Utah Supreme Court cancels oral arguments in lawsuit challenging state’s abortion ban

SALT LAKE CITY — The Utah Supreme Court has canceled scheduled oral arguments in the high-profile lawsuit brought by Planned Parenthood against the state’s near-total abortion ban.

In a recent court order obtained by KSL.com, Associate Chief Justice John A. Pearce canceled a round of oral arguments scheduled for May 10, instead asking lawyers for Planned Parenthood and the state to revisit a preliminary injunction that is blocking the state’s trigger abortion ban from taking full effect.

The order comes after the Utah Legislature voted to change court rules to retroactively narrow the scope of when a judge can issue a preliminary injunction. Utah’s law — which bans all elective abortions with few exceptions — is currently on hold while the courts decide whether it’s constitutional.

Abortion is still legal in the state through 18 weeks of pregnancy, although a recent law would effectively close elective abortion clinics after May 2. Planned Parenthood Association of Utah has also challenged the legality of that law.

The Supreme Court previously allowed the hold to stay in place, but is now asking lawyers from both sides to submit whether they plan to refile their cases in light of the legislative rule change.

“Since then, the Utah Legislature passed House Joint Resolution 2 that amended Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 65A in two ways potentially material to whether interlocutory review continues to be warranted,” Pearce wrote. “HJR2 modified the standard to grant an injunction and provided a mechanism for a court to reconsider some previously granted injunctions.”

The justices gave both parties until May 8 at 5 p.m. to submit briefs, explaining if they believe a review of the injunction will “materially affect the final judgment” or “serve the administration and interest of justice.”

Specifically, Pearce asked if “in the wake of any decision this court may reach,” either of the parties plan to file a new motion for an injunction or a request to reconsider the existing injunction with the lower court.

Teneille Brown, associate dean of faculty research and development at the University of Utah’s S.J. Quinney College of Law, said Pearce’s order doesn’t decide anything about the abortion law or the order placing it on hold. She said courts sometimes rule there is value in assessing cases under older standards because it can provide “precedential value” and sometimes affect cases in “slightly different situations.”

“The Supreme Court in this recent order is essentially asking — now that the rules have changed on how preliminary injunctions are granted and this is retroactive — is there any point in reviewing that old injunction under the old rules?” Brown told KSL.com. “Is it a good use of time? Or is it not important for justice?”

Planned Parenthood Association of Utah interim President and CEO Sarah Stoesz reaffirmed the organization’s belief that the abortion ban is unconstitutional under Utah’s Constitution.

“The court canceled the argument to provide additional time for the parties to provide supplemental briefs about whether the government’s appeal warrants review at this time, or should be reserved to a later state of litigation,” Stoesz said in a statement to KSL.com. “No matter what, the trigger ban is unconstitutional, and abortion remains legal in Utah. We will continue fighting in any court, at any time, to protect abortion in Utah.”

A spokesman for the Utah Attorney General’s Office said the recent order changes nothing about the facts of the case, and said attorneys for the state will comply with the order.