Here is link to today’s Sixth Circuit 2-1 decision refusing to grant a stay of a federal district court ruling enjoining provisions of Tennessee law relating to abortion. The Tennessee law imposes waiting periods before a woman can obtain an abortion. Such laws have been regularly upheld by the courts. As the dissent by Judge Thapar makes clear, the Sixth Circuit should have granted a stay in this case. Here is a bit from his dissent:
“Since Casey, no federal appellate court has successfully struck down an abortion waiting period. Why? Because the Supreme Court says that waiting periods are constitutional. Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 881–87 (1992) (plurality opinion). Indeed, both the Supreme Court and our court have upheld such laws. But here the majority, like the district court before it, decides to chart its own course.”
“In doing so, the majority ignores Supreme Court and Sixth Circuit precedent, as well as the correct legal standard. Given the weighty interests involved in this case, the majority’s failure to issue a stay merits immediate correction either by our court or a higher one. After all, ” ‘it is not our place to ignore precedent and push our own agenda.'”
Here is Judge Thapar’s conclusion:
“Abortion may be controversial. Following Supreme Court precedent shouldn’t be. I dissent.”