Idaho’s top prosecutor cannot prosecute medical professionals who refer women for abortions in other states, at least for now, according to a new ruling.
Idaho Attorney General Raul Labrador, a Republican, was blocked on July 31 by a preliminary injunction entered by U.S. District Judge Lynn Winmill.
Planned Parenthood and other medical providers have shown that they will likely succeed in their claim that Mr. Labrador’s interpretation of a new law violated their constitutional right to free speech, Judge Winmill, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, ruled.
A spokesperson for Mr. Labrador told The Epoch Times via email: “Judge Winmill wants to restrain a power we don’t possess. We strongly disagree with his order.”
Planned Parenthood did not respond to a request for comment.
A preliminary injunction is a temporary measure as a case moves forward. It can be rescinded later or made permanent.
In the March 27, 2023 opinion, Mr. Labrador said that a law that had recently taken effect “prohibits an Idaho medical provider from either referring a woman across state lines to access abortion services or prescribing abortion pills for the woman to pick up across state lines.”
Providers who violated the law by assisting in performing or attempting to perform an abortion would have their licenses suspended, Mr. Labrador wrote.
Doctors who joined in the suit said they reviewed the letter and were being forced to stop referring women to nearby states to receive abortions because they feared being prosecuted.
Opinion Withdrawn
After the suit was lodged, Mr. Labrador said he was withdrawing the interpretation of the law.“Due to subsequent events in the legislative process and my determination that your request was not one I was required to provide under Idaho law, that analysis is now void,” Mr. Labrador said.
State officials argued that the withdrawal undermined the case brought by the medical providers. The “sole asserted basis for injury has evaporated,” state lawyers argued. But the providers said they were still concerned about being prosecuted under the law and would not offer out-of-state referrals unless an injunction were entered.
The judge sided with the plaintiffs, finding that though the letter was withdrawn, the state had not disavowed the interpretation contained in the original opinion.
“Just to be clear you, not only on behalf of the Attorney General but also the prosecuting attorneys that you represent, there is still no disavowal of the legal analysis or conclusion drawn in letter, correct?” Judge Winhill asked during a hearing. “I'd say that that is—it’s correct,” a state lawyer answered.
“It would not have been particularly difficult for the state to definitively establish that no case or controversy exists,” Judge Winmill said. “Instead, the attorney general has strained at every juncture possible to distance himself from his previous statement without committing to a new interpretation or providing any assurances to this court or the medical providers. Attorney General Labrador’s targeted silence is deafening.”
Another Ruling Coming
Monday’s ruling only pertains to Mr. Labrador, not county prosecutors.All but three of the 44 county prosecutors in the state have asked the judge to dismiss the case, arguing that they did not receive Mr. Labrador’s interpretation until the litigation commenced, that they did not regard the letter as guidance, and that none of the plaintiffs have a facility in their county.
“The attorney general has no supervisory authority over my work as a prosecutor of the power to direct me to initiate any prosecution without my consent,” Louis Marshall, the prosecutor for Bonner County, told the court.
“I am aware of no prosecution, or threat of prosecution, brought by anyone in my office against plaintiffs” under the new law and “in fact, none of the plaintiffs in this action have facilities in my county,” Mr. Marshall added.
Judge Winmill said he would refrain from ruling on the motion from the county prosecutors until a later date, tackling their arguments in a separate ruling.
“By issuing a separate decision, the Court will be able to adequately address all the individual county prosecutors with the benefit of a more developed record to resolve the factual issues around jurisdiction,” the judge said.
