court to enjoin “the Rule on its face
and/or as applied” to Planned Parenthood and its patients. Docket 1 at 26.
LEGAL STANDARD
When ruling on a motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary
injunction, the court must consider (1) the threat of irreparable harm to the
moving party; (2) balancing this harm with any injury an injunction would inflict
on other parties; (3) the likelihood of success on the merits; and (4) the public
interest. Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C L Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 113 (8th Cir. 1981)).
When weighing these factors, “no single factor is in itself dispositive[.]” Calvin Klein
Cosmetics Corp. v. Parfums de Coeur, Ltd., 824 F.2d 665, 667 (8th Cir. 1987). “[A]ll
of the factors must be considered to determine” whether the balance weighs
toward granting the injunction. Id.
DISCUSSION
I. Likelihood of Success on the Merits
“Success on the merits has been referred to as the most important of the
four factors.” Roudachevski v. All-Am. Care Ctrs., Inc., 648 F.3d 701, 706 (8th Cir.
Case 4:22-cv-04009-KES Document 18 Filed 01/26/22 Page 3 of 8 PageID #: <pageID>

4
2011). When a challenged law was “implemented through legislation or regulation[]
developed through presumptively reasoned democratic processes,” the court
analyzes whether the movant is likely to succeed on the merits. Planned
Parenthood Minn., N.D., S.D. v. Rounds, 530 F.3d 724, 732 (8th Cir. 2008) (en
banc) (emphasis added) (quoting Able v. United States, 44 F.3d 128, 131 (2d Cir.
1995) (per curium)) (noting that “likelihood of success” is a higher standard than a
“fair chance” of success). “At the early stage of a [temporary restraining order]
motion, the speculative nature of this particular inquiry militates against any
wooden or mathematical application of the test.” United Indus. Corp. v. Clorox Co.,
140 F.3d 1175, 1179 (8th Cir. 1998).
“[A] state cannot ‘impose an undue burden on the woman’s ability to obtain
an abortion.’ ” Hopkins v. Jegley, 968 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir. 2020) (quoting June
Med. Servs. L.L.C. v. Russo, 140 S. Ct. 2103, 2135 (2020) (Roberts, C.J.,
concurring)). The “threshold requirement [is] that the State [must] have a
‘legitimate purpose’ and that the law be ‘reasonably related to that goal.’ ” Id. at
915. “So long as that showing is made . . . the only question for a court is whether
a law has the ‘effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman
seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus.’ ” Id. (quoting Russo, 140 S. Ct. at 2138).
Planned Parenthood argues that the third clinic appointment for the
administration of misoprostol under the Rule imposes a substantial obstacle for
people seeking a medication abortion. Docket 4 at 15-23. First, Planned
Parenthood points to the personal and financial obstacles presented by a third
clinic visit. In 2021, 31% of the patients who sought a medication abortion had
income below 110% of the federal poverty line. Docket 5 ¶ 45. Of the patients
Case 4:22-cv-04009-KES Document 18 Filed 01/26/22 Page 4 of 8 PageID #: <pageID>

5
seeking a medication abortion, about 24% travel more than 150 miles to reach the
Sioux Falls clinic and return home, and 11% travel more than 300 miles per trip.
Id. ¶ 41. Many of the patients who seek abortions have another child or children
who need care and have other obligations such as school and/or jobs; some are
single parents. Docket 1 ¶ 34. These obligations could prevent a patient from
completing the required sequence of clinic appointments for a medication abortion,
or they could make the patient choose to travel to the clinic to the detriment of
necessary personal, family, and financial obligations, like child care or work.
Making arrangement for support of these obligations while traveling to the clinic
poses yet an additional obstacle. Because people seeking an abortion in South
Dakota must already travel to the Sioux Falls clinic twice, requiring a third
appointment would further compound the financial and logistical obstacles,
Planned Parenthood argues.
Planned Parenthood also points out that some people who seek an abortion
wish to conceal the abortion from an abusive partner or family member. Id. ¶ 30.
For these patients, medication abortion resembles a miscarriage and makes the
process easier to conceal. Id. Requiring a third clinic appointment puts the
confidentiality of the abortion at risk and thus risks the patient’s safety and well-
being in an abusive domestic environment.
At this stage, Planned Parenthood has shown that the personal, financial,
and logistical obstacles involved in traveling to the clinic for three separate
appointments at regulated time intervals amounts to a substantial obstacle for a
person seeking a medication abortion. And the Rule imposes a substantial
obstacle for those who seek to keep a medication abortion confidential because of
Case 4:22-cv-04009-KES Document 18 Filed 01/26/22 Page 5 of 8 PageID #: <pageID>

