Case: Planned Parenthood v. Lance
1:00-CV-00353 | U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho
Filed Date: June 23, 2000
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
On June 23, 2000, Planned Parenthood of Idaho and a board-certified OB-GYN physician brought this suit against the Attorney General of Idaho and the Prosecuting Attorney of Ada County, challenging S.B. 1299, which required women to show “positive identification” before obtaining an abortion and also parental consent before a minor could obtain an abortion. Represented by attorneys from the ACLU and Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Plaintiffs argued that the law, which would amend Chapter 6, Title 18 of the Idaho Code to add new sections 18-609A and 18-614, would violate their right to privacy and due process. Plaintiffs sought (1) declaratory relief stating that S.B. 1299 was unconstitutional and was therefore void and of no effect, (2) preliminary and permanent injunctive relief prohibiting the state from enforcing S.B. 1299, and (3) attorney’s fees and costs. This case was assigned to Judge Mikel H. Williams.
On June 26, Plaintiffs filed motions for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction. Shortly thereafter, on July 7, 2000, Judge Williams granted Plaintiffs a temporary restraining order, prohibiting the state from enforcing the act until a decision on the preliminary injunction was made. The court reasoned that Plaintiffs had demonstrated that valid questions existed and that the balance of hardships tipped sharply in their favor. On September 1, 2000, the court granted a preliminary injunction as to the parts of S.B. 1299 that required any person seeking abortion services to show identification, that provided felony sanctions for anyone that performed an unlawful abortion in the case of a medical emergency, and the sentence that stated, “the petition shall be filed in the judicial district where the minor resides.” The court reasoned that a requirement of positive identification would be a violation of the standards in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and that there were serious questions regarding the validity of the strict venue requirement for minors. The court denied a preliminary injunction as to all other parts of S.B. 1299, reasoning that Plaintiffs had not met the burden at that point in litigation.
On April 27, 2001, Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint to add the claim that the Act imposed an undue burden.
Following the preliminary injunction, the Idaho legislature amended the parental consent law’s venue provision to require that the minor must petition a court in her home county or in the county in which she is going to get the abortion if the minor desires to waive the parental consent requirement. Plaintiffs moved to temporarily restrain and preliminarily enjoin this newly amended law on June 7, 2001, and on June 29, 2001, the preliminary injunction was granted by the court, which reasoned that the amendment created an undue burden on a minor’s right to have an abortion and thus the balance of hardships tipped sharply in Plaintiff’s favor. As such, minors had access to any district court in the state of Idaho as litigation continued.
Following a four-day trial in September 2001, the court issued a permanent injunction on December 20, 2001. In particular, the court permanently enjoined the following provisions of S.B. 1299: (1) the provision requiring a minor seeking a waiver of parental consent to file their judicial bypass petition in “the county where the minor resides or the county where the abortion is performed,” (2) the provision stating that a denial of a minor’s bypass petition must be appealed within two days from the issuance of the order, (3) the provision requiring that if a judge learned of criminal conduct while hearing a bypass petition, the judge must report that activity to law enforcement, and (4) the post-abortion parental notification procedures. The court found that the parental consent law did not raise any constitutional concerns as far as it related to administrative penalties as the lower “strict liability” standard would not have a chilling effect. Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of memorandum opinion and order on January 8, 2002, and Defendants also filed a motion for reconsideration of memorandum opinion and order on January 17, 2002. On March 8, 2002, Defendant’s motion was denied in its entirety, while Plaintiff’s motion was granted only insofar as it requested a clarification that appeal to a denial of a minor’s bypass petition must be completed no later than five days from the filing of the notice of appeal. Also on March 8, 2002, the court issued its final judgment, reiterating that the above provisions of Idaho’s parental consent law are permanently enjoined.
On March 22, 2002, Defendants filed a motion for amendment of the findings of fact or in the alternative a motion for a new trial, which the court denied on June 25, 2002. Both Plaintiffs and Defendants then filed an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on July 24, 2002 and July 25, 2002 (02-35700 and 02-35714).
On September 10, 2004, the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded the judgment of the trial court, with no reasoning or further elaboration provided on the judgment document. Then on December 18, 2004, the trial court, pursuant to the Ninth Circuit mandate in Planned Parenthood v. Wasden, 376 F.3d 908 (9th Cir. 2004), declared Chapter 6, Title 18 of the Idaho Code Sections 18-609A and 18-614, which were amended by S.B. 1299, unconstitutional and permanently enjoined them from being enforced by the state. As such, the state was prohibited from enforcing the provisions which required women to show “positive identification” before obtaining an abortion and from requiring parental consent before a minor could obtain an abortion. On March 31, 2006, the court granted Plaintiffs attorney’s fees in the sum of $380,525.74.
Summary Authors
Kathleen Lok (2/14/2023)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4656483/parties/planned-parenthood-v-lance/
Attorney, Mary V.
Esquire, Louise Melling,
Esquire, Dara Klassel,
Attorney, Jeremy Chou,
Chou, Jeremy C (Idaho)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4656483/planned-parenthood-v-lance/
Last updated April 14, 2026, 5:39 a.m.
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Healthcare Access and Reproductive Issues
Key Dates
Filing Date: June 23, 2000
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Planned Parenthood of Idaho (a not-for-profit corporation providing abortion care) and a board-certified OB-GYN physician.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Non-profit NON-religious organization
Attorney Organizations:
Planned Parenthood Federation of America
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
County
Prosecuting Attorney
State
Attorney General
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Ex parte Young (federal or state officials)
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Substantive Due Process
Other Dockets:
District of Idaho 1:00-CV-00353
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 02-35714
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 02-35700
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed
Relief Granted:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief:
Content of Injunction:
Amount Defendant Pays: $380,525.74
Issues
Reproductive rights:
Reproductive health care (including birth control, abortion, and others)
Case Summary of Planned Parenthood v. Lance, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, http://www.dev.clearinghouse.net/case/44007/ (last updated 2/14/2023).