Isaacson et al v. Brnovich et al

Filing 112

ORDER - IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs' motion for an injunction pending appeal under Rule 62(d) (Doc. 107 ) will be treated as a renewed motion for preliminary injunction under Rule 65. The current briefing and hearing schedule remain in effect. See attached document for complete information. Signed by Judge Douglas L Rayes on 6/30/22. (SMH)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Paul A Isaacson, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

10
11

v.

12

Mark Brnovich, et al.,

13

No. CV-21-01417-PHX-DLR
ORDER

Defendants.

14
15
16

On September 28, 2021, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in

17

part Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. (Doc. 52.)

18

Plaintiffs’ motion with respect to the Reason Regulations, finding that they likely were

19

unconstitutionally vague and placed an undue burden on the then-existing rights of women

20

to terminate a pregnancy before fetal viability. The Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion with

21

respect to the Interpretation Policy, finding that their vagueness challenge was premature.

22

Defendants appealed the portion of the Court’s order enjoining the Reason Regulations

23

(Doc. 56), and Plaintiffs cross-appealed the portion of the Court’s order declining to enjoin

24

the Interpretation Policy (Doc. 65). Defendants asked this Court (Doc. 57) and then the

25

Ninth Circuit (Doc. 14 in 21-16645) for a partial stay of the Court’s preliminary injunction

26

order pending appeal; both requests were denied (Doc. 66; Doc. 35 in 21-16645).

27

Defendants then moved the Supreme Court for the same relief.1

28

Defendants’ application before the Supreme Court is available at
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/211

The Court granted

1

On June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court issued an opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson

2

Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. ___ (2022), ruling that the federal constitution

3

does not afford women a right to terminate a pregnancy. That same day, the Ninth Circuit

4

ordered supplemental briefing on the impact of Dobbs on the parties’ appeals. (Doc. 84 in

5

21-16645.) The next day, Plaintiffs filed with this Court a motion pursuant to Federal Rule

6

of Civil Procedure 62(d), asking the Court to enjoin the Interpretation Policy pending

7

disposition of their cross-appeal. (Doc. 107.) The Court set an expedited briefing and

8

hearing schedule to consider this request. (Doc. 109.)

9

On June 30, 2022, the Supreme Court issued an order on Defendants’ partial stay

10

application, vacating this Court’s September 28, 2021 preliminary injunction order and

11

remanding to the Ninth Circuit with instructions to remand to this Court for further

12

proceedings consistent with Dobbs. (Doc. 110-1.) The Ninth Circuit did so the same day.

13

(Doc. 86 in 21-16645.)

14

Given these developments, Defendants have filed a notice suggesting that Plaintiffs’

15

motion for an injunction pending appeal is moot because the order from which Plaintiffs

16

cross-appealed has been vacated. (Doc. 110.) The Court agrees that Rule 62(d) is no longer

17

a procedurally appropriate vehicle for Plaintiffs to seek relief. The Supreme Court has

18

vacated the Court’s September 28, 2021 order, and the Ninth Circuit has remanded to this

19

Court for further proceedings consistent with Dobbs. In essence, the Supreme Court has

20

cleared the slate and instructed this Court to consider this case afresh.

21

The Court agrees with Plaintiffs, however, that it would be a waste of resources to

22

deny their motion only to have them refile with a different caption. The Court instead will

23

construe Plaintiffs’ motion as a renewed motion for a preliminary injunction under Rule

24

65. The current briefing and hearing schedule will remain in effect.2 Accordingly,

25

1609/204777/20211210193909281_Isaacson%20v%20Brnovich%20SCOTUS%20Appli
cation%20for%20Stay%20FINAL.pdf.
2
The Court notes that its prior order enjoining the Reason Regulations because they
are unconstitutionally vague has been vacated, and nothing in Plaintiffs’ current motion
asks for any relief as to the Reason Regulations. Should the parties determine that it makes
more sense for Plaintiffs to withdraw their current motion and file a new preliminary
injunction motion that addresses all issues implicated by this case in light of Dobbs, they
shall notify the Court at the earliest possible opportunity and propose an alternative briefing

26
27
28

-2-

1

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion for an injunction pending appeal under

2

Rule 62(d) (Doc. 107) will be treated as a renewed motion for preliminary injunction under

3

Rule 65. The current briefing and hearing schedule remain in effect.

4

Dated this 30th day of June, 2022.

5
6
7
8
9

Douglas L. Rayes
United States District Judge

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
and hearing schedule. But, for now, the Court will proceed with the motion before it.
-3-