6
fear of abuse. Thus, the court finds that Planned Parenthood is likely to succeed in
showing that the Rule imposes an undue burden on a person’s right to seek an
abortion. And because Planned Parenthood has made a threshold showing that it
is likely to succeed on the merits, the court proceeds to weigh the other Dataphase
factors. Rounds, 530 F.3d at 732.
II. Threat of Irreparable Harm
Under the second Dataphase factor, the movant must show it is “likely to
suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief[.]” Winter v. Nat. Res.
Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). “Constitutional violations, however brief,
are unquestionably irreparable.” Planned Parenthood Minn, N.D., S.D., v. Daugaard,
799 F. Supp. 2d 1048, 1076 (D.S.D. 2011). As discussed above, Planned
Parenthood has established that it is likely to succeed on the merits with regard to
enjoining the Rule. Thus, the court finds that this factor, the threat of irreparable
harm, weighs in favor of granting the temporary restraining order.
III. Balance of the Hardships
The third Dataphase factor for obtaining a temporary restraining order
requires plaintiffs to establish that their irreparable harm is greater than the
hardship that a temporary restraining order would cause defendants. Sturgis Area
Chamber of Commerce v. Sturgis Rally & Races, Inc., 99 F. Supp. 2d 1090, 1101
(D.S.D. 2000). Because Planned Parenthood has established that it likely to
succeed on the merits, people seeking a medication abortion in South Dakota
would be irreparably harmed by denying the temporary restraining order and thus
allowing the Rule to go into effect on January 27, 2022. “The extent of the harm if
the [temporary restraining order] turns out to have been improperly granted is that
Case 4:22-cv-04009-KES Document 18 Filed 01/26/22 Page 6 of 8 PageID #: <pageID>

7
[the state] defendants will have been wrongly prevented from carrying out their
official duties.” Daugaard, 799 F. Supp. 2d at 1077.
After balancing the harm to the parties, the court finds that both parties are
potentially exposed to harm if the temporary restraining order is found to have
been improperly granted or denied. But when considering the nature of the parties’
interest that are at stake, the potential harm to Planned Parenthood’s interests are
more severe because the harms directly affect a constitutional right. Thus, the
court finds that the balance of the harms weighs in favor of granting the temporary
restraining order.
IV. Public Interest
As discussed above, Planned Parenthood has demonstrated that the Rule
“likely” imposes an undue burden on a person’s right to seek an abortion in South
Dakota. There is a public interest in protecting the right to choose an abortion.
And the public has a clear interest in ensuring the supremacy of the United States
Constitution. While the public also has an interest in the enforcement of state
administrative rules, that interest is secondary to the public interest expressed
above. Thus, the court finds that this factor weighs in favor of granting the
temporary restraining order.
CONCLUSION
Planned Parenthood is likely to prevail on the merits of its case. Planned
Parenthood and its patients face irreparable harm if the temporary restraining
order is not granted. The balance of the harms is in Planned Parenthood’s favor.
And public policy favors granting a temporary injunction. Thus, it is
Case 4:22-cv-04009-KES Document 18 Filed 01/26/22 Page 7 of 8 PageID #: <pageID>

8
ORDERED that Planned Parenthood’s motion for temporary restraining
order (Docket 3) is granted. The state defendants are temporarily enjoined from
enforcing South Dakota Administrative Rule 44:67:04:13, set to take effect
January 27, 2022. This temporary restraining order shall remain in effect until the
sooner of February 9, 2022, or further order of the court on the motion for
temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that an evidentiary hearing on the motion for
preliminary injunction is set for Tuesday, February 1, 2022, at 9:30 a.m. in Sioux
Falls, South Dakota. Counsel may appear by video conference.
Dated January 26, 2022.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Karen E. Schreier
KAREN E. SCHREIER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 4:22-cv-04009-KES Document 18 Filed 01/26/22 Page 8 of 8 PageID #: <pageID>