STATE v. PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHWEST AND CENTRAL FLORIDA (2022)

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

STATE of Florida, et al., Appellants, v. PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHWEST AND CENTRAL FLORIDA, et al., Appellees.

No. 1D22-2034

Decided: August 24, 2022

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Bilal Ahmed Faruqui, Assistant Attorney General, John Guard, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Natalie P. Christmas, Assistant Attorney General, James H. Percival, Deputy Attorney General, Tallahassee; Henry Charles Whitaker, Solicitor General, Daniel W. Bell, Chief Deputy Solicitor, Tallahassee, for Appellants. Jordan E. Pratt and Christine K. Pratt, First Liberty Institute, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae First Liberty Institute; Christopher Mills, Spero Law, LLC, Charleston, South Carolina, and Chad Mizelle, Tampa, for Amici Curiae Florida Pregnancy Centers, in support of Appellants. Benjamin James Stevenson, ACLU Foundation of Florida, Pensacola; Daniel Boaz Tilley, ACLU Foundation of Florida, Miami; Nicholas L. Warren, ACLU Foundation of Florida, Tallahassee; Jennifer Dalven, Whitney White, and Johanna Zacarias, ACLU Foundation of New York, New York, New York; Autumn Katz and Caroline Sacerdote, Center for Reproductive Rights, New York, New York; Tassity Johnson, Jenner & Block LLP, Washington, D.C.; Shoba Pillay and April A. Otterberg, Jenner & Block LLP, Chicago, Illinois; Jennifer Sandman, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, New York, New York, for Appellees.

On July 21, 2022, the Court “direct[ed] the parties within fifteen days to provide any further briefing or arguments for our consideration, before the court disposes of the appeal of the non-final order granting the temporary injunction.” State v. Planned Parenthood of Sw. & Cent. Fla., 342 So.3d 863, 869 (Fla. 1st DCA July 21, 2022). The parties have failed to provide further briefing or argument. Accordingly, the non-final order granting the temporary injunction is reversed as Appellees could not assert irreparable harm on behalf of persons not appearing below. See id.

I dissent on the merits for the reasons expressed in my dissent from this Court's July 21, 2022, Order Denying Motion to Vacate Automatic Stay and Rejecting Suggestion for Certification.

B.L. Thomas, J.

Ray, J., concurs; Kelsey, J., dissents with opinion.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network