U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel ruled late in the day that the state's ban violated the 14th Amendment rights of patients by unconstitutionally implementing a previability ban. Last week, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton ordered the ban on abortions and other elective procedures after Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed an executive order postponing "all surgeries and procedures that are not immediately medically necessary to correct a serious medical condition" or save a patient's life.
Abbott's executive order was scheduled to last through April 21 as an effort to free up personal protective equipment for doctors and hospitals treating patients with COVID-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus. Judge Yeakel found that Paxton's threat of criminal penalties — a fine of up to $1,000 or a 180-day jail sentence for those who didn't comply — "contravenes Supreme Court precedent."
"Regarding a woman's right to a pre-fetal-viability abortion, the Supreme Court has spoken clearly," Judge Yeakel said. "There can be no outright ban on such a procedure. This court will not speculate on whether the Supreme Court included a silent 'except-in-a-national-emergency clause' in its previous writings on the issue."
The judge also ruled that granting Planned Parenthood's request would "essentially continue the status quo" and be in the public's best interest.
Paxton had argued earlier Monday that allowing abortions to continue would contribute to the spread of the coronavirus and place a heavier burden on the health care system. Planned Parenthood and other abortion clinics shouldn't get special treatment compared to other nonmedically necessary procedures, he and Abbott argued.
But Judge Yeakel ruled the potential benefit of freeing up personal protective equipment abortion providers may have used "is outweighed by the harm of eliminating abortion access in the midst of a pandemic that increases the risks of continuing an unwanted pregnancy, as well as the risks of traveling to other states in search of time-sensitive medical care."
Paxton had also argued that women forced to wait three weeks to receive an abortion — much like patients who must wait for dental and cosmetic procedures or other surgeries under the ban — would not suffer risks to their health. The ban is "overwhelmingly in the public's interest," state officials said.
Paxton's office vowed Monday to appeal the temporary injunction.
"I am deeply disappointed that the court ruled against the health and safety of Texans," Paxton said in a statement. "My office is seeking prompt appellate review to ensure that medical professionals on the frontlines have the supplies and protective gear they desperately need."
Fifth Circuit court records indicated that Paxton had not filed his appeal of Judge Yeakel's order late Monday evening. His office said it would release another statement Tuesday morning about the process.
Planned Parenthood tweeted about the order, pledging to continue to work "day by day, week by week to safeguard the ability of our patients and community to access essential health care — no matter what."
With Judge Yeakel's order, Texas joined Ohio and Alabama in temporarily stopping bans on abortions in relation to the coronavirus pandemic.
Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost had entered an order similar to Paxton's, telling providers to stop performing "non-essential and elective surgical abortions" last week. U.S. District Judge Michael R. Barrett ruled Monday that the directive created an undue burden on abortion access that violates the U.S. Constitution.
U.S. District Judge Myron H. Thompson stopped Alabama's similar ban with findings that echoed those of Judge Yeakel. In his order granting the injunction, Judge Thompson said the benefits of some potential increase in the availability of equipment does not outweigh "the serious, and, in some cases, permanent harms imposed by the denial of an individual's right to privacy," according to court documents.
Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas and three other abortion clinics sued Abbott, Paxton, state health officials and nine district attorneys on Wednesday, accusing Paxton of taking advantage of the global pandemic to enforce his "extreme, antiabortion agenda," according to the complaint. The reproductive health organizations argued the continuation of abortion services wouldn't diminish supplies for doctors and hospitals treating COVID-19 patients because their personnel don't use the N95 respirators and other equipment that are in high demand.
Planned Parenthood and other abortion-rights organization, such as the American Civil Liberties Union, the Center for Reproductive Rights, the Abortion Care Network and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists have filed similar lawsuits in Iowa and Oklahoma.
Planned Parenthood is represented by Patrick J. O'Connell of the Law Offices of Patrick J. O'Connell PLLC and Julie Murray, Alice Clapman, Richard Muniz, Hannah Swanson and Jennifer Sandman of Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
The other clinics are represented by Stephanie Toti, Rupali Sharma and Sneha Shah of The Lawyering Project and Molly Duane, Rabia Muqaddam and Francesca Cocuzza of the Center for Reproductive Rights.
Abbott and Paxton are represented by Andrew B. Stephens, Benjamin S. Walton and Heather Gebelin Hacker of the Texas Attorney General's Office.
The case is Planned Parenthood for Choice et al. v. Abbott et al., case number 1:20-cv-00323, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas.
--Additional reporting by Danielle Nichole Smith and Jeff Overley. Editing by Orlando Lorenzo.
Update: This article has been updated with the judge halting Texas' ban and additional background on the case.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.